Exodus 4:22-26 - who was God going to kill?

Question

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord", Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. Exodus 4:22‭-‬26 KJV

Some assert that God was going to kill Moses, and others his son. However, there does not appear to be adequate support for either. Some say that God would be justified in killing Moses because he failed to circumcise his son, but the bible is not clear on who is held responsible for failure to perform circumcision:

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:11‭-‬14 KJV

This is the beginning of circumcision, where God is speaking to adults - because eight-day-old infants cannot perform this on their own. If the child must be 8 days old then surely Moses' child could not be held responsible. If Moses were responsible then why would the child be cut off instead?

I believe that God is speaking about Pharaoh's firstborn. It seems that there should be a break between the verses, because it seems to jump into another situation. Many translations use 'him', or 'Moses'. But the KJV does not use names. If God were to kill Moses, surely he could have done it earlier. If Zipporah did not like the procedure that's all it was.

To this day I have not found a sensible answer to my Exodus 4 question. Verse 24 seems pivotal:

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

Who was God going to kill, why was He going to kill them, and why did the circumcision prevent it?

Answer 1

There may be information here that we are not given regarding this incident. Here is what we do know.

1. Circumcision was a covenant practice given to the Hebrews as a sign that separates them from the rest of humanity.

2. Failure to keep this sign was punishable by disinheritance and death. Clearly Moses was marked for death by the Lord for failure to keep this covenant with his youngest son.

3. This only relates to the circumcision of Eliezer, "cut of the foreskin of her son and cast it at his feet." It would seem Moses had kept this practice with his older son. We have no indication as to why Moses had not honored this covenant exercise with Eliezer. It is possible that Eliezer is only a few days old and since Moses has been away too long to perform the task, Zipporah may have taken it on herself, perhaps even beyond the proper time of the eighth day.

Zipporah's words to Moses "You are a bridegroom of blood," is clearly a rebuke because his neglect to circumcise Eliezer put the blood on her hands. The practice of circumcision would not have been new to Zipporah because as the descendants of Abraham, the Midianites also were to kept this covenant of circumcision. Genesis 17:10-14.

Answer 2

Exodus 4:22-26 - who was God going to kill?

Moses was on his way to Egypt with his wife, Zipporah, and his sons, Gershom and Eliezer, when the following incident occurred:

Exodus 4:20, 24-26 King James Version (KJV)

20 "And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. 24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision."

We can safely say that it was not Moses' life that was in danger, for he had just received a divine commission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and it is unlikely that his life would be threatened by God's angel on his way to fulfill that assignment. Anyway, Moses was born of Jewish parents and would have been circumcised.

Genesis 17:14 (NASB)

14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Moses apparently neglected to circumcise one of his sons and thus one of the boy's life was threatened by the angel. To set matters straight Zipprah acted promptly and cut off her son's foreskin and caused it to touch the angel's feet, as evidence that she had complied with the covenant.

Notes: Some translations have Moses' feet, the literal translations like the KJV, YTL , do not, the ASV states "cast it at his feet", to me logically it was the angel's feet since it was he that had the power to put the boy to death.