John Calvin Commentary Exodus 4:25

"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." — Exodus 4:25 (ASV)

Then Zipporah took a sharp stone. Because the wife here improperly assumed this office, some of the Rabbis speculate that this was done in the absence of her husband; but the context contradicts them. Therefore, I do not doubt that she seized a knife or a stone hastily, as is common in times of fear and confusion. For fear had so affected her mind that she did not act with consideration. Moses, too, might have lain incapable in his anxiety.

Certainly, the child was not properly circumcised; yet it is clear from the event that the ceremony, though rashly performed, pleased God, for it is immediately added, He let him go. For I interpret this to mean that the scourge of God ceased or was removed because He was pacified by the repentance of both Moses and Zipporah, although the act was improper⁶² in itself; not that imperfect obedience is pleasing to God absolutely, but relatively, through indulgence, it is sometimes approved.

Thus, punishment was remitted in the case of wicked Ahab when for a season he was humbled on account of his hypocritical tears (1 Kings 21:29). Therefore, when Zipporah, who had opposed her husband, circumcised her son with her own hands, although she had not yet seriously repented, God was nevertheless satisfied with the suppression of her pride, so that He ceased from afflicting Moses.

Still, we must not take this as an example, as if hypocrites, by manifesting the signs of repentance, would always find God merciful. Rather, He sometimes graciously pardons the unworthy, as far as the infliction of punishment is concerned, so that by this kindness He may invite us to true and sincere repentance.

Let us conclude, then, that Zipporah's confusion and Moses's stupor were pardoned, while she rashly hastened to circumcise her son, not out of presumption, but yielding to the fear of destruction threatened by God.

Thus⁶³ the folly of those who wish to find a pretext for baptism by women in this passage is refuted, for they contend that if infants are in danger of death, they may be properly baptized by women because Zipporah circumcised her son. But they themselves will allow that if a man is present, a woman could not lawfully administer this sacrament. It is a perversion, then, to lay down a rule from a confused and hasty act.

And cast it at his feet. The word נגע, negang, which some construe as “she held,” is more properly taken transitively. For although, in some degree, as necessity compelled, Zipporah submitted herself to God, yet, aroused to violent anger, she turns against her husband and fiercely reproaches him with being a bloody husband. Hence we perceive how far she was from a pious disposition to obey, since she thus furiously attacks her husband and vents her wrath on him for no other reason than that God had extorted from her the circumcision of her son. Some think that she spoke this to her son from an impulse of maternal grief or pity, but they distort the words too violently; and it is better to keep to the natural meaning, namely, that she expostulated with her husband because she had redeemed his life by the loss of her child’s blood.

⁶² Praepostera — Lat. Vicieuse. — . Vicieuse. — Fr..

⁶³ The conduct of Zipporah on this occasion, as well as the argument founded on it for lay-baptism, is amply discussed by Calvin himself, in his Institutes, book 4. chap. 16. 22. — Calvin Soc.. Transl., vol. 3, pp. 346, 347.., vol. 3, pp. 346, 347.