Why did God attempt to kill Moses?

1. Scriptural Context

Exodus 4:24–26 provides the key passage:

“Now at a lodging place along the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched it to Moses’ feet. ‘Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,’ she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said, ‘bridegroom of blood,’ referring to the circumcision.)”

These words appear after Moses’ divine commission to confront Pharaoh (Exodus 3–4). Despite having received clear instructions to lead God’s people out of Egypt, Moses is overtaken by a life-threatening encounter with God. The apparent contradiction—why would God threaten to kill the very man He has appointed—prompts careful examination of the Covenant requirements and Moses’ duty to fulfill them fully and faithfully.

2. The Covenantal Requirement

Circumcision was mandated as the covenant sign given to Abraham and his descendants:

“This is My covenant with you and your descendants after you, which you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised…My covenant in your flesh will be an everlasting covenant.” (Genesis 17:10–13)

By Moses’ time, circumcision remained integral to the identity of the Israelites as God’s chosen people. Since Moses was called to serve as God’s representative, any breach of this long-established requirement was unacceptable. The seriousness of that omission in Moses’ own family highlights the importance of obeying every aspect of God’s commands, particularly covenantal signs.

3. The Seriousness of the Call

Moses’ mission was to confront the Egyptian Pharaoh and lead Israel out of slavery. This mission required fearless obedience and spiritual integrity. God’s challenge here underscores that those commissioned to speak His word must submit to His will without reservation. If Moses had neglected such a foundational command (circumcision for his son), it would undermine his credibility and set a poor precedent for the people he was about to lead.

Many commentators have noted that God deals strictly with those in positions of leadership. This theme resonates throughout Scripture (e.g., James 3:1), where higher accountability accompanies positions of authority. Moses could not claim ignorance about circumcision; Genesis 17 and the traditions of his forefathers were clear. Thus, God confronted his disobedience before letting him proceed any further.

4. Moses’ Oversight

Exodus does not detail why Moses had neglected to circumcise his son. Various possibilities exist, including cultural influences from his time in Midian or a household disagreement over the procedure. Regardless of the reason, Scripture indicates that this lapse jeopardized his standing before God.

Ancient Near Eastern family records and customs confirm that Midianites might not have practiced circumcision in the same manner as the Israelites. Archaeological findings in regions east of the Red Sea show variations in circumcision practices over time. Such historical data help illustrate how a family situation could lead to confusion or delay. Yet the biblical text is uncompromising: God had established a clear requirement for the descendants of Abraham.

5. Zipporah’s Intervention

In Exodus 4:25, Moses’ wife, Zipporah, acts decisively: “But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched it to Moses’ feet.” This likely constituted a last-minute act to rescue Moses from God’s impending judgment. The text indicates she understood something about God’s covenant judgment: she called Moses a “bridegroom of blood,” connecting their marital relationship and the necessity of bloodshed (via circumcision) to avert God’s wrath.

That a flint knife was used is consistent with ancient Hebrew practice—flint was a common tool even when metal was available. Archaeological evidence from sites such as Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) confirms flint implements were still prevalent in ritual or sacred ceremonies long past the Bronze Age.

6. The Deeper Meaning

Beyond the immediate crisis, this passage illuminates several deeper theological principles:

• Respect for God’s Covenant: Moses could not faithfully lead Israel in covenant obedience while personally neglecting covenant ordination in his household.

• Obedience Precedes Service: Before effectively representing God, Moses had to rectify any disobedience within his own life.

• God’s Holiness and Grace: Although the warning was severe, God relented once Zipporah acted with obedience. The text underscores both God’s holiness (demanding complete submission) and His mercy (once the rightful action was taken).

• Preparation for a Larger Mission: God was readying Moses for a mission of national deliverance. If he was careless in smaller commands, it would bode poorly for greater tasks.

7. Historical and Manuscript Reliability

Textual evidence across major manuscript families confirms the authenticity of Exodus 4:24–26. Ancient witnesses such as the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and fragments preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls show close alignment on this episode. This consistency bolsters confidence in the passage’s historicity and theological clarity.

Archaeological and textual data from the broader Ancient Near East confirm that, while circumcision was not universally practiced, it held special identity significance for Israelites. Coupled with the biblical data on Moses’ life, these pieces fit coherently into the narrative of God’s unfolding plan for Israel in Exodus. The convergence of multiple textual lines of evidence and consistent tradition across centuries gives weight to the historicity of both the exodus story and the portrayal of Moses.

8. Conclusion

God’s near-fatal confrontation with Moses over circumcision stands as a stark reminder of the gravity of covenant obedience. Known to be a foundational sign of belonging to the line of Abraham, circumcision was crucial for Moses’ role as a leader. The event also demonstrates God’s concern for integrity: the one chosen to communicate divine commands must embody submission to them.

Although it appears harsh that God would “attempt to kill” the very person commissioned to lead Israel, one sees divine justice and mercy intertwined. Once Zipporah addressed the covenant requirement, the threat eased, showing that genuine repentance and immediate obedience restore fellowship with God. This episode forms part of Moses’ crucial preparation, ensuring he stood before Pharaoh and Israel as a faithful servant, fully aligned with God’s covenant.