Bridegroom of Blood (חֲתַן דָּמִים, chathan damim). A phrase that occurs in Exod 4:24–26 related to the
circumcision of Moses’ son. The precise meaning of the phrase is debated, but
it is either related to blood sacrifice, the recognition of bloodguilt being
accounted for, or covenant kinship.
Overview
Exodus 4:24–26 depicts a surprise
attack on Moses’ life. The event raises questions about Yahweh’s motivation,
Moses’ call, and Zipporah’s response.
The story appears at a pivotal
point in Moses’ journey—directly after Yahweh has told him to return to Egypt.
Moses leaves his home in Midian to obey the divine command, having received his
father-in-law’s permission and Yahweh’s assurance of safety. Along the way,
while stopped for the night with his wife Zipporah and sons, “the Lord met him
and tried to kill him” (Exod 4:24 NRSV). Zipporah uses a flint to perform a
circumcision on her son, touches Moses’ “feet” (presumably a euphemism for
genitals) with the foreskin, and then addresses him as “a bridegroom of blood”
(Exod 4:25). Yahweh leaves Moses alone, and Zipporah again calls Moses a
“bridegroom of blood by circumcision” (Exod 4:26).
Etymology
In the context of Exod 4:24–26,
the word “bridegroom” (חָתָן, chathan), paired with “blood” (דָּמִים,
damim) suggests the act of
circumcising a young man in preparation for marriage. However, the word used
for “bridegroom” may be related to Aramaic and Ugaritic words meaning
“marriage,” or to an Akkadian word that denotes “protection through marriage.”
These links may suggest that the word refers to “one related by marriage,” but
it is often read as “bridegroom” (Howell, “Firstborn Son,” 65).
From a comparative Semitics
standpoint, the Arabic root hatana
(“to circumcise”) may illuminate the origin of the phrase. This verb refers
specifically to the act of circumcising a man in preparation for marriage.
Since those preparing for marriage were typically young men, the word also came
to mean “son-in-law” (Childs, Book of
Exodus, 98). Other, broader definitions came to include any “relationship
of affinity” (Howell, “Firstborn Son,” 65).
In the context of Exod 4, the
word “blood” seems to refer to the blood of the circumcision. When used in the
plural as it is here, however, it may more accurately refer to the bloodguilt
of someone who has committed a crime such as murder (Propp, “That Bloody
Bridegroom,” 496 n. 10).
Early Interpretations and the Meaning of Circumcision
Most ancient sources interpret
Exod 4:24–26 with a focus on the importance of circumcision, understanding its
purpose in terms of sacrifice, observance of the law, or covenant kinship.
Both the Septuagint and the
Aramaic Targums interpret the act of circumcision in Exod 4 as a sacrificial
rite. They identify the attacker not as Yahweh, but as an angel of death, or
destroyer. They attribute the attack to Moses’ failure to circumcise his son as
commanded in Gen 17:9–14. According to this reading, Zipporah falls at the feet
of the angel, presenting the bloody foreskin as a sacrifice to deliver Moses
from death. In this case, there is no “bloody bridegroom”; instead, the phrase
is translated as “the blood of my husband would have been shed were it not for
the vicarious sacrificial blood of circumcision” (Vermes, “Baptism,” 310–11,
317–18).
In early rabbinic literature,
many interpreters follow the traditional interpretation of the Targums, seeing
the attack on Moses’ life as a result of his failure to circumcise his son. To
the rabbis, Moses’ omission is apostasy, and it is his eventual adherence to
the law that saves him. The emphasis is on “redemptive observance of the Law,”
and Moses is the “bridegroom of blood” by virtue of following the law (Vermes,
“Baptism,” 316–18). Another group of authoritative rabbis (such as Simeon ben
Gamaliel and Ibn Ezra), however, depart from the traditional interpretation,
arguing that the child is the one whom Yahweh seeks to kill and who is rescued
by the circumcision. In this view, the circumcised child is the one addressed
as the “bridegroom of blood”: “By the blood you are become my bridegroom”
(Morgenstern, “The ‘Bloody Husband,’ ” 46; Vermes, “Baptism,” 316–17).
The Identity of the Bridegroom of Blood
Many modern commentators follow
early sources in claiming that the story highlights the importance of
circumcision. Modern readings offer at least three possibilities for
understanding who the “bridegroom of blood” is: Moses, his son, or
Yahweh/Yahweh’s representative.
Moses
Several scholars see Moses as the
“bloody bridegroom,” but they differ in their views of what Moses has done to
provoke the attack. Some follow the conventional thinking, seeing Moses’ sin as
the failure to circumcise his son according to the law; Zipporah therefore
calls him a “bloody bridegroom” to assure him that his sin is expiated (Ashby,
“Bloody Bridegroom,” 204). Wellhausen maintains that Moses’ sin is a failure to
be circumcised before marriage. Zipporah responds to the attack by circumcising
her son in his place, making Moses a “bridegroom of blood” through the
circumcision that redeems him (Childs, Exodus,
97; Houtman, “Exodus 4:24–26,” 93). Propp identifies Moses’ sin as the murder
of the Egyptian in Exod 2:12. Based on the fact that the word “blood” (דָּמִים, damim) appears in
the plural here, Propp argues that it points to Moses’ “bloodguilt.” In this
view, when Zipporah touches Moses with the blood, she transfers the “purifying
power of blood” from the son to the father. Both Wellhausen and Propp argue
that the story is an etiology designed to explain the historical shift from
adult to infant circumcision (Propp, Exodus
1–18, 237; Propp, “That Bloody Bridegroom,” 496 n. 10, 504–6, 510–11).
Moses’ Son
Proponents of this view see
Moses’ son as the one under attack. Because Yahweh has just directed Moses to
tell Pharaoh that he will kill his firstborn son (Exod 4:23), these
interpreters see the text as foreshadowing the plague on the firstborn that
occurs in Exod 11:5. The son is seen as a representative of the paschal lamb,
and Zipporah’s touching of the blood of the foreskin to Moses’ feet is similar
to the marking of the blood of the lamb on doorposts in Exod 12:7. Howell
argues that Zipporah’s use of the phrase “bridegroom of blood” (חֲתַן דָּמִים,
chathan damim), addressed to the son,
is more accurately translated as “a relative by means of blood.” Through the
blood of circumcision, the son now has kinship with Yahweh and with the people
of Israel (Howell, “Firstborn Son,” 69–73; Kosmala, “Bloody Husband,” 14–16).
Yahweh
Robinson relates the text to the
story of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel, with both stories representing an
“endangerment” to a hero as he embarks on a significant journey (Robinson,
“Zipporah,” 451–52). Hays expands on this idea by arguing that Moses’ return to
Egypt is a journey toward Yahweh. For Hays, Zipporah’s actions are a blood rite
that symbolizes her family’s kinship with Yahweh. In this view, the “bloody
bridegroom” phrase is spoken to Yahweh, in the sense of “you are kin to me by
blood” (Hays, “ ‘Lest Ye Perish,’ ” 52–54). (Melanie S.
Baffes, “Bridegroom of Blood,” in The
Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. [Bellingham, Wash.:
Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)
