In comments on Zipporah made by Bro. Aleck Crawford in Proverbs Volume 1 he portrays Zipporah as a heroine more aware of Yahweh’s covenants and ordinances than was Moses.’ This contrasts with A.C.’ s portrayal of Zipporah in the 11/94 Tidings, pp. 461-463. Which is right? D.S., USA.
We feel A.C. is right.
The points set forward in Bro. Aleck’s footnotes are based on the following observations:
- Zipporah, not Moses, did the circumcising. This is taken to prove Moses did not know about the ordnance.
- “Cast it at his feet” is rendered “made it touch his feet” in the margin of a number of translations. The alternative wording is said to eliminate the connotation of anger that comes through in the idea of Zipporah throwing the foreskin at Moses’ feet.
- “A bloody husband” is rendered “bridegroom of blood” in the RSV and NIV. It is reasoned that the word “bridegroom” suggests a renewal of the marriage. Zipporah, it is suggested, was greatly relieved that Moses was not slain and that their marriage was thereby renewed.
- At the end of the 40-years’ wandering, Joshua 5:2 speaks of a mass circumcision “the second time.” This suggests a first mass circumcision. Since Israel had fallen away to idolatry in Egypt (Ezk. 20:7-8), it is suggested the rite of circumcision had fallen into disuse. This would result in Moses not practicing it and would also require a mass circumcision of Israel before partaking of the first Passover.The points in favor of A.C.’s conclusion are as follows:
- Jethro worshiped a multitude of gods (Ex. 18:11) so his family was unlikely to be devoted to the worship and ordinances of Yahweh.
- Zipporah did not accompany Moses through the Egyptian experience (Ex. 18:1-5). If she was a spiritual heroine, Moses surely would have needed her strengthening presence in Egypt.
- The son, not Moses, was threatened with death. Genesis 17:14 reads: “the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people.” It was the son who was immediately circumcised, not Moses, indicating the son’s life was in danger. Furthermore, the context of Exodus 4:23-24 relates to the slaying of the firstborn. This incident impresses on Moses there must be no lingering association with Egypt; his own family must be counted among Israel or they will be slain with the Egyptians.
- Passover instructions use “strangers” as an example of uncircumcised persons in Israelitish households indicating most Israelites did practice circumcision (Ex. 12:43-48). At this time, however, there would have been a mass circumcision of any “strangers” as well as any uncircumcised Hebrews. This would be the first mass circumcision with the second being mentioned in Joshua 5:2.
- Moses himself must have been circumcised for Pharoah’s daughter to immediately know he was a Hebrew child and to make no attempt to hide the fact (Ex. 2:5-7). Furthermore, if Moses were uncircumcised, his life, as would have been threatened by the angel. We feel the evidence is clear that Moses knew about circumcision but had failed to rightly lead his family in this regard.
- Turning Zipporah’s reaction from hostile anger into devoted relief (Ex. 4:25-26) requires, in our opinion, a very contrived reading of the text. Whether she said “bloody husband” or “bridegroom of blood” makes little difference as both sound far more like anger than relief. Likewise, whether she “cast” or “touched” the foreskin at Moses’ feet doesn’t change the intimation of disgust.
After reviewing both sides of the consideration, we feel A.C.’s evaluation of Zipporah in the “Tidings” is correct. The spiritual lesson for ourselves seems evident: While Moses’ association with this Midianitish family eventually worked to their benefit, his marriage to a person not committed to the God of Israel resulted in conflict and compromise in his domestic life.
Background to a study of the Apostle Paul