A Bible Study on why Moses Said He is of “Uncircumcised Lips”
Why would Moses call his own lips “uncircumcised”? The phrase sounds strange, especially because Exodus has already told us about a dangerous circumcision crisis in his household. I want to follow the order of the story and let the text show us whether those two events are actually connected.
Moses’ Objection and God’s Answer
The question begins at the burning bush. God called Moses to return to Egypt and lead Israel out of slavery, but Moses raised one objection after another. First he asked who he was to approach Pharaoh. Then he wanted to know what name he should give Israel and whether the people would believe him. Even after the LORD answered those fears with signs, Moses returned to the problem of speaking.
Then Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” So the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say.”
Exodus 4:10-12
The Hebrew picture behind “slow of speech and slow of tongue” is a heavy mouth and tongue. Moses may have lacked eloquence or had trouble producing speech. He may also have been describing hesitation or his own sense that he could not do the task. Scripture never gives him a medical diagnosis, so we should not confidently say that he had a stutter.
Acts 7:22 says Moses was educated in the wisdom of Egypt and was mighty in words and deeds. That tells us he had real education and public ability. It may describe his reputation or an earlier part of his life without denying the reluctance we see in Exodus. The two passages do not require us to accuse Moses of lying, and neither one gives us permission to invent a disease.
God did not answer with a lesson in self-esteem. He reminded Moses that the LORD made the human mouth and promised, “I will be with your mouth.” God would teach him what to say. Moses still asked the LORD to send someone else, and at that point God’s anger was kindled. What began as a fear about weakness had become resistance to a clear command.
Aaron was then appointed to help. He would speak with Moses and serve as his mouth, but Moses remained responsible for the calling. God’s provision did not remove the servant from the work. It gave him the help needed to obey.
The story moves forward, and the first meeting with Pharaoh appears to make everything worse. Pharaoh increases Israel’s forced labor. The officers blame Moses and Aaron, so Moses returns to the LORD in distress. Exodus 6 answers that failure with repeated covenant promises. God will bring His people out of bondage and redeem them from Egypt. He will claim Israel as His own and bring the people into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
So Moses spoke thus to the children of Israel; but they did not heed Moses, because of anguish of spirit and cruel bondage. And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Go in, tell Pharaoh king of Egypt to let the children of Israel go out of his land.” And Moses spoke before the LORD, saying, “The children of Israel have not heeded me. How then shall Pharaoh heed me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?” Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, and gave them a command for the children of Israel and for Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.
Exodus 6:9-13
The narrator tells us why Israel did not listen: the people were crushed by anguish of spirit and cruel bondage. He does not blame Moses’ pronunciation or speaking style. He does not point back to uncleanness in Moses’ household. Israel was suffering so deeply that the promise of rescue was hard for them to receive.
Moses interpreted that painful response through his old fear. If his own people would not heed him, how could Pharaoh possibly listen to a man with “uncircumcised lips”? Yet the LORD did not let Moses’ judgment of himself decide the mission. He gave Moses and Aaron a command for both Israel and Pharaoh.
When the narrative resumes after the genealogy, Moses repeats the same objection. God does not perform a ritual on his mouth, reopen the household circumcision case, or agree that Pharaoh cannot understand him. He defines the order of speaking and sends the brothers back.
So the LORD said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land.
Exodus 7:1-2
Moses being “as God to Pharaoh” is an analogy about authorized representation. Moses is not divine. Aaron functions as a prophet because he receives the words entrusted to Moses and speaks them to Pharaoh. The message begins with the LORD, passes through Moses, and is voiced by Aaron wherever God assigns him to speak.
Pharaoh’s resistance will come from a hard heart, not from a failure to find persuasive language. God will multiply signs and judgments until Egypt knows that He is the LORD. The mission rests on divine authority rather than polished delivery.
Aaron’s help does not make Moses passive. Moses must continue listening to God and carry the rod He gave him. He still faces Pharaoh to announce what the LORD is about to do, and he will intercede before eventually leading Israel out. Aaron supplements Moses’ obedience without taking over his responsibility.
Aaron also has no freedom to improve the message for Pharaoh. A prophet is not a public-relations adviser who softens an unpopular command. Pharaoh must release Israel, and that demand remains the same when he rejects it. Faithful speech is measured by agreement with God’s Word, not by whether a ruler approves.
As the plagues unfold, Moses speaks more often. Exodus never pauses to tell us that he received a medical cure or developed a new personality. Repeated obedience may have strengthened him, and Aaron could still speak in the moments assigned to him. The text keeps our attention on the LORD as the source of every word and sign.
What “Uncircumcised Lips” Means
The Hebrew phrase is aral sefatayim, literally “uncircumcised of lips.” The lips stand for speech. Sefatayim is the Hebrew form for the paired lips, while aral adds the picture of something obstructed or unfit for its proper use. Moses uses strong covenant language to describe speech that he believes is not ready for Pharaoh.
The wording may carry a sense of shame or inadequacy, but it does not automatically confess hidden moral impurity. We have to learn its meaning from the immediate discussion of speaking and listening in Exodus 4–7. Moses first says his mouth and tongue are heavy. Later, after Israel does not listen, he calls his lips uncircumcised. The second image intensifies the same concern.
I do not want to miss the explanation Exodus 6 gives us. Israel’s response was not an evaluation of Moses as a speaker. The people were exhausted and wounded under cruel bondage. Moses saw their refusal and thought it proved that his lips could never carry the message to Pharaoh, but God knew the hearers as well as He knew the messenger.
The LORD answers the supposed obstruction with His own Word and authority. He also gives the brothers a clear order for working together: Moses receives what God commands, and Aaron speaks as his prophet. There is no separate cleansing of the lips because Exodus is not presenting the phrase as Isaiah’s later confession of sin.
The Circumcision Crisis in Exodus 4
The language naturally makes readers think about physical circumcision. Genesis 17 established circumcision for Abraham and the males of his household as a sign of God’s covenant in the flesh. The sign did not create the promise or make a sinner righteous through surgery. Abraham had already believed the LORD in Genesis 15. Still, the sign marked covenant belonging, and neglecting it was a serious act of disobedience. Genesis warns that an uncircumcised male had broken the covenant and was to be cut off from his people.
This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
Genesis 17:10-11
That background stands behind a difficult event on Moses’ journey to Egypt. Moses is going to announce the covenant God’s faithfulness while a required covenant sign has been neglected in his own household.
And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, 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 Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”–because of the circumcision.
Exodus 4:24-26
The account is very brief, and we should admit what it leaves uncertain. The Hebrew pronoun translated “him” does not name whether Moses or his son is threatened. The traditional reading understands the person as Moses, but the grammar has led to real debate. The son is not named, and Scripture never tells us why his circumcision was delayed or who made the earlier decision.
We also cannot be sure what emotion stood behind Zipporah’s words. “Feet” may refer to literal feet, though some understand it as a modest bodily expression. The meaning of “husband of blood” is difficult as well. A confident story about Zipporah’s motives, Moses’ private choices, or the exact target of the threat would go beyond what God chose to reveal.
One conclusion is secure. Circumcision resolves the danger. Zipporah acts, and the LORD lets the threatened person go. The passage does not say that divine wrath was appeased. It reports covenant obedience answering a covenant crisis.
Does that crisis explain the later phrase about Moses’ lips? The events belong to the same larger story, so a thematic connection is fair. Both concern a servant who has been called to represent the covenant God. The household incident also shows that a large calling does not place Moses above the Word he announces.
The stronger claim, however, is not stated in Exodus. The text never says Moses called his lips uncircumcised because he had failed to circumcise his son. If the phrase were a confession of that disobedience, we might expect God’s answer to mention guilt, repentance, or the earlier episode. Instead, God responds by assigning speaking roles and renewing the command.
The chronology supports that distinction. Zipporah acts before Moses meets Aaron at the mountain of God. The crisis is already past when Israel’s elders believe the signs, and it remains past when Pharaoh increases their labor. By Exodus 6, the physical circumcision has long been completed. Moses’ immediate concern is that Israel did not listen and Pharaoh will not listen either.
Keeping the episodes distinct does not make the household failure unimportant. It teaches plainly that public usefulness cannot cover disobedience at home. We can preserve that lesson without claiming Moses hid it inside a later metaphor about speaking.
Heart, Ear, and Lips in Scripture
The Old Testament uses circumcision language for more than the physical sign. Leviticus 26 speaks of an uncircumcised heart being humbled in exile. Deuteronomy tells Israel to circumcise the foreskin of the heart and stop being stiff-necked. Later, it promises that the LORD Himself will circumcise the heart so His people will love Him.
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Deuteronomy 30:6
Jeremiah applies the same picture to hearing. The people’s ear is uncircumcised because they cannot give heed to the Word and take no delight in it.
To whom shall I speak and give warning, That they may hear? Indeed their ear is uncircumcised, And they cannot give heed. Behold, the word of the LORD is a reproach to them; They have no delight in it.
Jeremiah 6:10
When I compare these passages, the shared picture becomes clearer. An uncircumcised heart resists God inwardly, while an uncircumcised ear cannot receive His warning. Moses uses the image for lips that he believes are obstructed in the work of speaking. The common image is a faculty that is not ready for its proper response, but the immediate context decides what kind of obstruction is meant.
That distinction keeps us from treating every use as identical. Jeremiah’s hearers resist God’s Word. Moses fears that he cannot deliver it properly. Rebellion is in view in one passage, while a perceived physical or rhetorical limitation is in view in the other.
Isaiah offers another useful comparison because his commission also focuses on the lips. Yet Isaiah says “unclean,” not “uncircumcised.” When he sees the Holy King, he confesses personal uncleanness and recognizes that he lives among an unclean people.
So I said: “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts.” Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth with it, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; Your iniquity is taken away, And your sin purged.”
Isaiah 6:5-7
A seraph touches Isaiah’s mouth with a coal from the altar, and the vision declares that his sin is purged. Moses receives no matching sign in Exodus 6. God restates the speaking roles and sends him. Isaiah’s experience therefore cannot prove that Moses was confessing the same kind of uncleanness.
Both accounts still show God’s grace before human service. God provides Isaiah’s cleansing, and He gives Moses His presence, Word, and practical help. Neither man manufactures qualification through confidence. At the same time, neither man is allowed to make his own inadequacy the final authority over God’s command.
Weakness, Obedience, and Life in Christ
Colossians takes the circumcision image into the saving work of Christ. Believers receive a circumcision made without hands. People who were dead in trespasses are made alive with Christ and forgiven. The saving action belongs to Christ, not to physical surgery or skillful speech.
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Colossians 2:11-14
This passage does not teach that water baptism causes regeneration. Baptism follows faith and pictures the believer’s identification with Christ. It portrays burial with Him and resurrection to new life, while the text says this is received through faith in the working of God. Nor does Colossians erase Israel or rewrite Genesis as though physical circumcision never mattered in its covenant setting.
Romans 2 makes a related distinction between outward Jewish identity and an inward work of the Spirit. Paul exposes the folly of carrying a covenant mark while breaking the law and seeking human praise. He does not declare that God’s promises to Israel have become meaningless. Outward privilege cannot replace a heart that responds to God.
This movement from death to life reaches much deeper than Moses’ concern about speaking. We do not make ourselves fit for God by improving how we present ourselves. We come to the Son for the forgiveness and new life only He can give.
Moses’ story also gives needed pastoral direction. A speech disability, accent, limited education, anxiety, or need for communication support is not evidence of spiritual uncircumcision. Churches should never use this phrase to shame people who communicate differently. Aaron’s role shows that structured help can serve God’s work, and receiving that help does not make a servant less faithful.
God’s statement as the Maker of the mouth must be handled with the same care. He speaks of people who are mute or deaf and of those who see or are blind. He never treats disabled people as mistakes or spiritual failures. His rule as Creator establishes their dignity and calls the whole community to responsibility. A leader therefore has no right to deny needed accommodations or demand a cure. Neither may someone use another person’s body as an illustration without consent.
Calling does not excuse disobedience, as the encampment episode makes clear. Yet Scripture never says someone must reach sinless personal or family perfection before God can use him. When an actual command has been neglected, the right response is honest confession and correction. Grace does not hide disobedience, but it does restore people who turn back to God.
God does not give every Christian Moses’ assignment. The Spirit distributes gifts and responsibilities as He wills. Our task is to receive the service He gives, accept suitable help, prepare carefully, and keep the message under Scripture.
Preparation and dependence belong together. Trusting God with our mouths does not excuse careless study or false claims. Moses had to listen closely enough to place God’s words before Aaron, and Aaron had to speak those words rather than improve them for Pharaoh. Christian teachers depend on the Spirit while studying the written Word, checking facts, receiving correction, and speaking clearly.
The passage also helps us distinguish lament from refusal. Moses could tell God why the task seemed impossible, and the LORD answered him patiently more than once. The line was crossed when Moses asked God to send someone else after receiving that answer. Humility says, “I am insufficient, so I need You.” Resistance says, “Your presence and provision are still not enough.” The words can sound similar while moving in opposite directions.
Visible results do not settle whether a messenger was faithful. Israel’s first refusal came from crushing bondage, while Pharaoh’s later refusal came from hard-hearted rebellion. A servant could wrongly treat either response as proof that his speaking failed. Scripture tells us what was happening in each audience, and God remains Lord of the outcome.
“Uncircumcised lips” is therefore not a New Testament label for shy Christians, inexperienced preachers, or people whose communication differs from ours. We should be careful not to turn Moses’ metaphor into a weapon. The church needs truthful speech and people willing to listen. It also needs real mercy toward those who live with physical weakness.
The final confidence is Christ. Wicked men physically tortured and killed Jesus, and He willingly bore that punishment for our sins in His innocent body. He shed His blood, died, was buried, and rose bodily. The Father did not punish or curse His Son. He did not abandon, strike, or bruise Jesus, nor did He pour wrath on Him.
Christ died for the whole world, and God’s genuine offer can be resisted or rejected. Everyone is called to repent and believe in Jesus. The person who truly believes is forgiven and justified, meaning declared righteous before God. That believer is born again, indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit, and eternally secure. Security never gives permission for lawlessness, and a shallow profession is not proof of new birth. Salvation rests in Christ’s blood rather than circumcision, eloquence, leadership, or self-improvement.
My Final Thoughts
After following Moses’ objection through the whole passage, I do not believe “uncircumcised lips” is a coded confession about his son. Moses feared that his speech was unfit, but God answered with His Word and gave him the help he needed to obey. I find that encouraging because weakness does not have to become shame, yet reluctance cannot become an excuse. We can receive help honestly, do the work God gives us, and leave the hearer’s response in His hands.