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.
--Exodus iv. 24-26.
Anyone who wishes to note the various shifts to which orthodox people
will resort in their attempts to pass off the barbarous records of the
Jews as God's holy word, should demand an explanation of the attempted
assassination of Moses by Jehovah, as recorded in the above verses. Some
commentators say that by the Lord is meant "the angel of the Lord," as
if Jehovah was incapable of personally conducting so nefarious a piece
of business. Bishop Patrick says "The Schechinah, I suppose, appeared
to him--appeared with a drawn sword, perhaps, as he did to Balaam and
David." Some say it was Moses's firstborn the Lord sought to kill. Some
say it was at the child's feet the foreskin was cast, others at those of
Moses, but the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem more properly represent
that it was at the feet of God, in order to pacify him.
The story certainly presents some difficulties. Moses had just had one
of his numerous interviews with Jehovah, who had told him to go back to
Egypt, for all those are dead who sought his life. He is to tell Pharaoh
that Israel is the Lord's firstborn, and that if Pharaoh will not let
the Israelites go he will slay Pharaoh's firstborn. Then immediately
follows this passage. Why this sudden change of conduct towards Moses,
whose life Jehovah was apparently so anxious to save?
Adam Clarke says the meaning is that the son of Moses had not been
circumcised, and therefore Jehovah was about to have slain the child
because not in covenant with him by circumcision, and thus he intended
[after his usual brutal fashion] to punish the disobedience of the
father by the death of the son. Zip-porah getting acquainted with the
nature of the case, and the danger to which her firstborn was exposed,
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. By this act
the displeasure of the Lord was turned aside, and Zipporah considered
herself as now allied to God because of this circumcision. Old Adam
tries to gloss over the attempted assassination of Moses by pretending
it was only a child's life that was in danger. But we beg the reader
to notice that no _child_ is mentioned, but only a son whose age is
unspecified. Dr. Clarke can hardly have read the treatise of John
Frischl, _De Circumcisione Zipporo_, or he would surely have admitted
that the person menaced with death was Moses, and not his son.
Other commentators say that Zipporah did not like the snipping business
(although she seems to have understood it at once), and therefore
addressed her husband opprobriously. Circumcision, we may remark, was
anciently performed with stone. The Septuagint version records how the
flints with which Joshua circumcised the people at Gilgal were buried in
his grave.
A nice specimen of the modern Christian method of semi-rationalising may
be found in Dr. Smith's _Bible Dictionary_, to which the clergy usually
turn for help in regard to any difficulties in connection with the
sacred fetish they call the word of God. Smith says:
"The most probable explanation seems to be, that at the caravanserai
either Moses or Gershom was struck with what seemed to be a mortal
illness. In some way, not apparent to us, this illness was connected
by Zipporah with the fact that her son had not been circumcised. She
instantly performed the rite, and threw the sharp instrument, stained
with the fresh blood, at the feet of her husband, exclaiming in the
agony of a mother's anxiety for the life of her child, 'A bloody husband
thou art, to cause the death of my son.' Then when the recovery from the
illness took place (whether of Moses or Gershom), she exclaims again, 'A
bloody husband still thou art, but not so as to cause the child's death,
but only to bring about his circumcision.'"
We have no hesitation in saying that this most approved explanation is
the worst. In seeking to make the story rational, it utterly ignores the
primitive ideas and customs by which alone this ancient fragment can be
interpreted. One little fact is sufficient to refute it. The Jews never
use the word _Khathan_, improperly translated "husband," after marriage.
The word may be interpreted spouse, betrothed or bridegroom, but
not husband. The Revised Version, which always follows as closely as
possible the Authorised Version, translates "a bridegroom of blood." But
this makes it evident that Moses was not addressed, for no woman having
a son calls her husband "bridegroom." We may now see the true meaning
of the incident--that by the blood covenant of circumcision, Zipporah
entered into kinship with Jehovah and thereby claimed his friendship
instead of enmity. In ancient times only the good-will of those who
recognise the family bond or ties of blood could be relied on. Herbert
Spencer, in his _Ceremonial Institutions_, contends that bloody
sacrifices arise "from the practice of establishing a sacred bond
between living persons by partaking of each other's blood: the derived
conception, being that those who give some of their blood to the ghost
of a man just dead and lingering near, effect with it a union which on
the one side implies submission, and on the other side friendliness."
Dr. T. K. Oheyne, in his article on Circumcision in the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_, takes the story of Moses at the inn as a proof that
circumcision was of Arabic origin. He says; "Khathan meant originally
not 'husband,' but 'a newly admitted member of the family.' So that 'a
khathan of blood' meant one who has become a _khathan_, not by marriage,
but by circumcision," a meaning confirmed by the derived sense of the
Arabic _khatana_, "to circumcise"--circumcision being performed in
Arabia at the age of puberty.
The English of the Catholic Douay version is not so good as the
Authorised Version, but it brings us nearer the real meaning of the
story. It runs thus:
"And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him and
would have killed him. Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and
circumcised the foreskin of her son, and touched his feet, and said: A
bloody spouse art thou to me. And he let him go after she had said: A
bloody spouse art thou unto me, because of the circumcision."
Here it is evidently the feet of the Lord that are touched, as was the
ancient practice in rendering tribute, and we see that the foreskin was
a propitiatory offering.
Dr. Trumbull in his interesting book on the Blood Covenant, says:
"The Hebrew word _Khathan_ has as its root idea, the binding
through severing, the covenanting by blood; an idea that is in the
marriage-rite, as the Orientals view it, and that is in the rite of
circumcision also." Dr. Trumbull omits to say that the term is not used
after marriage, and consequently that it must be taken as applied to the
Lord. Zipporah, being already married, did not need to enter into the
blood covenant with Moses, but with Jehovah, so that to her and hers the
Lord might henceforth be friendly.
We do not make much of the inn. There were no public-houses between
Midian and Egypt. Probably the reference is only to a resting-place or
caravanserai. We would, therefore, render the passage thus:
The Lord met him [Moses] at a halting place and sought to kill him. Then
Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it
at [made it touch] his [the Lord's] feet, and she said: Surely a kinsman
of blood [one newly bound through blood] art thou to me. So he [the
Lord] let him [Moses] alone.
Kuenen considers the passage, in connection with the place where it
is inserted, indicated that circumcision was a substitute for child
sacrifice. Any way, it may safely be said that the mark which every Jew
bears on his own body is a sign that his ancestry worshipped a deity who
sought to assassinate Moses, and was only to be appeased by an offering
of blood.