"At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 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!' So he let him alone. It was then that she said, 'A bridegroom of blood,' because of the circumcision."
When I came across this part of Exodus, my response was like Dana's last year after she read about goat breeding in Genesis: "WHAAAAT?" Strangely enough, I don't remember reading this passage last year. What on earth does it mean, and is it of any significance to the story of Moses?
I found one source that contains the opinions of 3 scholars. In his article, "The 'Bloody Bridegroom,'" Ronald B. Allen poses basically the same questions that I posed and asks for thoughts from scholars Brevard Childs, Walter C. Kaiser, and John Durham.
Why did the Lord seek to kill Moses?
- Childs and Durham agree that Moses was guilty of being uncircumcised, and the Lord was angry with him for not keeping the covenant he established with Abraham in Genesis 17: 9-14.
- While Kaiser believes that the cause for God's anger is unknown, he concludes that the "sudden introduction of Zipporah's action leads us to believe that she instinctively connected her husband's peril with their failure to circumcise their son. "
Why did Zipporah cut off their son's foreskin?
- Childs says that Zipporah did it because Moses simply failed to do it.
- Kaiser believes that their son had not been circumcised possibly because of a dispute between Zipporah and Moses. She only acts to save Moses' life, but she is disgusted by their son's circumcision in her sarcastic words that follow.
- Durham states, "Zipporah circumcised her son, because if she had circumcised Moses, he would have been incapacitated for his journey." (I found this comment amusing)
If you're curious as to what a flint rock looks like, here are two examples.
This is a Naqada flint knife with ivory handle. It dates back to 3200 B.C.
Although the image below looks like raw chicken, it also is an old piece of flint. It dates back to 4000 B.C.
foreskin?
- Childs says, "The smearing of the blood
serves as a visible demonstration that circumcision had indeed been performed."
- Kaiser believes that Moses had nearly forfeited his right to serve God because of being uncircumcised, and Zipporah's touching
his feet was to underscore the connection between his serious condition and the
circumcision of their son.
- Durham thinks that Zipporah touched Moses to transfer the effects of the rite of circumcision to him.
What did she mean by "a bridegroom of
blood?"
- Childs believes that the meaning of her
mysterious words are unanswered.
- Kaiser thinks they are merely words of reproach, indicating that she disapproved of their son's rite of circumcision.
- Durham states, "The phrase 'a bridegroom of blood' was an ancient formula recalling circumcision as a premarital rite."
While these three scholars have differing views on the subject, they all three agree to the final question of the significance of this scene. They believe that it serves to reiterate the importance of circumcision among God's people, the Israelites.
After researching this topic, I have come to this basic conclusion: God was upset with Moses for not being circumcised, so Zipporah circumcised their son and touch Moses with the foreskin to appease the wrath of God. After the wrong was corrected, Moses' life was spared.
Although it still seems strange to me, this seems like the most logical conclusion. Why would Zipporah do what she did if she didn't know that it would save her husband's life? Apparently, she knew why God was angry.
If the significance of this scene is to indeed reiterate the importance of the circumcision covenant, I think it odd that it was placed at this particular time in the story. It doesn't flow. God sends Moses to Egypt; but in the midst of his journey, we're reminded of the circumcision covenant? It's just an strange break in the literature. Why didn't God wait until they were alone in their tent and make a huge scene out of it to really emphasize the importance of circumcision? I guess that can't be answered. The placement of that scene just slightly bugs me.
What do you think about this scene?