Exodus 4:25Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Had I lived as a Jew during the era of the Old Testament, I would have undoubtedly embraced circumcision if that were my only option. This rite, emblematic of the righteousness that stems from faith (Rom. 4:11), held profound significance until its annulment through the arrival of our Lord. The importance of this covenant was illustrated when an angel would have brought destruction upon Moses' son if his mother had not intervened with a stone knife to perform the circumcision, thereby sparing him from catastrophe. This sacred rite also had the power to restrain the waters of the Jordan River and redirect its flow (Num. 5:1-2). Furthermore, our Lord Himself received this sacrament at birth (Luke 2:21), though He ultimately rendered it obsolete through His crucifixion.

Moses travels to Egypt accompanied by his non-Israelite wife and their children. When he encounters the Lord, fear grips him due to a looming threat of death; his wife intervenes by performing the circumcision on their son using his blood as a means of appeasement.

The essence of natural virtue and the elevated aspects of life can sometimes act as a concubine, friend, and companion, provided that her offspring remain undefiled. Until this impurity is removed through circumcision, thereby eradicating all that is harmful and unclean, the angel tasked with separation faces the imminent threat of death. Nonetheless, the angel is appeased when the concubine demonstrates the purity of her offspring by eliminating the distinguishing mark of the foreignness.

Zipporah, realizing that Moses faced the peril of death due to her oversight regarding circumcision—something they had debated the previous evening—and being filled with fear at the sight of the angel, took a stone and performed the circumcision on her son.

Moses faced a perilous situation in the inn had it not been for Zipporah, whose name signifies ‘bird.’ She took the decisive act of circumcising her son, using a sacred instrument to remove the foreskin as a way of securing their covenant.

I feel a bit embarrassed that this letter has traveled a considerable distance, yet I do not become prideful regarding your inquiry. However, akin to how parents enjoy observing their children's physical play, despite it being merely entertainment, I will keep my comments brief. The angel who encountered Moses on his way back to Egypt sought to end his life not out of a desire to punish him for a past act of violence committed in zeal for God, but rather to admonish him for violating the law he was meant to uphold. As a divinely appointed lawgiver, Moses, right from the outset, faltered by leading his sons to Egypt without having circumcised them, thereby neglecting the commandment that set apart the Hebrews from other nations.

Zipporah took a knife and circumcised her son, placing the foreskin at Moses' feet, proclaiming, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me." There is a general consensus that these words were directed at Moses, but the emotional context is debated. Some suggest she expressed this with anger, interpreting “bridegroom of blood” as implying that he was violent, referencing Psalm 5:7, which describes a wicked individual as a man of blood. However, the connection drawn here does not necessarily imply that a bridegroom of blood must be bloodthirsty. It is also hard to believe that Zipporah could be upset with Moses, especially given his prior fear, and further more regrettable circumstances, as she was aware of his innocence.

Moses, not his descendant, is the focus.