Exodus 4:24-26

"And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone. Then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision."

This means that Moses became dangerously and that both he and Zipporah believed that it was God-sent as punishment for their not circumcising Eliezer. Such conclusions are based upon unmistakable implications of the text, such as this, "It is clear that Zipporah's action saved his life precisely because it assuaged the anger of God (`He let him alone', Exodus 4:26)."[32] Either Moses was too to circumcise the boy, or Zipporah for some other reason took the lead and did it herself. However, "She associated Moses with the act (making him, in a sense, a participant in it) by touching him with the blood from the circumcision wound."[33]

"A bridegroom of blood art thou ..." Significantly, this is mentioned twice, Exodus 4:26 evidently being an explanation, relating the remark to the circumcision. Moffatt translated the verse thus: "You are my bridegroom in blood by this circumcision." It is quite obvious that the whole bloody business of circumcision was repugnant to Zipporah, and the conjecture seems quite reasonable that it was because of her objections to the rite that Moses had delayed or neglected it. Seeing that it would cost her the life of her bridegroom unless it was done, she did it herself, therefore calling Moses a "bloody husband," or a "bridegroom in blood." Moses' respect for his wife's objections, however, was sinful. "God is no respecter of persons. `Special' servants must obey, as well as perform their special tasks."[34]

Gordon's comment here that, "This incident may have decided Moses to leave Zipporah and the children in Midian,"[35] is probably correct. We cannot accurately discern the reason for the decision. Johnson thought that it might have been to prevent Zipporah's influence from any further "hindering his service to the Lord."[36] Certainly, "Zipporah circumcised her son, apparently unwillingly and angrily."[37] Cook, however, attributed Moses' sending the wife and children back to Midian to his not wishing to delay the journey "by waiting for the healing of the child."[38] Although it is not definitely stated here that Zipporah and the sons were sent back, the fact that they were is a mandatory deduction based on the fact of his later sending for the family over a year later, after the Exodus had already taken place. See Exodus 18:2-3.

We should give some slight notice to the objections of critics that the omission here of any account of Moses' sending back the family to Midian contradicts the account in Exodus 18:2-3, where it is plainly indicated that he did. Such cavil ignores the fact universally known to Bible students throughout the ages that all Biblical accounts are extremely abbreviated. There are many analogous cases of this characteristic throughout the Bible, and, in all such instances, "The omission is due to condensation on the part of the writer, or to his selection of those circumstances only which he deemed important."[39] We agree with Dummelow that the whole design of this remarkable episode was "to show the importance of circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and his people, and the sin and danger of neglecting it."[40]