The narrative of Zipporah’s intervention is one of the most abrupt, enigmatic, and theologically crucial passages in the Book of Exodus, found in Exodus 4:24-26 (KJV). It occurs immediately after Moses has been commissioned by God at the burning bush and is traveling with his family from Midian to Egypt to begin his mission.
The Divine Attack at the Inn
The passage opens with a terrifying and unexplained threat:
“And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.” (Exodus 4:24 KJV)
The identity of the one the LORD sought to kill—Moses—is generally accepted, and the method of the attack is left vague, perhaps a sudden, life-threatening illness or divine manifestation. The reason for this lethal confrontation, though not explicitly stated in the verses, is immediately evident from Zipporah’s desperate action: Moses had neglected to circumcise his son, an act that violated the core covenant given to Abraham (Genesis 17:14 KJV).
Moses, the chosen leader to free God’s covenant people, was himself in violation of the fundamental sign of that covenant in his own household. This incident powerfully illustrates that God’s requirement for obedience begins with the leader’s personal compliance to divine law.
Zipporah’s Swift, Decisive Action
Moses, seemingly incapacitated by the divine attack, is saved by the quick thinking and decisive action of his Midianite wife, Zipporah:
“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.” (Exodus 4:25 KJV)
- The Instrument: The use of a “sharp stone” (flint) is an archaism, suggesting the antiquity and gravity of the rite, as flint knives were used for circumcision long before metal ones.
- The Target: She circumcises their son (likely his second son, Eliezer, or perhaps Gershom, the firstborn), fulfilling the neglected covenant command.
- The Ritual: She then “cast it at his feet” (Moses’ feet), which is understood by most scholars as a symbolic act of atonement or substitution, applying the blood of the covenant to the person whose life was being sought due to its absence.
The Enigmatic Phrase: “Bloody Husband”
Zipporah’s concluding declaration is famously obscure:
“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 4:25-26 KJV)
The Hebrew term translated as “husband” (hatan) is related to the word for “son-in-law” or “bridegroom.” Interpretations vary widely:
- A Statement of Aversion: It may express her repugnance to a Jewish rite she was forced to perform, making Moses a “husband of blood” to her because he caused the bloody, barbaric ritual.
- A Covenant Ritual Term: More likely, it is a term with an ancient, possibly Midianite, cultic meaning. By completing the bloody act, Zipporah ritually sanctified Moses by the blood of the covenant, making him acceptable to God and saving his life. She is essentially declaring that the blood has re-established him as her husband under a covenantal obligation.
The immediate result is clear: “So he let him go” (Exodus 4:26 KJV). Zipporah’s intervention, driven by her intuitive understanding of the danger, demonstrates the vital seriousness of covenantal obedience, even for God’s greatest prophet.