Why Did Zipporah Circumcise Her Son, According to Got Questions?
The Bible records a mysterious event in Exodus 4:24–26 where Zipporah, the wife of Moses, circumcised her son and declared Moses to be a “bridegroom of blood.” Got Questions addresses this puzzling passage in several related articles [1][2][3]: one on why God sought to kill Moses, and one on the meaning of “bridegroom of blood.” Their interpretation highlights Moses’ neglect of circumcision, the necessity of covenant obedience, and Zipporah’s reluctant role in saving her husband’s life.
This article will outline Got Questions’ perspective, point out areas of strength, and note where the explanation may be insufficient when compared to the broader biblical narrative.
1. Got Questions on God’s Threat Against Moses
Got Questions teaches that God’s intention to kill Moses arose from his neglect of circumcising his son.
Circumcision as covenant sign: They emphasize Genesis 17:9–14, where circumcision was required for all males as the sign of belonging to God’s covenant. Failure meant being “cut off” from God’s people.
Moses’ negligence: As the chosen leader of Israel, Moses had failed in a fundamental duty. According to Got Questions, perhaps his Midianite wife opposed the practice, or Moses himself had drifted away from his Israelite identity during his years in Midian.
Crisis point: On the journey back to Egypt, God confronted Moses—likely through severe illness or another tangible threat. This showed that before Moses could represent God’s people, he had to obey the covenant himself.
In this view, Moses’ life was spared only when Zipporah performed the circumcision on their son.
2. Got Questions on the “Bridegroom of Blood”
Zipporah’s declaration, “You are a bridegroom of blood,” receives special attention from Got Questions:
Literal act of circumcision: They interpret the phrase as a reference to circumcision itself.
Reluctance and anger: Zipporah is described as frustrated, even resentful. She had to perform a painful and bloody ritual on her son, and her words may express bitterness toward Moses. Got Questions paraphrases her sentiment as “a husband of horrors” or “a groom of gore.”
Family dynamic: They suggest Zipporah never fully embraced Moses’ God or his mission. After this incident, she fades from the narrative, and Moses’ children play no role in Israel’s leadership.
In short, Got Questions portrays Zipporah as a reluctant participant whose actions were necessary but not wholehearted.
3. Strengths of the Got Questions Explanation
Several strengths appear in their interpretation:
Covenant clarity: They rightly connect the event to circumcision as the Abrahamic sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:14).
Leadership integrity: They emphasize that Moses could not lead God’s people while disregarding God’s covenant.
Practical plausibility: Their explanation that Moses may have been incapacitated and thus unable to circumcise his son himself fits the narrative detail of Zipporah stepping in.
4. Where the Explanation Is Insufficient
Despite these strengths, Got Questions leaves some gaps when the passage is placed in broader biblical context.
Foreshadowing Passover: The explanation largely overlooks how this event anticipates the blood on the doorposts at Passover (Exodus 12:23). Both accounts involve covenant blood averting divine judgment.
Ambiguity of the target: They assume Moses was the target of God’s wrath. Yet the text is ambiguous; it may have been his son. This matters, because if the son was in danger, the connection to Passover and the salvation of firstborns becomes even clearer.
Symbolic touch: Got Questions describes Zipporah’s act as “tangible evidence” that the situation was corrected, but they do not explore the likely euphemism of touching Moses’ “feet” (possibly his genitals), which suggests a symbolic vicarious circumcision on Moses himself.
Theological significance: By focusing on Zipporah’s frustration, Got Questions downplays the covenantal theology: only those marked by covenant blood escape God’s wrath—a theme that runs from Abraham to Christ.
5. Broader Biblical and Gospel Connections
The Bible itself helps interpret why Zipporah circumcised her son.
Covenant obedience: Neglecting circumcision threatened covenant inclusion. God’s judgment was imminent because Moses, the chosen mediator, failed at the most basic requirement.
Blood as salvation: Life was spared by blood. This anticipates the principle that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22).
Christ’s fulfillment: The ultimate covenant blood is not circumcision but the blood of Christ. Paul writes that believers are circumcised in Christ (Colossians 2:11), and true circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit (Romans 2:28–29).
End-time hope: Just as covenant blood spared Zipporah’s household and Israel’s firstborn at Passover, so also in the last days God’s people will be spared through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:14).
This theological trajectory is largely absent in Got Questions’ treatment but is central to understanding why the story matters.
Conclusion
According to Got Questions, Zipporah circumcised her son because Moses had neglected the covenant sign of circumcision, and God’s wrath threatened his life. Zipporah acted reluctantly, saving Moses but resenting the bloody ritual. While their interpretation underscores the seriousness of covenant obedience, it does not fully address the event’s foreshadowing of Passover or its connection to the Gospel.
Ultimately, Exodus 4:24–26 teaches that covenant blood is essential to avert divine judgment. What Zipporah did in crisis prefigures the greater work of Christ, whose blood secures salvation for all who belong to God’s covenant people.
