Circumcision by a Pagan Woman:
 A Fresh Look at Exodus 4:24-26

Hannah Chen ^[1]

Introduction

About five or four years ago, a number of theologians in Taiwan started to promote the "reading the Bible with new eyes" movement. Since then there has been a debate among biblical scholars and theologians, especially in the Presbyterian Church as almost all the promoters of the movement happen to be Presbyterians who are highly involved in the ecumenical movement. The problem is not so much about how those theologians interpret the Bible. I find the way that some of them interpret the Bible to be quite similar to what other biblical scholars used to do. The deeper reason for the debate is that "reading the Bible with new eyes" movement follows a post-modern reader-oriented approach to the Bible whereas other biblical scholars do not and accuse them of not being qualified enough to engage in biblical hermeneutic issues.

By "post-modern reader-oriented approach" I mean an eclectic way of biblical criticism with the belief that there is no fixed meaning, no objective reading, interpretation or exegesis of the text. Thus, how we read or interpret the Bible must be closely related to the real situation we face. Therefore, the traditional divisions of exegesis and eisegesis, of interpretation and application, have been abandoned according to this approach.

As a feminist, I have some reservations for both sides of the debate. I do not believe in the notion of objective interpretation. Neither do I consider biblical hermeneutics a sole privilege of biblical scholars. But I am also dissatisfied with some interpretations of the Bible done by few theologians, which do not seem to be new at all. Some of their interpretations lack deeper social or cultural analysis of gender justice, or fail to take a strong position to liberate the meaning of the text. Therefore, those readings turn out to be a process of taming or accommodating in conformity with traditional gender roles. Worse is that some seem to be totally out of the track of the details provided in the text. That could be another disaster for feminist theology since people from Taiwanese male-centered culture could easily read into the Bible from their own patriarchal bias.

To some degree, I still want to hold on to what the text says in terms of the liberation elements in the Bible. I wish to interpret the story of circumcision by Zipporah as an example of resistant re-reading, while being mindful of what is absent in the text. I will try to point out how this narrative parallels with other paragraphs in the Bible, and how Christian traditions use the text to reinforce racism, imperialism, and sexism. Finally, I will reclaim the text for the purpose of gender justice.

There are five goals of this paper. First is to expose the patriarchal bias in the traditional interpretation. Second is to show the limitation of historical criticism and point out that readers' imagination is not only unavoidable but also in need. Third is to show how an ethical attitude, in this case especially gender justice, could actually be a hermeneutical key to change our readings of the Bible. Fourth is to explicate the meaning of Zipporah's circumcision relating to the theme of CATS IV, "Building Communities", especially highlighting how we decide who is in and who is out, and how we define our self-identities in relation to others. Fifth is to show that the ideal of biblical interpretation should actually reflect the growth of Christian faith.

In view of these, the movement of "reading the Bible with new eyes" should be an ethical-oriented movement to bring interpretation and praxis together, a second church reformation with self-criticizing spirit in order to reconstruct a new Christian identity. This is what I hope.

First Approach: Traditional Patriarchal Perspective

God's desire to kill Moses is generally reckoned as one of the most difficult passages in the Book of Exodus. Different editions of the Bible follow various currents of thought in explaining this passage after their own fashion. The Chinese Union Version titles the section of Exodus 4:18-31, "Jehovah ordered Moses to carry out miracles in front of Pharaoh". This title cannot truly comprehend the elements of the story, hence, it is of no use in our effort to understand the passage about God wanting to kill Moses. Since God has incessantly commanded Moses to return to Egypt, why should God so unreasonably want to kill him?

The Modern Chinese Version has modified the title to "Moses returns to Egypt", which does more adequately in including this incident and all other events of Moses' return. This title confirms that the editor wants us to read this incident in the context of Moses' return. It is not so much a story about God as one about Moses. As an Israelite raised in Egypt and commissioned to bring the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses must ready himself for the task ahead.

But this reading is not without its risks. By stressing the return as the principal theme, it necessarily puts the focus on Moses as chief protagonist. The result is that we have a very patriarchal reading of the text, as the following note in Chinese Chi-Tao Version (???????) makes clear:

It would seem that Moses had not been circumcised, nor have his sons. Circumcision is a key mark of the covenant God made with Israel: Anyone who is not circumcised must be cut off from the people. Moses overlooked this and so God wants to kill him, thus reminding everyone of the Covenant... It was probably Zipporah who prevented Moses from circumcising his sons...

From the title and this reading of the text, the reader is inevitably led to read these verses in a certain way. There is no uninterpreted reading, and in the preceding quote the patriarchal bias is particularly noticeable. This reading ensures that the passage is in conformity with Genesis 17, where God said: "Thy uncircumcised male must be cut off from the people because he has rejected my covenant". Moses was not circumcised and Moses' sons were also not circumcised. Moses was not circumcised because he grew up in the house of the Egyptian king. Although Moses' sons were not circumcised, it was by an oversight on Moses' part and not a deliberate rejection of the covenant. The real culprit is probably Zipporah who may have prevented Moses from circumcising his sons.

Patriarchal Premises of Traditional Reading

The premises listed above are not without problems. It is not clear to me whether this passage is to be read as confirmation or as an assessment of circumcision in Genesis. Those who see it as confirmation of Genesis probably do so on the basis of not wishing to impart any arbitrary action to God. The annotator has the right desire but as in the case of Job's three friends, he may go too far in justifying God's action.

Moses should have been circumcised since he was already three months' old when found by Pharaoh's daughter and Jewish males were traditionally circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Moreover, some commentators have noted that circumcision was not confined to the Israelites. Egyptians practiced it, too.^[2] It should be noted therefore that it was not the rite itself which was specific to Israel but the significance attached to it.

Moreover, the use of 'prevented' rather than merely 'overlooked' indicates a deliberate intention, suggesting to the reader that it is, as so often, the woman who is at fault. The implication is that Zipporah is 'probably' an insubordinate wife who defies her husband to such a point as to put his life in danger. Yet this talk of Moses' 'overlooking' and Zipporah's 'preventing' as well as the 'probable' reasons adduced for the latter seems to lack any basis. What passage of scripture can be brought to justify this reading and show that it is reasonable and not simply an arbitrary imposition? The answer is none. And the only thing we have here is the commentator's inherited Jewish patriarchal prejudice, looking down on pagans and on women. Granted that Zipporah is both a pagan and a woman; that God cannot act inconsequentially; that there must be a reason for everything and Moses is God's chosen hero of Israel and hence cannot do wrong. So it would seem that the woman cannot escape the role of sacrificial lamb.

It is not difficult to realize that the commentator has fallen into a paradox. The commentator has tried to defend God while using an unfair measure of sinfulness. Therefore, it is Moses, not Zipporah, who is judged and sentenced to death by God. But Zipporah, not Moses, actually commits the guilt. And God seems unable to see that it is so.

The answer to the problem lies in the Judeo-Christian theory of sin based on sexism. This theory amounts to denigrating women, judging that in the eyes of God woman has no status, thus only man can be judged as fit to be accused of sin before God. At the same time, the commentator cannot help but excuse man and show that the sin was not really his so it must be the woman who takes on the guilt of the man. This way of reading sin is already contained in the story of Adam and Eve.^[3]

What kind of Christianity will result from such a revelation? It makes one wonder. Rather than putting it into the note and arguing that this is what the scripture says, would it not be better to simply acknowledge this as the commentator's own misreading? The important point is that this is a reading steeped in Judeo-centrism and patriarchal bias. It only leaves us to think how such a reading contributes to justifying the macho religious spirit of the Middle East or, even more, to the disrespect for women that is part of Asian culture.

A Text that Causes Problems

Maybe the error does not lie wholly with the commentator. Almost all commentators recognize that this text is particularly difficult. Even early Jewish exegetes did not fully understand it. The most that they could say was that at least it was a genuine piece of Mosaic tradition.^[4]

The problem with this passage, in the words of one commentary, is that the account is overly simplified and it is not clear to whom the pronouns refer.^[5] There are also a number of other problems. For instance, in this text Yahweh seems to have a demonic character^[6]. It is exceptional to find Moses, father of Gershom and Eliezer, described as 'a bridegroom of God' or 'a bridegroom won at the price of the blood of circumcision'. It is Zipporah, rather than Moses, who carries out the circumcision and saves the situation in a time of peril. Moses was not really circumcised, since according to the context, it is the son who is circumcised and Zipporah touches the foreskin against Moses' feet (a metaphor for penis)^[7]. According to the narrative, Zipporah's phrase is mentioned twice as speaking to Moses and the issue is her relationship to him and not God's to Moses.

The narrator and editor have allowed this story about Jewish circumcision to stand, such that the reader cannot but exercise a certain degree of creative imagination, without which the text cannot be understood. Hence, although the reference of the pronouns is unclear, yet both Jewish and Christian exegetes virtually all concur in concluding that it is Zipporah who is circumcising her youngest son and then touching Moses' private parts with the foreskin.

What Historical Criticism Sees or Fails to See

Yet this simplest possible reading of the passage provides nothing in the way of doctrine nor does it fail to resolve the problems outlined above. Hence, historical criticism has made of this passage a historical document (effect), which relates to the then Jewish tradition of circumcision (cause) and thus establishes a cause-effect explanation, which can illuminate Jewish-Christian faith. One form of this kind of explanation is to say that the text stresses the importance of circumcision without being concerned about the timing or who performs the operation and "you truly are the bridegroom of blood to me" is said to be used frequently when performing cicumcision.^[8] Another is to say that the text describes a Midianite circumcision rite and shows that Jewish circumcision was partly from a Midianite custom. In early versions, Zipporah performed circumcision on Moses at her marriage so as to save Moses from the risk of being invaded by an evil spirit. Zipporah used Moses' foreskin to touch the evil spirit, to whom she said, "Surely, you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" The spirit being thus satisfied left her. The repetition of the phrase is said by Zipporah to Moses and is an ancient tradition of circumcision, which marks a coming of age. The whole passage may be derived from the story of the devil in the Book of Tobit before developing into the present text.^[9]

So far historical criticism merely tells us how the story came to be, without telling us why it is that Zipporah is the protagonist of the story rather than Moses or why the story is placed in the context of Moses' return home. Is this event able to tell us anything about Moses' mentality? What kind of a woman is Zipporah? Why is it that after this evening she will take her two sons back to Midian (Exodus 18:2)? Is it really because Moses' sons have not been circumcised that God wants to kill Moses?^[10] Finally, what does this passage have to say to us Christians in Asia?

It is obvious that historical criticism alone is unable to explore the meaning of this passage for our faith. If the story is simply about �who performs� circumcision and �when� then all the other details are unimportant and the story is but a bridge to the meaning, which can be discarded once the meaning is attained. If such were the case then all the details could be removed and the whole reduced to the one sentence: The Jewish rite of circumcision was influenced by Midianite religious practice. But in our reading experiences, a text is intimately connected to the form and content of the story and so it is necessary to make another attempt.

A Step towards a Feminist Reading

In order to understand this text the reader must resort to a creative imagination that is closely linked to the text itself. Unlike the historical explanations which undercut the web of time, place and persons in the story, a reader-oriented feminist theological approach must read the verse with new eyes. This includes starting from the point of view of women's experience and, in accord with gender justice, try to set out all the details and thus explore the possibilities opened by the text itself.

One way to begin would be to change the focus and begin from Zipporah's point of view, taking this as the hermeneutical key. This reading is in fact more in conformity with the text itself. In these passages set during Moses' return, this one clearly stands out in that Zipporah, not Moses, is the protagonist and the one who leads the story. It is she who first discerns "God's intention" and it is she who acts to save the situation.

A Cheated Wife

If we consider other related passages, the role of Moses should be open to question. Although married and living with his wife, he still sees himself as a stranger and a foreigner. The first proof of this is that he fails to reveal his true identity to his father-in-law, Jethro. Indeed, he deceives the latter: "Please allow me to return to Egypt to see my brethren, to see if they are still alive or not." or, in a modern translation, "Please let me return to Egypt to see if my relatives are still alive or not" (Exodus 4:18).

If we look earlier in the pages of the book, we see that when he arrived in Midian Moses failed to point out that he was an Israelite and not an Egyptian. When Reuel's daughters first met Moses at the well, they reported to their father that there was an Egyptian who saved them from the shepherds (Exodus 2:19). Moses then went to live with Reuel and married Zipporah. At the birth of their first child, Moses called him 'Gershom', which means 'I am a stranger in a foreign land'. The name of the second son, Eliezer, also recalls his exile: "My father's God is my helper: he has rescued me from Pharaoh's sword" (Ex 18:4). It would seem that Moses is a deceptive husband, a lying son-in-law and a lying father, who has never accepted his wife's family as his own and who, in the forty years he lived there, never revealed that he was a Jew.

His deceit may be one reason for this intended killing, but there may also be a deeper reason. Although born to a Jewish family, he grew up in Pharaoh's court and thus might have an identity problem. Is he an Egyptian? Or is he a Jew? Is birth or upbringing more important? And when he slays the Egyptian he is seen by the court as a rebel and is likewise disowned by his own people. To whom then does he belong? Maybe he himself is unsure. It may be too much to say that when slaying the Egyptian Moses was clearly asserting his main identity as an Israelite.

If this marriage is indeed grounded on deception, then the failure to circumcise the children is not a question of Moses' overlooking the matter, nor is it crafted as a result of Zipporah's harmful womanish ways. Rather, on the return journey, the truth had to be faced. On that night his feeling for Zipporah and the question of his identity came to a challenge. We should perhaps read the expression "God wanted to kill him" as a metaphorical expression indicating the deathly intensity of his inner struggle.

Even if God really does intervene to determine what sin there is, it is certainly not a matter of whether or not he was circumcised eighty years previously when he was born. Neither is it whether his sons have been circumcised or not. Rather it is his deception and his doubts over his identity. If he cannot even be honest with his kinsfolk, how can he stand before Pharaoh and say that he is the spokesperson of the persecuted Israelites? This interpretation fits the context of the return very well. The preceding story notes that the sentence of death against him has been lifted and assures him God is with him so he need not be afraid. The following story relates how God seeks out Aaron and asks him to go out into the desert to meet Moses. On seeing Moses, Aaron at once goes forward to embrace him and thus removes his doubts as to whether he would be accepted or not by his own people.

Zipporah's Decision

Moses, the chosen hero of God, on his return journey receives constant signs of consolation. Only here in these two verses is his glory dimmed. Here the spotlight is turned on Zipporah, his wife. At the place where Moses camps for the night, the fearful reality that emerges before her is that she has been cheated over forty years of marriage. Her husband is not simply paying a home visit, but is probably heading for martyrdom, and most important of all, it would seem that he has no intention of taking her, a pagan woman, along with him so as to avoid further complications. Let it not be forgotten: the Jews have a strong aversion to the outsider in the Bible.^[11] As a wife, Zipporah now finds that her husband is someone whom she never really knew. This is what faces her!

In this situation, Zipporah�s unexpected courage, wisdom and discernment shine through � from having been a weak girl who needed someone to help her draw water for her flock, and who was later given by her father to Moses in marriage. From being someone delivered passively into marriage, she now becomes the principal actor. She can choose to leave her husband since there is no ethical obligation for a deceived wife to remain but instead she chooses to renew the marriage: "You are truly my bridegroom of blood" or "You are the husband I have won back by the blood of circumcision."

She circumcises her children in accordance with Jewish custom to show that she accepts Moses as a Jew and touches him with the foreskin according to the traditional Midianite rite to show that she affirms her decision. In this way she renews their forty-year-old marriage by accepting this man as her bridegroom. How strange this is!

It may well be that Zipporah's decision was influenced by tendencies of the time. After all, the true situation unveiled itself so late. She is already not so young and has borne two children. How much space would contemporary society give to such a woman is a question she could but consider. But this is not the important point. What really matters is that she resolves to forgive and hence saves Moses. Without her there would be no further tale of Moses and the Exodus. It is Zipporah's decision, her forgiveness, indeed her willingness to take the two children back to her father's house and thus relieve Moses of the worry over what to do with them and in this she shows her acceptance of Moses� Jewish identity and "Jehovah releases him".

Circumcision carried out by a Pagan Woman

But what did Zipporah enlighten Moses about? It is worth noticing that the words Zipporah addressed to Moses are different on two occasions: "You truly are my blood bridegroom" emphasizes the marriage in blood and the relationship of the spouses. "You are my blood bridegroom by circumcision" has the additional significance of referring to circumcision. What circumcision could a woman, and a pagan at that, possibly understand? What could this expression possibly tell us?

The Jewish tradition of circumcision is a typical trait of patriarchy. It was given by God to Abraham so as to distinguish Jews from non-Jews: "Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised, including house-born slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not of your blood. Yes, both the house-born slaves and those acquired with money must be circumcised. Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact" (Genesis 17:12-13). Marked by this sacred sign, the Jews attain a special sense of Judeo-centrism and look down on the uncircumcised pagans and even more on women, who lack anything to be circumcised. As for pagan women it hardly bears mentioning what double degree of discrimination is in store for them.

According to Jewish custom, Jews may not enter a pagan household, nor touch their property, nor even eat with them (Acts 11:15). Moreover, gender and racial discrimination is built into the structure of the temple. The court for Israelite women lies outside that for men and inside that of the pagans, whilst the unfortunate handicapped people are confined to begging outside the temple proper. Circumcision and the temple, as sacred signs and places, become a sign of exclusion and a tool of oppression of the bystander.

Hence, Zipporah's action here cannot be seen as confirmation of Genesis. Rather, it would seem to be a challenge to the narrow Jewish patriarchal tradition of Genesis. Zipporah's circumcision, unlike that of Abraham, becomes an element in the later Christian reinterpretation of circumcision: "If an uncircumcised person keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? If a man who is uncircumcised keeps the law, will he pass judgment on you who, with your written law and circumcision, break it? Appearance does not make a Jew. True circumcision is not a sign in the flesh. He is a real Jew who is one inwardly, and true circumcision is of the heart; its source is the spirit, not the letter. Such a one receives his praise, not from men, but from God" (Romans 2:26-29).

If Christians accept the Jewish Bible as part of their faith tradition, this implies that they do so by accepting a different, i.e. Christian, way of reading the text and Zipporah's circumcision is then definitely not in the Abrahamic line. Furthermore, Zipporah's circumcision demands even greater attention by Christians than that of Abraham�s. This is because for Christianity circumcision is merely a symbol indicating that humans want to be removed from all that does not please God, willing to offer their very selves for this future. By executing this symbol on their own bodies, they wish to show that they no longer belong to themselves but to the covenant with God.

Now, what conduct pleases God? What is reckoned as keeping the law? If the God of the New Testament is the same as that of the Old and if the essence of the law is, as Jesus puts it, "to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength and to love your neighbour as yourself", would God then be pleased at discrimination against pagans, women and the disabled? Of course, not! Now what does the God who sends down rain on the just and unjust alike, actually like us to do? Is it not to love our neighbors as ourselves? Indeed, this commandment is greater than the command to love God because if we cannot love the person whom we can see then how can we talk about loving the invisible God? Even more, Christians can be known as belonging to God by their love for each other.

The meaning of Zipporah's circumcision lies here: she is willing to accept this man who has cheated her, to love him as she loves herself. Because of love, she is circumcised in her heart and so she shows that she is "a true Jew". Hence, she reminds Moses that true identity does not lie in blood, in personal belonging, most of all, not in the flesh, but in love, justice and purity of heart. From the private realm of grace she brings the matter back to the public domain of right and wrong and so Moses is finally able to accept his role as savior of the Jews from Egypt not as the great deed of a narrow nationalism but as a realization of God's ideal of justice. "When an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him. You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the Lord, am your God. Do not act dishonestly in using measures of length or weight or capacity. You shall have a true scale and true weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin: I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt" (Leviticus 19:33-36).

Is there a Distinction between the Inner and the Outer?

When we examine all passages in the Torah that deal with Zipporah's family, it would seem that in all his doings Moses is influenced by his Midianite wife's family which he never considered he was part of. This alien from the very first was welcomed by the priest of Midian and truly made at home: "Why did you leave him there? Go, invite him to come and eat with us" (Exodus 2:20). Apart from this passage, which relates to Zipporah, there is another story in Exodus 18. Moses' father-in-law brings the wife Moses left at home and their two sons and finds Moses spending all the day resolving disputes among the people and so he advises him to choose leaders and give them some responsibility. In this way Israel�s political organization takes its first steps. Of course, this is something that Moses did, but if it were not for his pagan father-in-law, would it have been possible?

Numbers 10:29-32 records that as the Israelites were setting out from Sinai to head for the promised land, Moses asked his brother-in-law, Hobab, to act as guide: "Please do not leave us; you know where we can camp in the desert, and you will serve as eyes for us. If you come with us, we will share with you the prosperity the Lord will bestow on us". However, at Hazeroth the fate of this small group of Midianites among the Jews already took place. As Numbers 12:1 says, Miriam and Aaron criticize Moses for taking a Cushite or Midianite wife, who is reasonably believed to be Zipporah.^[12]

The formation of a discriminatory racial consciousness and an identity based on the imperialism of the Jews led to doubts, prejudice and persecution against aliens. This racial consciousness is very closely bound to a gender and patriarchal culture. The Egyptians were like that and the Israelites were no different. As they left Egypt and entered Canaan, the imperial consciousness of the Jews against the pagans was reinforced gradually.

If this incident did indeed take place, it may well be that the narrator has consciously or unconsciously changed the focus of prejudice against Moses' foreign wife to the challenge to his leadership so that God�s punishment would be seen as a result of disobedience rather than of racism. Christian reading of this text has never questioned the implications of this and the fundamental Jewish prejudice involved. We should ask ourselves: do the biblical narrative, traditional readings, and interpretations done by churches really agree with the true will of God?

Conclusion

Patriarchal consciousness in biblical Judaism uses age, gender, blood and race to treat others as foreign or of inferior status. In the process of editing the Torah, a record of what was originally a Midianite custom, even though it was part of a covenant made by Zipporah to Moses, also became part of Israelite faith. Yet, it did not lead to Israel being more open or more welcoming, nor did it bring about equality of gender or age. The Old Testament command to "love your neighbour as yourself" was restricted by ancient practice to one's own race and household and those linked by blood on the father's side. It had to wait for Jesus in the New Testament to take a real step towards equality.

In salvation history the ideal of the reign of God is revealed through texts but was not fully realized. Although Jewish scriptures do have the text that can be used to criticize patriarchal nationalism, the Jews could still interpret scriptures this way. We had to wait for Jesus before a woman could become a disciple and be the first to proclaim the good news of the resurrection. Indeed, even this was not enough for we still had to wait for Paul to say that on the cross Christ broke down the enmity: "You who are baptized have become one and have, as it were, put on Christ and live by Him. You now no longer are Jews or pagans, slaves or freepersons, men or women, all are one in Christ and you have all become one body" (Galatians 3:27-28). How long do we have to wait to liberate God's gospel? What is our contemporary exegetical mission? Is it to repeat the old message of the past or is it to set out into the deep on a journey of faith?

_______________________

Bibliography

Adam, K. M. What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

Dube, Musa W. Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 2000.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Introduction. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993.

Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.

Wilson, Robert R. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1984.