The short account of Zipporah being forced to circumcise her son is one of the most enigmatic and puzzling texts for modern readers. I want to look at the text here briefly and allow Duane A. Garrett to help clear things up. Garrett is the author of the latest commentary in the Kregel Exegetical Library. His A Commentary on Exodus is absolutely superb, I am thoroughly enjoying it and hope to have a review up soon.

Here is our text, first in the ESV and then in Garrett’s translation provided in the commentary:

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision. (ESV)

24 Now it happened along the way at a lodging place that YHWH encountered him and sought to put him to death. 25 And Zipporah took a flint, and she cut off her son’s foreskin, and she touched his feet, and she said, “You are my hatan damim (kindsman by the blood of circumcision)!” 26 And he let him alone. In that episode she said hatan damim with reference to the circumcision ritual. (Garrett, p. 222-223)

I cannot reproduce Garrett’s entire discussion, but will provide the introduction to his discussion of this text. I’ll also summarize some of his many arguments (against the “standard interpretation” and for his own) and then present his conclusion. I’ll also excerpt his theological take-home points as well.

This text is very difficult. What would probably pass for the standard interpretation among evangelical Protestants is as follows. Moses had two sons, but he had not yet circumcised one of them. On the way to Egypt he was suddenly incapacitated (by a severe illness) as a punishment from God for this neglect. Moses, calling from his sickbed, told Zipporah what the problem was and that she had to circumcise the boy, and she performed the circumsion. By doing this, she averted the wrath of God against Moses. But she found the whole process disgusting and blamed Moses for putting her through the ordeal, so she threw the boy’s foreskin at Moses’s feet and called him bloddy and disgusting). Her revulsion toward what had happened was so great that she went back to her father at that time; we do not see her again until Exod. 18:2.

Every aspect of the above interpretation, except that Zipporah circumcised her son, is almost cerainly wrong…. (p. 225-226)

Some of his key arguments are that the text calls the boy “her son” and focuses on Zipporah, not Moses. There is no indication in the text that Moses is present with her at this time. The pronoun “him” likely points forward to the boy as being sick. The text doesn’t say Moses told Zipporah to do anything. Zipporah a shepherdess was likely very familiar wtih anatomy and familiar with circumcision rites in her own tribe. The most natural reading of the text is that she touches the boy’s feet – not those of Moses. “Feet” can be a euphemism for genitals, but doesn’t need to be in this case. It could be a ritual touching of the feet, similar to the annointing in Leviticus that puts blood and annointing oil on the priest’s big toes. The same word for “touch” here is used in Exod. 12:22 which may point to this being a ritual ceremony.

Garrett’s longest discussion is on the “bloody bridegroom” terminology and the use of the various Hebrew terms. He takes it as a liturgical expression that was probably used in Midianite circumcisions and it survives here in Exodus as a “linguistic fossil,” and does not follow normal Hebrew meaning. The specific interpretation he gives for the entire account does seem quite probable and I tend to agree with his view here on this term, particularly since it doesn’t mention Moses but is said of the circumcision act. Verse 26 has to remind the Hebrew readers what this phrase was directed toward, since it is an unusual expression even for Hebrew readers.

Here then is Garrett’s interpretation:

We might, therefore, suggest the following reconstruction of the story behind this text. Moses and Zipporah set out for Egypt. Along the way, their son suddenly became deathly ill. Zipporah recognized that the boy needed to be circumcised, and she did the act with a flint knife (flint can be more finely sharpened than can bronze and is therefore better for performing surgery). After the removal of the foreskin, she ritually touched the boy’s feet (or genitals) with her hand or the flint while saying, “You are hatan damim to me” (a member of my community by virture of the blood of circumcision). These formulaic words concluded the circumcision ceremony. The act formalized the inclusion of the boy in the community. After that, the boy recovered. Ziporah had turned aside the wrath of God.

Which son was it? We do not know, but since there is no birth report for Eliezer during their time in Midian, it is possible that he was born right about the time Moses set out for Egypt. This would explain Moses’s desire to get a donkey for the woman and the children. Why was one son not circumcised? Again, we do not know, but if the above conjecture is correct, it may be that they thought it dangerous to circumcise the boy right as they set out on a journey across the wilderness. ON the other hand, it may be that the uncircumcised son was Gershom, the firstborn, as some Jewish interpreters have maintained. Why is the boy called “her son” and not “Moses’s son”? Probably because Moses play no role in the story; this is about what Zipporah did.

An important feature of the text, however, is how it is linked to its context. In v. 20, Moses provides for “his sons,” while v. 23 speaks of “my son” and “your son,” and v. 25 speaks of “her son.” Thus, the issue of how parents treat their sons dominates this passage. In addition, as Sarna points out, 4:22-23 is focused on the life and death of the “firstborn,” while 4:24-26 indicates that the son must be circumcised in order to live…. This parallel further suggests that it was the son, not Moses, whose life was in danger…. In the broader context of Exodus, the portrayal of Zipporah turning aside God’s wrath from her son is paralleled in Moses’s doing the same for all of Israel in Exod. 32:9-14. (p. 230-232)

From this interpretation of the text, here are a few of Garrett’s theological take-home points:

The circumcision of Zipporah’s son makes the point that one cannot be considered to be part of Israel, and so to be YHWH’s son, unless one is circumcised. For the Israelites, the warning was that they could only escape the great wrath of God directed against Egypt’s sons by being sure that their own sons were circumcised. By analogy, one is not one of God’s people by mere association….

Zipporah, in her actions, demonstrates spiritual insight applied to the protection of her children. Spiritual wisdom and intervention is necessary in order to save one’s children from destruction….

Christ is the supreme example of the obedient son. He is also the true firstborn of God, and he provided for us the circumcision that removes the defilement of the flesh and allows us to join the people of God (Eph. 2:11-13; Col. 2:11). (p. 232)

I found this treatment extremely helpful and illuminating. This is an example of the care with which Garrett handles the text and is representative of his exegetical treatment throughout the commentary. He is not usually offering an innovative interpretation (as he does above), but he brings clarity and his masterful knowledge of Hebrew to bear on the questions at hand.

Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:

• Westminster Bookstore
• Christianbook.com
• Amazon.com
• Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.