What does Exodus 4:25 mean?
Zipporah is Moses' wife (Genesis 2:21). She and Moses have at least two sons: Gershom (Exodus 2:22) and Eliezer (Genesis 18:4). As their family travels towards Egypt (Exodus 4:19–20), God apparently threatens Moses' life (Exodus 4:24). Scripture doesn't offer many details in this bizarre account. All that's clear is that Moses' life was at stake, and that Zipporah's choice to circumcise her son ended that threat.God commanded Abraham to circumcise all males in his family as a sign of their relationship with God (Genesis 17:10–12). Hebrew circumcision involves removing the foreskin from the penis; this is a permanent and heavily symbolic sign of Israel's relationship with the Lord. It's possible Moses had not circumcised one or both of his sons while living in Midian (Exodus 2:15). Zipporah's seemingly sour response to the situation may indicate that she hadn't wanted the son—or sons—to be circumcised. Yet she takes the necessary steps.
Tradition and some of God's specific orders (Joshua 5:2–3) suggested that flint knives were more sacred than metallic blades. Many commentators assume that the son being circumcised is Gershom. Yet the text does not specify, and Moses is said to have brought both of his boys (Acts 7:29). These are not infants; Moses left Egypt at age forty (Acts 7:23) and is now nearly eighty (Exodus 7:7). The sons are almost certainly grown adults and perhaps even have children of their own.
No clear explanation is given for why Zipporah touches Moses' feet with the severed foreskin. Some commentators suggest this is an act of submission, possibly done with a touch of sarcasm. Zipporah's comment about her husband and blood may have been a bitter response to something she found distasteful (Exodus 4:26). Others think this is a moment of sincerity and faith indicating that Zipporah now realizes how serious these concerns are.
A few interpreters suggest Moses himself had not been circumcised, and Zipporah's act symbolically transferred the circumcision to him. This seems unlikely, first because circumcision isn't a transferable ritual. One is either circumcised, or they are not. Second, it seems Israel had maintained circumcision during their time in captivity. God's command prior to the first Passover only mentioned circumcising servants and strangers (Exodus 12:43–48), suggesting that the rest of Israel was already practicing it. After leaving Egypt, the practice seemed to have stopped (Joshua 5:5).
There are no clear indicators anywhere in Scripture to firmly settle on one of these interpretations. All that's clear is that God threatened Moses' life, somehow in connection to circumcision, and Zipporah's actions saved him (Exodus 4:26). It's possible that Moses sent Zipporah and their sons back to Midian after this incident. They are not mentioned again until Israel leaves Egypt and encounters Jethro (Exodus 18:1–6).
