Why did Zipporah circumcise her son in Exodus 4:25? Immediate Context of the Narrative (Exodus 4:24-26) “Now at a lodging place on the way, the LORD confronted Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin, touched it to Moses’ feet, and said, ‘Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.’ So He let him go. At that time she said ‘bridegroom of blood,’ referring to the circumcision.” The verses open with Yahweh seeking to put Moses to death, and they close with divine restraint only after Zipporah’s action. The pivot point in the episode is circumcision, the covenant sign given to Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14). The Covenant Weight of Circumcision Genesis 17 establishes circumcision as the perpetual sign of belonging to the Abrahamic covenant: “Any uncircumcised male…shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (v.14). Failure to circumcise placed Moses under covenantal judgment. As the soon-to-be mediator of Yahweh’s deliverance, Moses could not represent a covenant-breaking household. Moses’ Omission and Divine Confrontation Between Exodus 2 and 4, Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite, and fathered at least two sons (Exodus 2:22; 18:3-4). The text implies Moses had neglected the rite—either from deference to Midianite custom, from family tension, or simple procrastination. Yahweh’s lethal intent underscores how seriously He guards His covenant stipulations, especially for Israel’s leader. Why Zipporah Acted Instead of Moses 1. Moses was incapacitated—either struck by sudden illness or divine paralysis when God “confronted” him. 2. Zipporah understood enough of Yahweh’s command, likely through Moses’ earlier testimony, to recognize the danger. 3. Her quick obedience reflects the biblical pattern in which God at times employs unlikely agents (e.g., Rahab, Jael) to preserve His redemptive line. “Bridegroom of Blood” Explained The Hebrew phrase ḥăṯan dāmîm combines marital language (ḥăṯan, “bridegroom”) with covenant-blood imagery. By applying the bloody foreskin to Moses’ “feet” (a Semitic euphemism that can indicate genitals or simply the lower body), Zipporah symbolically covered him under the covenant, declaring, “You are again covenantally related to me.” In effect, circumcision created or restored a blood-bonded family identity before God. Typological Foreshadowing of Christ • Blood averts divine judgment (Exodus 12; Leviticus 17:11); here, substitutionary blood rescues Moses. • Circumcision prefigures “circumcision of the heart” (Deuteronomy 30:6) fulfilled through the cross (Colossians 2:11-14). • Moses, saved by covenant blood, proceeds to liberate Israel; Christ, shedding His own blood, liberates all who believe. Cultural and Archaeological Corroboration Egyptian tomb reliefs (Sixth Dynasty, c.2300 BC) depict circumcision with flint knives, matching Zipporah’s tool. Ancient Near-Eastern legal texts (e.g., the Mari letters) confirm circumcision as a boundary-marking rite. Such findings reinforce the historic plausibility and specificity of the biblical record. Answer Summary Zipporah circumcised her son because Moses’ neglect endangered their family under the Abrahamic covenant, provoking Yahweh’s judgment. Her swift obedience applied the covenant sign and blood, thereby averting death, restoring Moses to covenant fidelity, and enabling him to fulfill his God-ordained mission. |
    |