“Why did God try to kill Moses?” (Exodus 4:24–26, KJV)

The Passage (Exodus 4:24–26, KJV)

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.”

This is a difficult, even obscure passage, full of ambiguous pronouns (“him,” “his,” etc.), and has been the subject of much commentary and debate.

What the Text Seems to Imply

From the immediate text and related Old Testament covenant material, a standard interpretation is:

• God (the LORD) “met him” (Moses, or possibly his son) on the journey and intended to kill him because of a failure connected to circumcision—specifically, that Moses’ son (one of them) had not been circumcised, which violated the covenant God had made with Abraham.

• Zipporah, Moses’ wife, cuts off the foreskin of her son, touches “his” feet with it (interpretation varies whose feet), and says something about being a “bloody husband” (or “bridegroom of blood”). This act appeases or satisfies the requirement, and God “let him alone.”

The idea is that Moses, commissioned to lead Israel and to obey the covenant requirements, had a lapse at home—neglecting a sign of the covenant—and God’s holiness/justice demanded that this be corrected even before Moses went forward with the mission.

What the “Sign of the Covenant” Means

• The covenant of circumcision comes from Genesis 17, where God told Abraham that every male among his descendants must be circumcised as the sign of the covenant. Failure to do so is serious.

• Since Moses was chosen to return to Egypt, confront Pharaoh, deliver the people, and eventually bring the Law, it would be inconsistent if Moses himself had not kept this most basic sign of the covenant in his household.

Interpretations & Ambiguities

Some uncertainties:

• Was God trying to kill Moses or his son (or both)? Some argue the attack is on Moses; others suggest it might be on the son.

• Which son? Moses had Gershom (born in Midian) and possibly another, Eliezer (some traditions).

• What exactly does “cast it (the foreskin) at his feet” mean—whose feet? Is this symbolic?

• What does “bridegroom of blood” mean? It likely refers to the shedding of blood (of the covenant) and the relationship being bound by that blood—but practically scholars differ on details.

What J. Vernon McGee Says

I found McGee’s “Thru the Bible” comments and his notes on Exodus. Here’s what McGee offers around this passage (paraphrased, since I did not find a direct McGee quote with exact wording in what I have access to):

• McGee acknowledges that “God met him and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24) is perplexing. He treats it as a warning to Moses that his house had to be in order—someone he was about to lead had to obey God’s commands at home.

• McGee’s understanding is that the issue is neglect of the covenant requirement (circumcision), something that Moses should have had done, and God’s action was corrective. He sees Zipporah’s action (performing the circumcision) as fulfilling what Moses had failed to do, restoring the proper relationship, and averting disaster.

• He emphasizes the seriousness of covenant obligations—even for “great servants of God.” McGee often uses this passage to illustrate that God’s call to service does not override God’s requirements for holiness and obedience.

So for McGee: God’s attempted killing is not punitive in a vindictive sense, but disciplinary/corrective—God dealing with a broken covenant obligation in Moses’ household that would undermine his leadership if left uncorrected.

Summary: Why God Tried to Kill Moses (Based on What We Do Know + McGee)

Putting this together, here’s the most plausible explanation:

1. Moses had neglected a command of God in his home—his son was uncircumcised. This was not a small thing: it was a covenant requirement dating back to Abraham.

2. God’s holiness and justice require that His covenant be honored, especially by those He calls into leadership. Moses, being God’s agent, could not lead Israel while disobeying this covenant.

3. The event serves as a warning that God’s call does not exempt one from obedience. Leadership or mission does not override the foundational commands of God.

4. The instrument of correction comes via Zipporah’s quick, decisive action—she circumcises the son, touches “his feet,” calls Moses a “bridegroom of blood” (i.e. one bound by blood, symbolically, by the covenant). That satisfies the requirement, and the threat passes.

5. McGee stresses that even though Moses was deeply favored and chosen, he was not above God’s standards of obedience.