Exodus 4:26

So he let him go,.... That is, the Lord let Moses go; suffered him to go on his journey without any further interruption; as the Targums, "it", the angel, ceased from him, or left him; or the disease

So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. So he let him go.

So he let him go; or, he, i.e. God, or the destroying angel sent from God, departed from him, i.e. from Moses, and removed the tokens of God’ s indignation, the sickness or stroke laid upon him. Zipporah both repeats and amplifies her former censure, and reproacheth not only her husband, but also God’ s ordinance; which perverse and obstinate spirit her husband observing in her, and wisely forecasting how much disturbance she might give him in his great and difficult work in Egypt, he thought fit to send her and her children back to her father, as appears from . In the Hebrew it is, because of the circumcisions, to wit, of her two sons, who possibly were both circumcised at this time, though it be not so expressed; but one being mentioned for an example, we are left to suppose the like concerning the other; or the circumcision of this child brings the other to her remembrance, and so she upbraids him with both. Only this doth more provoke her than it seems the other did, because she was forced to do this speedily, and with her own hands, and that to a tender infant; whereas the elder peradventure was circumcised when he was more grown and strong, and able to bear the pain. Let none think it strange that Zipporah should quarrel so much at circumcision, because the Midianites were descended from Abraham, and therefore were circumcised. For if they were so, it was done when they were grown up, about the thirteenth year of their age, from the example of Ishmael, who was circumcised at that age. But indeed it is more likely that those people, being cast out of God’ s covenant, as to the benefit of it, would, and did in a little time, throw off the sign of it, as having much more of pain and danger in it, than of use and privilege.

Exodus 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband [thou art], because of the circumcision.Ver. 26. A bloody husband thou art.] This peal she rings oft in his ears, and so taught him patience. “ Coniugium humanae divina Academia vitae.” Certain it is that we are a bloody spouse to Christ: the Church is Aceldama, a field of blood.

(26) So he let him go.—God let Moses go, i.e., allowed him to recover—accepted Zipporah’s act as sufficient, albeit tardy, reparation, and spared the life of her husband. Then she said.—When Moses was sufficiently recovered, Zipporah explained to him why she had called him “a bloody husband;” it was “on account of the circumcisions,” i.e., the two circumcisions—of Gershom in Midian, many years previously, and now of Eliezer. We learn from Exodus 18:2-3, that Zipporah and her boys were sent back to Jethro by Moses, probably at this time. Moses was in haste, and the child could not have travelled conveniently for some days.

26. let him alone] Heb. relaxed from him: cf. Judges 11:37, Deuteronomy 9:14. Then she said (viz. when she spoke the words given in v. 25b), ‘A blood-bridegroom,’ with regard to circumcisions] The last word is plural in the Heb. ‘Blood-bridegroom’ was apparently a current expression: and the passage seems to attribute to Zipporah the new sense of it explained in the last note but one. It seems that in this narrative an archaic stage in the history of circumcision is referred to, which is not elsewhere mentioned in the OT. Circumcision is a rite which has been, and still is, largely practised in the world: among the Hebrews (besides its religious associations) its distinctive feature was that it was performed in infancy. Among the Arabs it is performed upon boys of ages varying, in different places, from 3 to 15; but in many parts of the world it is performed upon youths at the approach of puberty. A practice so widely diffused must rest upon some common principle: and the idea which appears generally to underlie circumcision is that it is a rite of initiation into manhood; a youth, till he has been circumcised, is not reckoned a full member of the tribe, or (as in Australia, for instance) allowed to marry. Now the fact that the Heb. word for ‘father-in-law’ (ḥ ?ôthçn) is derived from a root which in Arabic signifies to circumcise, seems to shew that it meant originally circumciser, and to indicate that in primitive times circumcision was among the Hebrews, as among the other nations just referred to, a general preliminary to marriage, which it was the duty of the future father-in-law to see enforced. These facts throw light upon the present narrative. The reason why Moses had incurred Jehovah’s wrath was because he was not a ‘blood-bridegroom,’ i.e. because he had not, according to established custom, submitted to circumcision before marriage: Zipporah, seizing a flint, circumcises her son instead of her husband, and so makes the latter symbolically a ‘blood-bridegroom,’ and delivers him from the wrath of Jehovah. At the same time, the circumcision of male infants is explained as a more humane substitute for the original circumcision of young men before marriage (Wellh. Hist. p. 340; EB. ii. 830, 832; DB. v. 622a). On circumcision, see now very fully Hastings’ Encycl. of Rel. and Ethics, s.v.

So he let him go - i. e. God withdrew His visitation from Moses. Moses sent Zipporah and her children back to Jethro before he went to Egypt, Exodus 18:2.

24-26. It came to pass… in the inn — An incident which transpired at some well-known halting-place on the road (the lodging-place) is so briefly related as to have occasioned much doubt and perplexity to all interpreters.