Just wanted to summarize some thoughts on the passage before moving on to my next “all commentaries are not created equal” illustration. I think I can summarize the best thinking on the passage in a comprehensible way now that you have all been exposed to solid commentary material, as well as add a few thoughts of my own into the mix.
Exodus 4:24-26 and the Bridegroom of Blood
This passage is regularly spoken of by scholars as one of the more enigmatic texts in the Old Testament. The passage is placed in the context of Moses’ return to Egypt, but the rationale for its placement is obscure. The passage in that context reads as follows (ESV):
21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ” Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me.’ If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son’.”
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.
The apparent incoherence of the placement and the meaning of verses 24-26 extends from the fact that it makes little sense for God to want to kill Moses right after He has called him to return to Egypt as the chosen delivered of Israel. In addition to this theological conundrum, the passage lacks clarity because the referent of certain verbs and pronouns is ambiguous, and certain expressions used in the passage have unclear meanings.
Two points of uncertainty are especially important. First, who is it that the LORD wanted to put to death? Most readers assume it is Moses since he is mentioned in the preceding verses, but verse 24 does not name him. Since it is Moses’ son (Gershom; Exod 2:22) whose foreskin is removed in verse 24, he could very well be the person under threat of death. Second, what does it mean that Zipporah, Moses’ wife (Exod 2:21), would touch the foreskin of her son to Moses’ “feet”? Two additional factors make this question even more troublesome. The name “Moses” does not appear in the Hebrew text, which literally reads “touched his feet.”
With Whom Was God Angry and Why?
It seems best to conclude that God is angry with Moses, not Gershom, since Moses is the major character in the wider context and Gershom is known only from Exod 2:22 at this point. Scholars have noted that Moses is the center of Yahweh’s attention everywhere else, even in the digressions involving Aaron (Exod 4:14, 27-29). But why would God be angry with Moses? The answer must be inferred from two considerations: (1) The Israelites born in Egypt had been circumcised, apparently (though this could be problematic) in accord with Israelite / Abrahamic procedure (Josh 5:2-9; cp. Gen 17), and (2) the circumstances of Moses’ birth and childhood (Exod 1-2). We will consider these in order.
With respect to the first item, it may be that the Israelites in Egypt practiced “Egyptian circumcision” (refers to a method, not anything religious) and so Moses and other Israelite men were not properly circumcised (see Joshua 5:2 — the “second time” reference is a point of interest). Having fled from Egypt, God may have expected to correct this before returning to Egypt (hence his anger). This is an argument from silence but the other explanations are as well.
Archaeologists and Egyptologists know that circumcision was practiced in Egypt by the Egyptians. However, Egyptian circumcision did not remove the foreskin; rather, the foreskin was split. For this reason, any Israelite born in Egypt who happened to be circumcised in this way had not been circumcised in a manner acceptable to God’s covenant. Those who take this trajectory as an explanation for God’s anger would suggest that Egyptian circumcision is hinted at in Josh 5:9 (“the reproach of Egypt”). Since Josh 5:2 informs us that some of the Israelite men were being circumcised “a second time,” it can perhaps be inferred that there was something unacceptable about any circumcision they had in Egypt. As a result, the ceremony in Josh 5 would be a second circumcision for some of the men, while it would be first circumcision for those males born in the wilderness wandering (Josh 5:4). Joshua 5:2 is really what this view hangs on. If the men of Israel who left Egypt under Moses had been properly circumcised, what’t the point of the “second time” reference?
Since the other Israelite males were circumcised prior to the conquest in Josh 5:2-9 at Gilgal (some a “second time”; Josh 5:2), it is reasonable to assume that Moses also had never been circumcised, or was circumcised according to the Egyptian custom. The narrative of Moses’ birth and childhood never states his parents had him circumcised. Had the boy been marked by Hebrew circumcision, his life would likely have been in danger in Pharaoh’s household. We can only speculate whether Pharaoh’s daughter had him circumcised in the Egyptian manner after he entered her household. In any event, he did not bear the covenant sign.
In his Exodus commentary in the WBC series, Durham notes in this regard (citing Sasson):
Sasson (JBL 85 [1966] 473–74) has pointed out convincingly that Egyptian circumcision was not only performed on adults, but was, by comparison with Hebrew circumcision, merely a partial circumcision. Indeed, he contends (475–76) that circumcision may well have come to Egypt from North Syria, where it was practiced early in the third millenium B.C. For whatever reasons, the compiler who set vv 24–26 in their present context had apparently reached a conclusion confirmed by these facts. Perhaps he combined the abnormal circumstances by which the infant Moses had to be hidden away at birth with some knowledge of the Egyptian practice and even a belief that the circumcision of infant boys was a late development in Israel’s life. Quite possibly, he too was searching for some reason for Yahweh’s serious encounter. Whatever the case, he clearly believed that Moses was uncircumcised and that Yahweh determined to stop him en route to Egypt for that reason.1
Another angle is that it’s possible Moses’ mother would not have had him circumcised under the duress of Pharaoh’s edict. Perhaps she hoped that, if he was discovered, the Egyptian would have mercy on him not knowing he was a Hebrew (in the wake of Pharaoh’s law). But Pharaoh’s daughter knew immediately the baby was a Hebrew. How? It doesn’t have to be because of circumcision — why would anyone else put their kid in a basket and set him afloat on the Nile? So it’s possible Moses was not circumcised.
We just don’t know for sure how to take Josh 5:2-9 in relation to Gen 4:24-26 (or even if we should relate them). But in any event, a circumcision pacified God’s anger. Perhaps it’s as simple as Moses’ neglect to have his son circumcised — or resistance (Zipporah apparently knows that a circumcision will save Moses from God’s anger). The passage is obtuse in so many ways.
Who Was Circumcised and What Did It Mean?
We just don’t know for sure how to precisely take Josh 5:2-9 in relation to Gen 4:24-26 (or even if we should relate them). But in any event, a circumcision pacified God’s anger. Perhaps it’s as simple as Moses’ neglect to have his son circumcised — or resistance (Zipporah apparently knows that a circumcision will save Moses from God’s anger).
That the Midianites practiced circumcision is apparent from the fact that Zipporah has access to the necessary tool and knows how to perform the rite. Having chosen Moses to be His representative to deliver Israel, Moses’ laxity in this matter became an issue with God. Hence His anger that Moses had not bothered to be circumcised before leaving on his mission.
Concerning whether Moses or his son Gershom was circumcised, clarity can be gained in Zipporah’s act of touching the foreskin to the “feet.” Let’s talk about the “feet” before going on. The Hebrew word can refer to feet, legs, or genitals according to Old Testament usage (see Deut 28:57; Ezek 16:25;= [lit. “spreading your feet”]; Ruth 3:4, 7). Gaining clarity on all these issues is crucial to a coherent interpretation.
Durham notes that “feet,” here is used as a euphemism for the genitals. This makes good contextual sense in light of what ensues.
The act of touching the foreskin to the “feet” is not part of the normal ritual of circumcision. It consequently only makes sense if Zipporah has circumcised her son, Gershom, and then symbolically transferred that circumcision to Moses by taking the foreskin and touching Moses’ genitals. Under the circumstances, Moses would have been incapacitated and they were already on the way to Egypt; God was satisfied by the ritual act (Exod 4:26). Zipporah had saved Moses’ life.
In regard to the phrase “bridegroom of blood,” the phrase is obviously associated with the marital relationship (“bridegroom”). So why use the term? Moses’ status as a “bridegroom” must have some importance. It’s important.
Durham again:
Zipporah, the only person available to perform the rite, seizes the mandatory flint cutting tool (Josh 5:2–9; cf. Sasson, JBL 85 [1966] 474) and circumcises not Moses, who would have been temporarily incapacitated by the surgery (cf. Gen 34:18–31) at a crucial time when he could no longer delay his journey, but her son. For the child, who was not to make the journey to Egypt in any case, the effects of the circumcision would be less problematic. To transfer the effect of the rite, Zipporah touched the severed foreskin of her son to the genitals of Moses, intoning as she did so the ancient formula recalling circumcision as a premarital rite: “For a bridegroom of blood you are to me!” This ancient phrase, as Mitchell [VT 19 [1969] 94–105, 111–12) has demonstrated, is a phrase of marital relationship.2
In other words, circumcision was a pre-marital ritual, performed on the male infant. As the sign of the covenant, it identified men as Israelite for the sake of their women — it ensured that the married couple were both Israelites and that there was no forbidden intermarriage taking place. We have to assume that Zipporah had learned and embraced the idea that the God of the mountain she knew of by virtue of her proximity to it in Midian (Exod 3:1-2) was the God of the Israelites and the true God. This is particularly coherent if the Kenite connection involves the worship of Yahweh. Zipporah’s Her marriage to Moses linked her to the Israelite people and their covenantal relationship to Yahweh. Under normal circumstances, her husband would have been a circumcised Israelite man. This ritual of circumcision by proxy made Moses her “bridegroom of blood,” and so part of the ritual act of touching the foreskin of Gershom to Moses’ genital area “atoned” for that oversight as well.
Enlightening! Could you elaborate about the meaning or significance of the circumcision is in Israelite religion?
For example, you state ” As the sign of the covenant, it identified men as Israelite for the sake of their womenit ensured that the married couple were both Israelites and that there was no forbidden intermarriage taking place.”, but perhaps you can explicate further what how it represents the covenant.
How does the circumcision (the cutting of the prepuce) symbolize or stand for the Abrahamic covenant.
Or, to take it from Genesis 17:11 : “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. ” ……How is it a sign of the covenant?
Two levels to the circumcision thing:
1. It was a sign to both the man and woman in that, when an Israelite couple had sexual intercourse, there was a literal reminder of covenant between God and Abraham — the reason the nation existed was that God had supernaturally enabled Abraham to have a child by Sarah (Isaac). Consequently, the act of perpetuating Abraham’s lineage / the nation came with a physical reminder of how it all got started — why they were even alive.
2. Since the above was a big deal, and intermarriage was forbidden in connection with the covenant, circumcision was a peripheral way (family line was the best guide) for an Israelite woman to know she was marrying an Israelite man.
Thank you! That answers my question.
you’re welcome
This is good, logical, and interesting. I still think “Bridegroom of Blood” sounds like a Christopher Lee movie from the 70s.
wasn’t he in everything?
Very interesting. I have a couple of questions. You said, symbolically transferred that circumcision to Moses by taking the foreskin and touching Moses genitals. How do you know that a circumcision can be symbolically transferred? Are there other ancient examples of circumcision being transferred like this? Or is it just a best guess as to what is going on?
Also, did the Midianites worship Yahweh? Or a deity who’s description was just similar to Yahweh?
Thank you
The narrative indicates God was satisfied with Zipporah doing the best she could. This obviously was not normative (there is no other passage or incident like this in the OT, though there are other symbolic gestures associated with touching or handling the genitals — usually one’s ancestor as part of a vow associated with the covenant). For example, the practice of putting the hand under the “thigh” (another word that can actually refer to the genitals). One instance of several is when Abraham had Eleazar do this when he vowed to find a wife for Isaac (to keep the seed in Abraham’s family) — the mission was tied to the perpetuation of Abraham’s lineage, and hence the covenant.
According to the traditions of Exodus (e.g. Exod 18), at least some Midianites accepted the equation of YHWH with their God (the God of Horeb/Sinai – Exod 3:1-2). Nut nobody believed XYZ lock, stock, and barrel (not even the Israelites). If Sinai was in or very near Midian (and I still think that is the most coherent view), that is another trajectory. Other Midianites very clearly did not worship Yahweh (Num 25).
Well, this would turn the tables on one view I had heard of Zipporah’s actions it seems. Instead of seeing her as a jerk, she becomes somewhat of a heroine.
yes; it’s also interesting is that she preforms the duty of a priest (circumcision).
On the translation for “feet” . There is a description of a cherubim I think with 6 wings . Two to cover its face , two to fly , and two to cover its feet . Is it two to cover itself instead of just its feet ?
it’s seraphim, face and feet and flight (Isa 6:2).
You mentioned how intermarriage was forbidden amongst the Israelites. What has always “bothered” me about this passage was that Zipporah was not an Israelite. How does that work into the marital covenant bond? I say bothered, not because of a prejudice, but because it seems that there is an incoherence in the story due to it. In other words, if Zipporah was a Midianite, and if you are right that circumcision was a marital signature of the Abrahamic Covenant, wouldn’t the point be somewhat moot to her?
In response to myself, I just read the other article you posted on this topic and I feel that one of the commentators satisfactorily answered my question.
intermarriage was forbidden with Canaanites, who were not related to Israelites and were pagans, unless they became Yahweh-worshippers (e.g., Rahab). Marriage with Transjordan people (e.g., Moabites, Ruth) was permitted on the same condition, plus there was a distant relation. Not all Midianites worshipped Yahweh (Num 25). There were basically two concerns: marriage within the clan or extended clan, and loyalty to Yahweh. The former increased the likelihood of the latter, but didn’t guarantee it. And (for the OT) in those rare occasion where the latter was evident without the former, marriage happened, effectively assimilating the person into Israel.
Which leads me to think of situations like David eating the Temple bread when he really needed to although normally that would have been an outrage.
It isn’t the letter, but, the intent that is what God cares about it .
Great stuff here.
Thanks for the thoughtful article here. I am, however, puzzled by the several comments: “The answer must be inferred from two considerations: the fact that the Israelites born in Egypt were not circumcised according to the Abrahamic covenant (Josh 5:2-9; cp. Gen 17).” It does not seem clear to me at all that the Israelites born in Egypt lacked proper circumcision. Josh. 5:5 records the rationale for circumcision at that point as: “Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised” (ESV). This suggests that the exodus generation was circumcised but only those born on the way lacked circumcision.
This also raises questions for me about your other conclusion: “Since the other Israelites males were circumcised prior to the conquest in Josh 5:2-9 at Gilgal, it is reasonable to assume that Moses also had never been circumcised, or was circumcised according to the Egyptian custom.” But if Moses (and presumably Joshua and Caleb) were part of the exodus generation, it seems one should not bundle them with the wilderness generation who obviously needed to be circumcised in Joshua 5.
While I find the argument that Moses was uncircumcised compelling for a number of reasons that you mention, I do not think the Joshua 5 text should be used as supporting evidence for that conclusion.
Thanks.
The same Joshua passage talks about Israelites being circumcised “a second time” — which indicates that there was something unacceptable about their circumcision – it was not according to the Israelite practice (I should probably change that wording to be more clear).
Yes, this is an interesting element in the text. Joshua 5:2 uses that expression: “circumcise the sons of Israel a second time” (ESV) but then the text goes on several times to clarify that while the exodus generation had been circumcised, the wilderness generation were uncircumcised (5:5; 5:7). So it hardly makes sense to me then that the “second time” is in reference to individual Israelites after the text has taken such great care to describe them as uncircumcised. It would only work this way if we could say that the Egyptian circumcision was really no circumcision at all–but then we would wonder why the exodus generation was described in the same verses as circumcised.
So are there other options? For example is it possible that we should see “sons of Israel” as a collective–in that Israel had been collectively circumcised earlier but now needed to circumcised again? (This is the option I prefer.) Another option could be that the exodus generation was not all circumcised as babies while they were slaves in Egypt–but prior to the exodus, Joshua was somehow part of that ritual of dedication. This means then that “second time” is a reference to Joshua’s second time doing this for Israel. Obviously this is conjecture at this point and I would have expected some reference to this sort of event in the book of Exodus.
Anyway, it does seem likely to me that Moses was uncircumcised based on the Exodus text itself. I would argue also that the lack of circumcision of his children after the burning bush may have been as important as his own lack. Is it possible that this hesitant leader had only the minimal intention of leading them out of Egypt but had no intention of joining them over the long term–as symbolized by his unwillingness to make himself and his sons fully Hebrew? Was it this that led to the confrontation?
Thanks again.