Discourses on Divers Texts of Scripture, Discourses 1 · Sermon 14
EXODUS 4. 25.Exod. 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 custome then, was made of stone sharped. This we may learn out of Ioshuah 5. 2. where the Lord sayes to Ioshuah, Make thee foreign, (sharp knives, say we) ad verbum, cultros petrarum, and circumcise again the children of Israel: The Chaldee Paraphrast hath, Make thee novaculas acutas: the Septuagint, foreign.
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 foreskin 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 onelyonly hindred her childe from being circumcised, out of some nicety and aversation thereof, as a cruell ceremony; but also, when she saw there was no remedy, but she must do it, to save her husbands life, yet she did it with an upbraiding indignation, telling him, that he was a bloody husband, who must have such a thing done unto his poor childe. But I see no ground either for the one, or the other.
For, that the circumcision of the childe 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 Ketu rah, and therefore well enough acquainted, and inured to that Rite, which not onelyonly 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 Ma…met, but retained it as an ancient custome of their Nation. Secondly, she had suffered already her elder son Gershom to be circumcised; wherefore then should we think she was averse from the circumcision of this? For that this childe, for whom Moses was now in danger, was Fleezer his youngest son, it cannot be denied; for as much 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 reade in the eighteenth Chapter of this Book: By which it may be gathered, that the cause of this omission of circumcision, was not any aversenesse in Zipporah from that rite, but rather, because they were in their journey, when the childe 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 infants life, to be tossed up and down, whilst the wound was green, in so long and tedious a voyage, they resolved to deferre the circumcision. And that Zipporah was delivered of this childe, when they had begun this journey, for Egypt, may be gathered by this; because Moses, before Gods sending him, hath but one childe mentioned, namely, Gershom: For what reason can be given, why, if Eleezer had been then born, he should not have been mentioned also? But howsoever this case of travell afterward excused the Israelites in the Wildernesse, 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 businesse to carry such an incumbrance with him.
Thus have we freed Zipporah from the first charge of being the cause of this omission out of any aversenesse to the Divine Ordinance: Now I come to shew likewise, that the words she spake at the time of circumcision, Sponsus sanguinum to mihi es, were no words of upbraiding indignation to her husband (as is supposed) but have a far other meaning.
For I beleeve not, she spake these words to Moses, but to her Childe, whom she circumcised, as the Formula then used in circumcision; namely, that as the fore-skin fell down at her childes feet (not Moses, or the Angels feet) she pronounced the Verb … solennia, 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 onelyonly by way of equivalence or coincidence, (because to be made son in Law to the Parents, is by being the daughters Sponsus) My meaning is that foreign, the word used, signifies not the relation of the Bridegroom to his Bride; but his relation to his Brides Parents, by taking their daughter to wife. And therefore in the whole Scripture, we shall never finde it relatively used, or with an affix, but onelyonly 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; wherefore we shall never finde the Bridegroom call the Bride his foreign nor the Bride the Bridegroom her foreign, or that they are called so by others. But onelyonly the Husband his Father and Mother in Lawes foreign, and the wife her Father and Mother in Lawes 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 onelyonly: whence it is remarkable that in the Canticles, when this relation comes to be expressed on the Brides behalf, it is alwayes done by addition of the word foreign, that is, Soror mea, as foreign, the Callah, or Nurus my sister, which we translate aequivalenter, Soror mea sponsa. 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 childe, and not to him.
Thirdly, for a farther probability hereof, the Jewish Rabbins tell us, that it was the custome of women to call their children when they were circumcised, foreign; the word here turned sponsus. Aben Ezra upon this place, Mos mulierum, (saith he) vocare filium cum circumcisus est foreign. Rabbi Levi, foreign in principio connubii vocatur, qui alicui promissus est. Inde translatum ad initium rerum aliarum, ut cum infans recens circumcisus à mulieribus sponsus vocatur. Nam tunc primùm incipit Deo servire. The like hath Rabbi David Kimchi, in his Lexicon, who conjectures withall, 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 custome to call a childe at his circumcision foreign; with the Arabians (who are of Abrahams posterity, and still use, and anciently used this Rite) Chatan is is to circumcise, Chiten circumcision, foreign, circumcised, as is ordinarily seen in their Translation of the New Testament: whence comes this? but from the manner of calling a childe foreign, when hee was circumcised; Even as we, because a childe in Baptisme is made a Christian, use the word Christen for to Baptize, and Christened for Baptized: And Zipporah was an Arabisse, and the Arabian tongue of near affinity with the Hebrew.
Fifthly, this exposition is agreeable to the following words, foreign, and he let him goe, when he had said, Sponsus sanguinum, hoc est, circumcisionis; that is, the Angell let Moses goe, as soon as those solennia verba, Sponsus sanguinum, were out of Zipporahs mouth: so the Vulgar rightly translates it: Et dimisit eum, postquam dixerat, Sponsus sanguinū tu mihi es ob circumcisionem. For foreign, is here, as elsewhere, for foreign, ex tunc, ab eo tempore, postquam, not simply tunc, as we translate it: Namely, as the destroying Angel, Exodus 12. when he saw the blood of the Paschall Lamb upon the lintels and sideposts of the Israelites doores, passed by them, and destroyed them not; so the Angell here, when he saw the blood of the circumcision upon Moses child, let Moses goe, 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; then are not these words spoken of, or to Moses, but unto the childe.
Having thus proved what I took in hand; that these words were not spoke by Zipporah to Moses, but as solennia verba, in that case to her childe, whom she circumcised; it remains, I should now tell you how they are so construed. I say therefore, Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum, in Zipporahs meaning, is as much as Si… mihi initiatus circumcisione: It is well known, how tropically those words of relation of kindred, Father, Mother, Sister, Sonne, are used in the Hebrew Tongue; and Sonne, beside other notions, to be often the circumlocution of our vox concreta, as Filius percussionis, is he that is strucken; Filius foederis, he that is foederatus; Filius mortis, 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, … pronounce thee circumcised? As if the circumcised person, by being married to circumcision, were made the circumcisers son in Law, and circumcisions Bridegroom; as Es, or sis, mihi in generum desponsatus circumcisioni.
Or if blood, or circumcision, note the Instrument, the Formula may be thus explicated, that the person circumcised becomes Gods son in Law, as being wedded and joyned to his Church, by the blood of circumcision, as with a ring; and then the pronoun mihi, must not be taken relatively to Zipporah, as before, but efficienter onelyonly in this sense, Per me factus es gener Deo, per sanguinem circumcisionis: or Feci le generum, Deo: 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, &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 mihi the relative to Zipporah, Tu mihi in generum es desponsatus circumc…sioni.
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 beleeve the Septuagint translated not foreign, but foreign—sit hic sanguis circumcisionis Filii mei; a Periphrasticall, but evident sense, with the change of one letter onelyonly.
From the sense of this place thus proved, I will point out two observations, and so conclude.
The first is, that it is lawfull to use some fitting forme 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 then, whatsoever the form were after that time.
The second is, that the neglect of the circumcision of a childe 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 to leave to your exacter meditations; and so I conclude.