The Circumcision of Moses’ Son

The Circumcision of Moses’ Son

The following is one of the most baffling passages in the Tanak. In it we question what really went on, what was it really all about and what could have it been to make God want to “kill” Moses over?!

Let us explore this text and see if we can’t get to the bottom of it.

Exodus 4:19-26 (KJV) And the LORD said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life. And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, 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 his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Before one makes guesses and conjectures we should first seek out Extra-Biblical text upon the matter to see if that can clarify matters some.  

Jasher 78:9 And Zipporah conceived and bare a son and he called his name Gershom, for he said, I was a stranger in a foreign land; but he circumcised not his foreskin, at the command of Reuel his father-in-law.

The implications of Jasher hint that Moses would rather obey Jethro/Reuel his Father-in-Law and Priest of Midian on a religious matter rather than a domestic type matter. In other words Jethro/Reuel was listening to the Priest part of Jethro/Reuel and not the Father-in-Law part, and in doing so may have by default silently backed up the concept that some pagans had of their priests and leaders, that they were somehow part deity. We can reason by the use of the name Reuel in the text that Moses was listen to the priest and not the father. Jethro means “excellence” implying a Father’s advice is to be heeded, trusted and obeyed. Reuel on the other hand means Friend of El; El can be a generic name for any deity, it simply means god. Please note that this was before Jethro’s/Reuel’s conversion (Exodus 18:7-12). So By this passage it seems Moses’ faux pa in which God was angry enough to kill Moses was two fold:

1.    He obeyed man rather than G-d on a matter

2.    By doing so he silently affirmed the possible quasi-divine status Jethro/Reuel as a Midian Priest had.

By Moses deferring to Reuel, Priest of Midians advice, he was butting another deity before YHWH.

Next let us explore Rabbinical texts to see if we can come up with an answer. The Stone’s Tanak, quoting the Rabbinical commentators Rashi and Ran says this:

“As Moses set out for Egypt with his family, he faced a dilemma. Should he perform the circumcision and then take the child with him? – but the infant would be in danger for the first three days after the circumcision! Should he perform the circumcision and delay the trip for three days? – but God had commanded him to go! He decided to travel immediately [since the baby was already born when God commanded him to go]. Nevertheless, he was held culpable because, when they arrived at a inn, he began making arrangements for his lodging instead of performing the circumcision without delay (Rashi from Nedarim 31b-32a). Even though he would have resume his trip to Egypt after the circumcision, the inn was close enough to Egypt that the short trip would not endanger the child’s health (Ran, ibid).”

So by this we could argue that Moses compounded the problem in the eyes of YHWH by failing to put priorities in proper perspective. The command of circumcision preceded the command to go to Egypt.

Also only one of Moses' sons is mentioned here – not having been circumcised, we can assume the other was! Perhaps after Moses’ first son was born (Gershom: Soujourner) he, according to Hebraic tradition circumcised him and Reuel and Zipporah showed their disapproval and decided if another son was born that he would not be circumcised (Eliezer: God is helper). This would fit nicely with the Jasher passage and Zipporah’s reaction when she had to take a flint knife and circumcise her son on the fly because he husband was dying before her eyes.

Exodus 18:3-4 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land: And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh:

The names of Moses’ sons reveals the peace of obedience to God while finding a home in a new land and the second name reveals God’s help after obedience if followed through.

I believe that Moses did circumcise his firstborn according to the command of God, and Zipporah (not being an Israelite/Hebrew) – was appalled at the “bloody” act? As a result Zipporah gave Moses such a hard time over it that he didn't want to go through it again with his second son? If this is the way it went down God knew about the situation and was long suffering in waiting on Moses' to repent. Moses on the other hand may have hoped God would shut His eyes and turn the other way to the situation and not even bring the matter up.

The question still remains, was this worth killing Moses over?

" And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. " (Genesis 17:11-14)

Moses was head of his household, but God had also picked him to be head of the whole nation of Israel. Such a leader must do as God commands and not give into pressure of other religious leaders or family members. Moses was now going to make a decision; circumcise the boy or die! The question of how God manifested Himself to kill Moses? Was it in the form of a plague or in the form of the Angel of the LORD as had been done so many times before in Scripture? We do not know, but it is clear that the tangibles of someone or something compelled Zipporah to act fast, as if she could see Moses slipping away or was in immediate danger. Something made her quick to circumcise the boy before she loses her husband and then possibly next her son!

"So he [God] let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision." (Exodus 4:26)

I do not think she was angry by this, but in awe of it all by the power of Moses’ God and how He manifested Himself.

Why was circumcision worth killing Moses over? Because Moses would have been in breach of contract between his people and the Divine and by willingly and knowingly not circumcising his son he was in essence rejecting the covenant made between YHWH and the Hebrew people and the covenant specifically says such a person is to be cut off from his people.

" And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. " (Genesis 17:11-14)

Also, how could Moses rightly go to his people in Egypt and preach to them to obey the covenant between them and God when he himself neglected the ritual of how the pact was sealed; circumcision!?

Exodus 4:25-26 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Most believe that Zipporah took the foreskin of the circumcised boy and threw it at, and made it touch the feet of Moses along with mouthing her disgust while doing it. But I believe the Hebrew wording says otherwise.

It should be noted that according to the Hebrew text Zipporah referred to Moses as being to her, not a bloody husband but as a bridegroom of blood; this implies a new beginning in their relationship based upon the realization that Moses' God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was the one true God. The LORD 'let him alone' as a direct result of Zipporah's actions and she gives glory to God by declaring [to Moses] "You are a bridegroom of blood, because of the circumcision." The Hebrew Bible ascribes the whole quote to Zipporah thus showing that she understood the significance of circumcision as the token of the Abrahamic covenant and its promises in Genesis 17:7-14. In other words, she converts and accepts the God of Abraham as Moses and his people understood Him rather than the Midian version of God along with the other sub-deities they worshiped.