Works, Book 1 · Discourse 14
DISCOURSE XIV.
EXODUS 4. 25.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the fore-skin of her Son, and cast it at his feet, and said, foreign, Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es.
THEN; that is, when she saw the Angel of the Lord ready to kill Moses her husband in the Inne, because his son was not circumcised; she took a sharp stone, (foreign) that is, she took a knife, which, according to the custom then, was made of stone sharped. This we may learn out of Ioshuah 5. 2. where the Lord says to Ioshuah, Make thee foreign, (sharp knives, say we) according to the Hebrew, knives of stones, and circumcise again the children of Israel. The Chaldee Paraphrast hath, Make thee foreign sharp rasors: the Septuagint, foreign stone-knives.
Thus far all is clear; but for the rest we are to seek: First, on whom the fault lay, and what was the reason of this omission of Circumcision: then, who and what is meant, when it is said, she cast, or made the fore-skin to touch his feet: and above all, what is meant by Sponsus sanguinum.
Zipporah is commonly reputed to have been a perverse and froward woman; and Moses, the meekest man on earth, to have had that mishap in his choice which many a good man hath. The reason, because she not only hindred her child from being circumcised, out of some nicety and aversation thereof, as a cruel Ceremony: but also, when she saw there was no remedy, but she must do it to save her husband's life, yet she did it with an upbraiding indignation, telling him, that he was a bloudy husband, who must have such a thing done unto his poor child. But I see no ground either for the one, or the other.
For that the Circumcision of the child was not deferred out of any aversation of hers of that Ceremony, may be gathered, First, because she was a Midianitesse, and so a daughter of Abraham by Keturah, and therefore well enough acquainted with and inured to that Rite, which not only her Nation, the Midianites, but all the Nations descended of Abraham observed; as may be seen in the Ismaelites or Saracens, who learned not this Ceremony first from Mahomet, but retained it as an ancient custom of their Nation. Secondly, She had suffered already her elder son Gershom to be circumcised; wherefore then should we think she was a verse from the circumcision of this? For that this child, for whom Moses was now in danger, was Eliezer his youngest son, it cannot be denied; forasmuch as it is evident that Moses at this time was the Father of two sons, which, by reason (as may seem) of this disturbance he sent back with his wife unto her Father Iethro, as we may read in the 18. Chapter of this Book.Exod. 4. 25. By which it may be gathered, that the cause of this omission of Circumcision was not any averseness in Zipporah from that Rite; but rather, because they were in their journey when the child was born; and so having no convenient time or place to rest in till the wound might be healed, and thinking it might endanger the infant's life, to be tossed up and down whilst the wound was green, in so long and tedious a voyage, they resolved to defer the circumcision. And that Zipporah was delivered of this child when they had begun this journey for Egypt, may be gathered by this, because Moses, before God's sending him, hath but one child mentioned, namely Gershom: For what reason can be given, why, if Eliezer had been then born, he should not have been mentioned also? But howsoever this case of travel afterward excused the Israelites in the Wilderness, for deferring the circumcision of their children then; yet could it not excuse Moses here, in regard it was necessitas accersita, he being not forced to take his wife and children with him, (especially his wife being in that case) but might have sent her and them back presently to her Father; as upon this admonition he did. Nor was it indeed fit, when God sent him upon such a business, to carry such an encumbrance with him.
Thus have we freed Zipporah from the first charge, of being the cause of this omission out of any averseness to the Divine Ordinance. Now I come to shew likewise, that the words she spake at the time of circumcision, Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es, were no words of upbraiding indignation to her husband, (as I supposed) but have a far other meaning.
For I believe not she spake these words to Moses, but to her Child whom she circumcised, as the Formula then used in Circumcision; namely, that as the fore-skin fell down at her Child's feet, (not Moses, or the Angel's feet) she pronounced the Verba solennia, the solemn formal words then in use, Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum.
My Reasons are, First, Because a Husband is not wont to be called Sponsus after the wedding solemnity is past; nor can there any such example be shewn in Scripture: Ergo, it is not like that Zipporah, after she was the mother of two children, should say to her Husband, Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es.
Secondly, Because foreign, the word here translated Sponsus, properly signifies Gener, a Son-in-law, and Sponsus only by way of equivalence or coincidence, (because to be made Son-in-law to the Parents, is by being the daughter's Sponsus.) My meaning is, that foreign, the word used, signifies not the relation of the Bridegroom to his Bride; but his relation to his Bride's Parents, by taking their daughter to wife. And therefore in the whole Scripture we shall never find it relatively used, or with an affix, but only in respect to the wives Father or Mother. And of the same condition is the word foreign which we often by equivalence translate a Bride, but properly signifies Nurus, a daughter-in-law. Wherefore we shall never find the Bridegroom calls the Bride his foreign, nor the Bride the Bridegroom her foreign, or that they are called so by others; but only the Husband his Father and Mother-in-laws foreign, and the Wife her Father and Mother-in-laws foreign. In a word, there is no word in the Hebrew Tongue which signifies a Bridegroom and Bride, as they stand in relation each to other, but as to each others Parents only. Whence it is remarkable that in the Ganticles, when this relation comes to be expressed on the Bride's behalf, it is always done by addition of the word foreign, that is, my Sister, as foreign, the Callah or Nurus my Sister, which we translate by equivalence, Soror mea Sponsa, my Sister, my Spouse. Now if this be true, I see not how Zipporah could call Moses here her foreign, by saying to him foreign sanguinum tu mihi es: For she should have called him her Son-in-law, and not her Husband: Ergo, She spake the words to the Child, and not to Him.
Thirdly, For a farther probability hereof, the Iewish Rabbins tell us, foreign, That it was the custom of women to call their child when he was circumcised, foreign, (the word here turned Sponsus.) So Aben Ezra upon this place. Rabbi Levi, foreign in principio connubii vocatur, &c.B…thing is by …. … called foreign … beginnings of marriage, and … foreign … marriage. In the beginning of marriage he is called foreign that is promised or contracted to another: Thence is the word translated and borrowed to signifie the beginning of other things; as when the Infant newly circumcised is called by the women foreign, for then the child begins first to be initiated in the service of God. The like hath Rabbi David Kimchi in his Lexicon, who conjectures withal, that foreign should have some signification of causing new joy, and thence to be used both at the day of Marriage, and day of Circumcision.
Fourthly, From this custom to call a child at his circumcision foreign, with the Arabians (who are of Abraham's posterity, and still use, and anciently used, this Rite) Chatan is to circumcise, Chiten Circumcision, foreign Machtun circumcised, as is ordinarily to be seen in their Translation of the New Testament. Whence comes this, but from the manner of calling a child foreign when he was circumcised? (Even as we, because a child in Baptism is made a Christian, use the word Christen for to Baptize, and Christened for Baptized.) And Zipporah was an Arabiss, and the Arabian tongue of near affinity with the Hebrew.
Fifthly, This exposition is agreeable to the following words,*Verse. 26. foreign, And he let him go, when she had said, Sponsus sanguinum, hoc est, circumcisionis; that is, The Angel let Moses go, as soon as those solennia verba, Sponsus sanguinum, were out of Zipporah's mouth. So the Vulgar rightly translates it; Et dimisit eum, postquam dixerat, Sponsus sanguinum, ob circumcisionem. For foreign is here (as elsewhere) for foreign, extunc, ab eo tempore, postquam, from the time, after that, not simply tunc, then, as we translate it. Namely, as the destroying Angel, Exod. 12. 23. when he saw the bloud of the Paschal Lamb upon the lintels and sideposts of the Israelites doors, passed by them, and destroyed them not: So the Angel here, when he saw the bloud of the Circumcision upon Moses his child, let Moses go, and slew him not. In these words, if you mark it, the Holy Ghost expounds what Zipporah meant by those words. Sponsus sanguinum, that is, Sponsus circumcisionis: Et dimisit eum postquam dixit, foreign, Sponsus sanguinum, id est, circumcisionis. But if Sanguis here be Circumcision, and so Sponsus Sanguinum be Sponsus Circumcisionis, then are not these words spoken of or to Moses, but unto the Child.
HAVING thus proved what I took in hand, That these words were not spoken by Zipporah to Moses, but as solennia verba in that Case to her Child whom she circumcised; it remains, I should now tell you how they are so construed. I say therefore, Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum, in Zipporah's meaning, is as much as Sis mihi initiatus circumcisione, Be thou my Bloud-son, or the like. It is well known how Tropically those words of relation of kindred, Father, Mother, Sister, Son, are used in the Hebrew Tongue; and Son, besides other notions, to be often the circumlocution of our vox concreta; as Filius percussionis, the Son of striking, is he that is stricken, or, worthy to be beaten;Thus in Deut. 25. 2. foreign is by the LXX. rendred foreign. Filius foederis, the Son of the Covenant, is he that is in Covenant, or, to whom the Covenant belongs; Filius mortis, the Son of death, he that is condemned to die, or worthy of death; and the like. And why may not then foreign, Gener sanguinum, that is (as the Holy Ghost expounds it) circumcisionis, be as much as circumcisus, and Gener sanguinum tu mihi es (for so I told you foreign signifies) be as much as, I pronounce thee circumcised? As if the circumcised person, by being married to Circumcision, were made the Circumciser's Son-in-law, and Circumcision's Bridegroom; as Es, or Sis, mihi in generum, desponsatus circumcisioni, Now thou art, or Be thou, my Son-in-law, being espoused to Circumcision.
Or if Bloud or Circumcision note the Instrument, the Formula may be thus explicated; That the person circumcised becomes God's Son-in-law, as being wedded and joyned to his Church by the Bloud of Circumcision, as with a Ring: and then the pronoun foreign mihi must not be taken relatively to Zipporah, as before, but efficienter only in this sense, Per me factus es gener Deo per sanguinem circumcisionis, By me thou art made God's Son-in-law by the bloud of Circumcision; or Feci te generum Deo, I have made thee God's Son-in-law; or, (if you like better the notion of Sponsus) I have espoused thee to the Church of God, by this rite of Circumcision; or, Thou art, or, Be thou, espoused to the Church of God, &c. Thus, as you see, may the Formula be either way explicated to one and the same sense. But the first I like the best, because of foreign mihi the relative to Zipporah, Tu mihi in generum es, desponsatus circumcisioni, Now thou art my Son-in-law, being espoused to Circumcision.
Now lastly, to free my Interpretation from novelty, the sense I have given of these words is that which both the Septuagint and the Chaldee Paraphrast directly aim at: the Paraphrast expounding it thus, In sanguine circumcisionis istius datus est sponsus, or gener, mihi; the Septuagint, as we now read, thus, foreign, Stetit sanguis circumcisionis filii mei: where the Text is corrupted, and I believe the Septuagint translated not foreign, but foreign, Sit hic sanguis circumcisionis Filii mei; a Periphrastical, but evident sense, with the change of one letter only.
From the sense of this place thus proved, I will point at two Observations, and so conclude.
The First is, That it is lawful to use some fitting form of words in the exhibition of a Sacrament, though not expresly ordained by God at the institution thereof; as appears by this Form that Zipporah used, no doubt ex more, according to the custom then, whatsoever the Form were after that time.
The Second is, That the neglect of the Circumcision of a child then, and so consequently of Baptizing it now, makes not so much the Child as the Parents liable to the wrath of God: As here the Angel sought not to kill the Child, who was uncircumcised, but Moses the Father, who should have circumcised it. Both which Observations I mean to amplifie no farther, but leave them to your exacter meditations; and so I conclude.