What is the context?
Moses receives Jethro’s permission to return to Egypt and takes his wife, sons and the staff God will use for the signs. The LORD assures him that those who sought his life are dead. The man who fled Egypt is now returning under God’s command.
God also prepares him for resistance. Moses must perform the wonders before Pharaoh, but God says He will harden Pharaoh’s heart. The coming struggle is already within God’s knowledge and purpose. Moses is to tell Pharaoh that Israel is God’s firstborn son and must be released to worship Him. Refusal will bring the death of Pharaoh’s own firstborn.
The journey then takes a startling turn: at a lodging place the LORD confronts Moses and threatens his life. Zipporah circumcises her son, touches the foreskin to Moses’ feet and calls him a bridegroom of blood. The threat ends. Genesis 17:9–14 supplies the covenant background: Abraham’s male descendants were to bear circumcision as its sign.
The Hebrew in verse 24 uses words meaning met him and put him to death, with the person identified from the setting. The BSB names Moses. The brief account does not name the son or explain why his circumcision had been delayed. Its ending directly connects Zipporah’s words with the circumcision.
How is this passage commonly understood?
There are different readings of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. The Reformed teacher Calvin understands it as God actively directing the confrontation toward judgment, beyond simply allowing events. Wesley understands it as God eventually permitting Satan to harden a ruler who has repeatedly hardened himself. Both hold Pharaoh responsible, while explaining God’s action differently.
The circumcision scene is commonly read as a confrontation over a neglected covenant obligation. The Catholic USCCB notes, Calvin and Wesley identify Moses as the person threatened. They understand his life as spared when Zipporah circumcises the child.
Zipporah’s words also receive different readings. Wesley takes them as a reproach against Moses over the circumcision. The Baptist commentator John Gill instead understands her as grateful that the blood of circumcision has restored her husband to her. The text reports her words and the end of the threat, but gives little explanation of her feelings.
Where does this fit in God's plan?
God’s description of Israel as His son belongs to a connection the New Testament develops. Hosea 11:1 remembers God calling His son Israel out of Egypt, and Matthew 2:13–15 applies that passage to Jesus’ return from Egypt. Matthew also reports the assurance that those seeking the child’s life have died in verses 19–20, a close parallel with God’s assurance to Moses here.
Romans 9:17–18 directly draws on the confrontation with Pharaoh to explain God displaying His power and making His name known. Paul places the Exodus within his discussion of God’s mercy and purposes, which goes on to speak of people called from both Jews and Gentiles in verses 23–24.
The circumcision scene returns attention to the covenant at the very moment its promised rescue is beginning. Colossians 2:11–14 later uses circumcision language for the work of Christ, joining it with burial and resurrection with Him and the forgiveness of sins. This is a wider connection between God’s covenant people and life through Christ; Colossians does not give a detailed explanation of Zipporah’s actions.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.