Exodus 4:24-25
This study examines what Zipporah did after she had circumcised her son.
The Lord appeared to Moses in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush. The Lord then sent Moses to speak to Pharaoh. Pharaoh was to let Israel leave Egypt and Moses would lead Israel out of Egypt.
Moses informed us that he brought his family. This act serves as a background for the unexpected attempt on Moses’ life.
This event is recorded in Exodus 4:24-26. The event is puzzling and unexpected. The whole of Moses’ life seemed to be a preparation for this mission God entrusted to him. When he was embarking on this mission, God sought to kill him.
Exodus 4:24 (NASV) says:
But it came about at the overnight encampment on the way, that the LORD met Moses, and sought to put him to death.
Somehow Zipporah understood the situation. She was the one to take the action that saved Moses.
In Genesis 4:25 (NASV), we read:
So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet; and she said, “You are indeed a groom of blood to me!”
The original Hebrew root word translated as ‘threw’ in the NASB is ‘naga’. It has the meanings ‘touch, reach or strike’.
It has given rise to 2 sets of translation. For example, the NASB, the King James Bible and some other versions translate it as ‘threw’ or ‘cast’.
The NIV and some others translate it as ‘touched’.
Each translation is based on what the translators see as the verb form of ‘tagga’.
In the English language, we have two voices for verbs, active and passive. In the active voice, the subject does the action. For example, he kicks the ball. The subject does the action of kicking. In the passive voice, the subject receives the action. For example, he was hit by the ball.
In Hebrew, besides the active and passive forms of the verb, there is also the causative form. The subject causes the other person or thing to do the action.
The reference notes in the NASB indicate that they take the verb form to be causative. The reference notes say the literal meaning of the phrase translated ‘threw at his feet’ is ‘made it touch at his feet’. That is, she causes the foreskin to touch at Moses feet. To fit the way English is spoken, they translated ‘threw it at his feet’.
The NIV and some others take the verb form to be active. So, they translate the word as ‘touched’.
However, there is still another verb form in Hebrew. This is the reflexive form. This means the subject does the action to himself or herself.
In English, the reflexive is denoted by using the word ‘self’. For example, himself, herself, itself. For example, ‘She, herself, got married.’
But in Hebrew, the reflexive is denoted by changing the vowels used with the root word.
The verb form in Exodus 4:25 can be seen to be reflexive. The vowels used are the reflexive vowels. So, the literal meaning would be, ‘Zipporah made herself touched or reached at his feet.’ In English, an appropriate translation might be ‘Zipporah fell at his feet.’
The verb form ‘tagga’ has the characteristics of the reflexive. This is the primary reason why we might want to take ‘Zipporah fell at his feet’ as the appropriate translation.
Besides this, this translation fits the rest of the sentence best.
The Hebrew interlinear for Exodus 4:25 is:
Then took Zipporah a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin
of her son and ‘tagga’ [it] at his feet
The NIV is:
But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it.
The NASV is:
Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses feet,…
From here, we can compare how the three possible translations fit into the rest of the sentence.
The translation ‘touched’ requires the preposition ‘at’ in the phrase ‘at Moses feet’ to be omitted.
The phrase ‘with it’ has to be inserted which is not in the original.
But we can take away the ‘it’ in square brackets in the Hebrew Interlinear. It is not in the original.
The translation ‘threw’ requires the word ‘it’ to be inserted. The square brackets in the interlinear show that the word ‘it’ is not in the original.
Such adaptations are often necessary in translations.
The translation ’fell’ fits appropriately into the rest of the sentence. The ‘it’ which the interlinear added can be omitted.
The context also favours ‘fell’ as the translation.
God sought to kill Moses because of his failure to circumcise his son. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise his descendants, only the act of circumcision was emphasised. The command did not indicate that the foreskin had to touch the father. Neither in Abraham’s performance of it was there such a suggestion.
Zipporah probably detested the circumcision she performed. However, she would not have thrown the foreskin. It was the flesh of her son. Falling at Moses’ feet showed her exasperation. This is supported by the next event.
Zipporah made an outburst saying, “You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me.”
Moses made clear that this comment was with reference to the circumcision. In verse 26, he made a point to explain:
At that time she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood” – because of the circumcision.
We should not take that Moses was saved by the blood from the circumcision. It was only from the act of circumcision.
What Zipporah said, ‘bridegroom of blood’, reflected her aversion to the circumcision. It could be the reason why one of the sons was not circumcised. However now it was required of her.
Some considered that Zipporah nobly saved her husband. The likelihood was that she was upset. Her feelings do not reflect a recognition of failure in not circumcising the son earlier. The probability was that she returned home at this point of time. The son just circumcised could be an excuse for not continuing with the journey. There is no indication which son was not circumcised.
It was different with Moses. He did not cover up this incident. He saw his failure and accepted the Lord’s chastening. He revealed to all the Lord’s mercy to him. It did not stop his resolve to obey the Lord’s command to carry out the mission entrusted to him.