Commentaria in Exodum
Secondly, Theodoret and Diodorus think that the angel threatened death to Moses in order to drive out of his mind the fear of Pharao, as one drives out a nail with a nail; as if he said: Thou, O Moses, fearest Pharao too much; but thou shouldst rather fear me, who, as thou seest, can suddenly slay thee with no trouble.
Thirdly, I say truly that the Angel wished to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son, as God had commanded, Genesis xvii, 12. For Moses was to be the lawgiver of the people; he ought therefore to be the first to observe the law: the wife of Moses, understanding this cause, at once circumcised her son, and presently the angel, as though satisfaction had now been made, let Moses go. So Isidore of Pelusium, Rupert, Lyranus, Abulensis, Cajetan. You will ask secondly, why did Moses, a holy man, not circumcise his son according to the law? Rupert and the Chaldee answer, because Jethro his father-in-law and Sephora his wife, being Gentiles and Madianites, would not permit the boy to be afflicted with that pain and wound. But against this stands the fact that they had already circumcised the elder son: for Sephora circumcised only one, the younger, because the elder was evidently already circumcised; otherwise the angel would have compelled this one also to be circumcised. Again, Sephora’s at once circumcising the infant of herself and by herself sufficiently showed that she was skilled in that rite, and had performed it in circumcising the elder son. Hence the Hebrews, Lyranus, Abulensis and Pererius more truly judge that this younger son, namely Eliezer, was only lately born, and that therefore either Moses, or rather the mother, feared grave harms from the journey if she circumcised him: Moses therefore put off the matter until he should come into Egypt; for it was for this same reason that the Hebrews journeying in the desert were not circumcised for forty years, as is plain from Josue v. But the angel, threatening death to Moses, shook off this excessive fear from him, lest Moses, who was to be lawgiver, should seem the more remiss in keeping the law. For Moses, as leader, ought to go before the rest with a perfect example in fulfilling the law. Sephora therefore saw the angel threatening death to her husband Moses on account of the uncircumcised boy, and perhaps pointing to him with his finger. She understood, therefore, that Moses was in peril of his life on account of the neglected circumcision of his son: partly because the angel, ruling her imagination, presented and suggested this appearance and cause to her; partly because the angel marked the uncircumcised boy either by his look or by his finger; partly because Moses had taught her the precept of circumcision given by God under threat of death. Cajetan adds, fourthly, that there was a speech of the angel concerning the uncircumcised son, although Scripture does not express it here. 25. SEPHORA TOOK PRESENTLY A VERY SHARP STONE.—Not that circumcision necessarily had to be done with a stone knife, as S. Augustine thought, but because such a knife was the first that came to the hand of Sephora, a consternated and hurrying mother; especially since these things happened in Arabia Petraea, where Sina and Madian are, in which there is a greater supply and use of stones than of iron: whence they there sharpen stones like iron, and make from them very sharp knives: for otherwise, in Genesis xvii, where the law of circumcision is given, no mention is made of a stone: on which matter I shall say more at Josue v. Meanwhile see S. Thomas, Part III, Quest.
AND SHE CIRCUMCISED THE FORESKIN OF HER SON,—that is, of her sons, says Cajetan; for he thinks that both sons of Moses were here circumcised by Sephora. Secondly, Hugh of S. Victor thinks that only one son was here circumcised: because the mother, as a Gentile, had kept one son for herself as her own and uncircumcised, but had left the other to Moses to be circumcised; or Moses was leading only one son with him, and had left the other with his father-in-law, as a hostage of his love and goodwill. But Holy Scripture is against these, which expressly, verse 20, says that Moses on his return took his sons with him; but here, verse 25, says that the son, that is, one only of the two, was circumcised.
Hence, therefore, it appears that Eliezer alone, being newly born, was circumcised; but that the elder, Gersam, had already been circumcised before, as I have said.
AND SHE TOUCHED (Sephora, as is plain from the Hebrew, as though entreating for the life of her husband Moses) HIS FEET.—The Septuagint render, she fell down at his feet, namely of the angel assailing Moses, says Cajetan, that she might appease him with suppliant prayer. Secondly, the Chaldee renders, she cast the foreskin of the son at the feet of the angel, as if to say: If thou art angry with Moses on account of the uncircumcised boy, behold the circumcised foreskin of the boy; wherefore, being appeased, cease to pursue my husband. Thirdly, others say, “his feet,” that is, of the boy, as if to say: The mother touched or stained the feet of the boy, either with the shed blood or with the foreskin itself cast down.
I say truly: Sephora “touched his feet,” namely of Moses; for to him she said what follows: “A bloody spouse art thou to me.” She herself therefore touched her husband’s feet, and sprinkled them with the blood and foreskin of her son before the angel, that by this, as a price, she might save and redeem him from death, saying: “A bloody spouse art thou to me because of the circumcision,” as if she said: Thee, O husband, certainly destined to death by the angel, I buy again for myself as spouse with the blood of my son, which I shed by circumcising him.
Rupert therefore wrongly explains thus: she touched his feet, that is, she importunately besought Moses to permit her to return home to her father; for she was terrified by the vision of the angel. Whence follows: “And he let him go.” But then it should have been said: And he let her go, namely Moses let Sephora go.
Note: To touch the feet among the Jews was a sign now of love, now of reverence and adoration, especially of women toward men. So the Sunamite, praying to Eliseus for her son now dead, touches his feet, 4 Kings iv, 27. So Magdalen and the other pious women after the resurrection held the feet of Christ, Matthew, last chapter, verse 9. So (as is clear from the ancient Councils) it was the custom in the ancient Church that those who saluted Bishops touched their knees with the hand. This also was the custom of the Gentiles; whence that line in Homer, Iliad i, verse 499:
So Sidonius Apollinaris, bk. i, ep. 5: “Prostrate,” he says, “at the thresholds of the Apostles;” and in poem 7:
“She first fell at the knees of the Thunderer.” So by Pliny, bk. ix, ep. 21, a man is said to be “prostrate at the knees.” But those who begged pardon for a fault rolled at the feet as suppliants. Whence Peter Chrysologus, serm. 93: “Let him who seeks pardon stretch to the feet.” Salvian of Marseilles, in his letter to Hypatius and Quieta: “I fall at your knees, O dearest parents: I, your Palladia.” And suppliant children, prostrate at their parents’ feet, kissed their feet, says the same Salvian. The natural cause of this rite is given by Pliny, bk. xi, ch. xlv: “In the knees of man,” he says, “there is a certain religion, by the observation of the nations: suppliants touch these, toward these they stretch their hands, these they worship as altars; perhaps because the force of life is in them. Among the ancient Greeks, in supplicating, it was the custom to touch the chin.”
The second cause is that the knees were consecrated to mercy. Servius on that line of the Aeneid iii:
He had spoken, and, embracing his knees and rolling at his knees, clung to him;
“The natural philosophers,” he says, “say that single parts of the body are consecrated to divinities: the ear to Memory, the forehead to Genius, the right hand to Faith, the knees to Mercy.” And Pierius, Hierogl. 35: “All ancient superstition confesses,” he says, “that the knee is the seat of mercy, as the ear is held to be of memory, the nose of derision.” Those making vows, therefore, held the knees, to signify that they promised themselves what they asked from the mercy of which the knees are the seat. Of the gods of the Gentiles Arnobius says, bk. vi: “Do you not then laugh at these images, whose soles and knees you kiss and handle when you pray?” Hence the sealing of vows and the waxing of the knees of the gods. For each man fixed his vow, written on waxed tablets, to the knees of the gods. Juvenal, satire 10:
For which reasons it is lawful to wax the knees of the gods.
The third cause is that in the knees are placed the power of motion and progress, and that they themselves are a symbol of strength and undiminished vigour. For as to bend the knees is a profession of weakness and need, so not to bend them is a sign of dignity and power: whence the elephant was a symbol of royal power among the Egyptians because it does not bend its knees, that is, needs not the help of another, nor has any need to supplicate another; to touch the knees, therefore, is nothing else than to acknowledge the strength and power of another, by which he can bring help, if he will, and strengthen one who is falling.