“So Abraham took his son Ishmael and those born in his household or purchased – every male among the members of Abraham’s household – and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskin on that very day, just as God had said to him” (Gen. 17:23). Circumcision is a male-only rite,1 initially performed by Abraham on all of the male members of his household. According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica it is normally performed by a mohel, a man trained in the technique of circumcision and antiseptic practices. In situations where there is not a man available to circumcise a baby boy, any Jewish person may perform the rite, including a woman, but the responsibility to have a son circumcised falls on the boy’s father.2
All of this means Gershom’s circumcision by his mother was a little unusual, but it was not invalid. The text reads: “Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet” (Ex. 4:24-25). If it was Gershom who was almost killed by Yahweh, as I argued previously here, then why didn’t Moses circumcise his son? Why was it left to Zipporah to perform the ritual? In fact, why wasn’t Moses identified in the passage at all? And what exactly did she do with her son’s foreskin after she circumcised him?
If one assumes that it was Moses whom the Lord met and intended to kill, then a number of pieces fall into place. It is likely that Moses was incapacitated by the divine attack. This would explain why his wife had to perform the circumcision: Moses was simply not able to move. Maybe he was able to cry out to Zipporah and tell her why his life was being threatened and what she needed to do to stop the attack. After completing the rite, she threw the boy’s foreskin down at Moses’ feet, as if to accuse Moses for forcing her to perform the bloody deed, and called Moses “bridegroom of blood” for making her do something repulsive. It was at this point that she took her sons and went back to stay with her father, since she does not appear in Exodus again until the people have gone out from Egypt. All of this sounds plausible, but it goes beyond what is actually stated in the text.
She touched her son to indicate that his religious consecration was complete.
There is no textual reason to conclude that Moses was being struck down by the Lord (and was therefore unable to perform the boy’s circumcision), that he told Zipporah to do it, or even that he had any role at all in the events of that night. From what we can see in the text, Zipporah did this all on her own. (Note that v.25 says she “cut off her son’s foreskin,” not his, as one would expect if Moses were the focus of God’s anger.) Furthermore, the text does not actually say that she threw the foreskin at Moses’ feet, only that she cut off her son’s foreskin and touched his feet, without identifying whose feet were touched.4 There is no reference at all to Zipporah throwing her son’s foreskin or smearing her son’s blood on Moses’ (or anyone’s) feet. She simply touched her son to indicate that his religious consecration was complete.
If she did not touch Moses or throw the foreskin at his feet, then there is no reason in the text to assume she was even speaking to him. And we have no warrant to read an angry tone into her words after the circumcision was accomplished. The translation of “bridegroom of blood” is also questionable. Why would a married woman with children call her husband her “bridegroom”? Other than in obvious wedding contexts, this term is used to mean “son-in-law.”5 Zipporah would be even less likely to call Moses her son-in-law than her bridegroom, and there is really no reason for her to call him “bloody,” since he clearly played no part in the circumcision itself. The fact that her words are repeated in v.26 along with an explanation suggests that what she was saying was foreign to the Israelites, who were the original audience for the book of Exodus. She may have been reciting a ritual phrase from her own Midianite heritage to indicate that her son had become a relative by means of the covenant bond. Being born into the family of Israel was not enough; he needed to be circumcised in order to participate in the covenant blessings of Abraham.
Whatever else we may say about these verses and the questions they raise, it cannot be denied that the theme of the firstborn son is central to the entire context. The Lord calls Israel his firstborn in v.22, and threatens to destroy Pharaoh’s firstborn son for refusing to release Israel (v.23). This is followed by the near death of Moses’ firstborn son (v.24) in judgment for the covenant mediator’s own disobedience. This is, in my view, the most helpful way to view this obscure text.
1There is a practice that has sometimes been called “female circumcision,” but this genital mutilation is not in any way analogous to the biblical rite of circumcision.
2https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/circumcision-brit-milah/
3https://ebcelkhorn.com/about-that-bloody-husband-part-1/
4Interpreters note that the word feet may be a euphemism for the genitals.
5See, for example, Genesis 19:12, 14; Judges 15:6; 19:5; and 1 Samuel 22:14.
