Exodus 2:21

2:21 Moses agreed ¹  to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage. ² 

Exodus 4:25-26

4:25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to Moses’ feet, ³  and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood ⁴  to me.” 4:26 So the Lord ⁵  let him alone. (At that time ⁶  she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” referring to ⁷  the circumcision.)

[2:21]  ¹ tn Or “and Moses was willing” to stay with Reuel. The Talmud understood this to mean that he swore, and so when it came time to leave he had to have a word from God and permission from his father-in-law (Exod 4:18-19).

[2:21]  ² tn The words “in marriage” are implied, and have been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[4:25]  ³ tn Heb “to his feet.” The referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The LXX has “and she fell at his feet” and then “the blood of the circumcision of my son stood.” But it is clear that she caused the foreskin to touch Moses’ feet, as if the one were a substitution for the other, taking the place of the other (see U. Cassuto, Exodus, 60).

[4:25]  ⁴ sn U. Cassuto explains that she was saying, “I have delivered you from death, and your return to life makes you my bridegroom a second time, this time my blood bridegroom, a bridegroom acquired through blood” (Exodus, 60-61).

[4:26]  ⁵ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[4:26]  ⁶ tn Or “Therefore.” The particle אָז (’az) here is not introducing the next item in a series of events. It points back to the past (“at that time,” see Gen 4:26) or to a logical connection (“therefore, consequently”).

[4:26]  ⁷ tn The Hebrew simply has לַמּוּלֹת (lammulot, “to the circumcision[s]”). The phrase explains that the saying was in reference to the act of circumcision. Some scholars speculate that there was a ritual prior to marriage from which this event and its meaning derived. But it appears rather that if there was some ancient ritual, it would have had to come from this event. The difficulty is that the son is circumcised, not Moses, making the comparative mythological view untenable. Moses had apparently not circumcised Eliezer. Since Moses was taking his family with him, God had to make sure the sign of the covenant was kept. It may be that here Moses sent them all back to Jethro (18:2) because of the difficulties that lay ahead.