Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 5:4
And this [is] the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, [that were] males, [even] all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
Of the whole nation those only were already circumcised at the time of the passage of the Jordan who had been under twenty years of age at the time of the complaining and consequent rejection at Kadesh (compare the marginal reference). These would have been circumcised before they left Egypt, and there would still survive of them more than a quarter of a million of thirty-eight years old and upward.
The statements of these verses are of a general kind. The forty years of Jos 5:6 is a round number, and the statement in the latter part of Jos 5:5 cannot be strictly accurate. For there must have been male children born in the wilderness during the first year after the Exodus, and these must have been circumcised before the celebration of the Passover at Sinai in the first month of the second year (compare Num 9:1-5, and Exo 12:48). The statements of the verses are, however, sufficiently close to the facts for the purpose in hand; namely, to render a reason for the general circumcising which is here recorded.
The reason why circumcision was omitted in the wilderness, was that the sentence of Num 14:28 ff placed the whole nation for the time under a ban; and that the discontinuance of circumcision, and the consequent omission of the Passover, was a consequence and a token of that ban. The rejection was not, indeed, total, for the children of the complainers were to enter into the rest; nor final, for when the children had borne the punishment of the fathers sins for the appointed years, and the complainers were dead, then it was to be removed, as now by Joshua. But for the time the covenant was abrogated, though Gods purpose to restore it was from the first made known, and confirmed by the visible marks of His favor which He still vouchsafed to bestow during the wandering. The years of rejection were indeed exhausted before the death of Moses (compare Deu 2:14): but God would not call upon the people to renew their engagement to Him until He had first given them glorious proof of His will and power to fulfill His engagements to them. So He gave them the first fruits of the promised inheritance – the kingdoms of Sihon and Og; and through a miracle planted their feet on the very soil that still remained to be conquered; and then recalled them to His covenant. It is to be noted, too, that they were just about to go to war against foes mightier than themselves. Their only hope of success lay in the help of God. At such a crisis the need of full communion with God would be felt indeed; and the blessing and strength of it are accordingly granted.
The revival of the two great ordinances – circumcision and the Passover – after so long an intermission could not but awaken the zeal and invigorate the faith and fortitude of the people. Both as seals and as means of grace and Gods good purpose toward them then, the general circumcision of the people, followed up by the solemn celebration of the Passover – the one formally restoring the covenant and reconciling them nationally to God, the other ratifying and confirming all that circumcision intended – were at this juncture most opportune.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. This is the cause why Joshua did circumcise] The text here explains itself. Before the Israelites left Egypt all the males were circumcised; and some learned men think that all those who were born during their encampment at Sinai were circumcised also, because there they celebrated the passover; but after that time, during the whole of their stay in the wilderness, there were none circumcised till they entered into the promised land. Owing to their unsettled state, God appears to have dispensed, for the time being, with this rite; but as they were about to celebrate another passover, it was necessary that all the males should be circumcised; for without this they could not be considered within the covenant, and could not keep the passover, which was the seal of that covenant. As baptism is generally understood to have succeeded to circumcision, and the holy eucharist to the passover, hence, in the Church of England, and probably in most others, no person is permitted to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper till he has been baptized.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is to be restrained to such as were then above twenty years old, and such as were guilty of that rebellion, Num 14, as it is expressed below, Jos 5:6.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4-7. this is the cause why Joshuadid circumciseThe omission to circumcise the children born inthe wilderness might have been owing to the incessant movements ofthe people; but it is most generally thought that the true cause wasa temporary suspension of the covenant with the unbelieving race who,being rejected of the Lord, were doomed to perish in the wilderness,and whose children had to bear the iniquity of their fathers (Nu14:33), though, as the latter were to be brought into thepromised land, the covenant would be renewed with them.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And this [is] the cause why Joshua did circumcise,…. Or the reason of the command given him to circumcise the children of Israel at this time, namely, what follows:
all the people that came out of Egypt [that were] males, [even] all the men of war; meaning such that were twenty years old, and upwards:
died in the wilderness, by the way, after they came out of Egypt; not directly, but in a course of forty years, as they journeyed through the wilderness; this is to be understood with an exception of Joshua, Caleb, Eleazar, &c. but then there was a large number who were under twenty years of age, that came out of Egypt, and were now living.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(4) The cause why Joshua did circumcise.As the narrative stands it is not quite obvious why uncircumcision is called the reproach of Egypt, whereas all the people born in Egypt were circumcised. The uncircumcision attached to those who were born in the wilderness, during the years of wandering. But that period of wandering, between the departure from Kadesh-barnea and the return to Kadesh (thirty-seven and a half years, Numbers 15-19, inclusive), is a kind of blank in the story of the Exodus. The five chapters which belong to it in the Book of Numbers contain no note of progress as to time or place. The people had turned back in their hearts to Egypt (Act. 7:39; Num. 14:4), and were bearing the reproach of their apostasy all those years, the reproach of Egypt. Suffering under the breach of promise of Jehovah (Num. 14:34), they appear to have omitted the sign of the covenant, as though they were no longer the people of God. The passage of Jordan was the practical proof of Israels restoration to Divine favour, and they were brought into covenant with Him once more.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. And this is the cause As this book contains not only a record of events, but also ascribes a rational cause to each, it may be classed among philosophical histories.
All the people This expression is limited first to the males, and then to those of military age, from twenty years old and upwards. Num 14:29-32.
Died in the wilderness Because of their rebellion against Jehovah, and the cowardice displayed when the panic-stricken spies made their exaggerated report. Num 14:21-35. Caleb and Joshua were the only exceptions to this sweeping sentence. Num 26:64-65.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised. All the people who came out of Egypt who were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. For all the people who came out were circumcised. But all the people who were born in the wilderness by the way, as they came out of Egypt, they had not been circumcised.’
The first ‘all the people’ is a generalisation. Joshua and Caleb at least were present. The point is rather to explain why so many were uncircumcised.
All the circumcised males of twenty years old and upwards sentenced by YHWH to die, had died during the forty years, but many of those under twenty who would also have been circumcised would still be alive. However, those born in the wilderness journeying had not been circumcised. It need not specifically mean that no one was circumcised after the leaving of Egypt, only that it was not the general practise. This lack of circumcision would also be true of the children of the mixed multitude (Exo 12:38), many of whom would not have been circumcised even in Egypt (although circumcision may have been required of them when they joined the covenant community). Thus those present with Joshua included many older men who had been circumcised and possibly some older men and certainly a large number of younger men and boys who had not. These were the ones to be circumcised as the covenant was renewed on entering the land.
The reason for not circumcising their infants may well have been because of the discomfort it would cause for everyone when they were journeying day by day. They would have been continually accompanied by infants in pain and discomfort who were being subjected to the extreme rigours of the journey. The fact that it had to take place on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) meant that it could not be left for a more convenient time.
“By the way, as they came out of Egypt.” Compare Deu 24:9; Deu 25:17. Once again we have evidence how well Joshua knew the words of Moses.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 4-7. And this is the cause, &c. The reason is clearly expressed in the text. Excepting Joshua and Caleb, all the six hundred thousand fighting men, who came out of Egypt, had died during the forty years that the people had dwelt in the desarts of Arabia; and during this interval of time they had neglected to circumcise the male children which were born there. But whence this negligence? It was not out of contempt, since the Scripture nowhere reproaches the Israelites on that account. But the learned have given us the following reasons for this long interruption of circumcision.
I. That the end of the ceremonial laws, especially circumcision, being to distinguish the Jews from the idolatrous nations, it was unnecessary to circumcise them in the desart, where it was not possible for them to mix with other people. This was the opinion of Theodoret and St. Jerome among the ancients; as it was of Grotius, Episcopius, and Le Clerc, among the moderns: we find it also espoused by Mr. Pyle.
II. The second and most generally received reason is, that the almost incessant motions of the Israelites, the uncertainty of the times of decamping, the barrenness of the places where they sojourned, and the inconveniences of travelling, rendering the operation very dangerous for children, God willingly dispensed with it. Some judicious rabbis have adopted this opinion; and it has been countenanced by several able commentators among us.
III. But these reasons do not seem equally satisfactory to every body. The marches of the Israelites were very far from being frequent during the last thirty-eight years of their stay in the wilderness. Besides, it would have been better to make some alteration with respect to time, and to refer this ceremony to the first encampment, instead of fixing it to the eighth day, rather than to omit it entirely; seeing that certain blessings were annexed to it. So that, in this respect, the practice of circumcision was indispensable, though the primary end of the institution was to prevent the children of Israel from forming connections with foreign nations. Add to this, that the latter consideration could not excuse them from the observation of a positive precept, even though circumcision had not been in use among any of the nations; which was by no means the case, this ceremony being practised by the Idumeans, and perhaps even by the Midianites. These, and other reflections, have determined some judicious critics to say, that circumcision was interrupted during the time that the Israelites travelled in the desart, because they did not esteem the precept of circumcision obligatory, till they saw themselves settled in the land of Canaan; and so much the rather, as there was nothing in this respect prescribed on the renewing of the covenant which was made at the foot of mount Sinai. Hence we may conclude, that circumcision was not so necessary to salvation as some writers, as well Christians as Jews, have thought; particularly the latter, among whom some have carried their superstition so far, as to circumcise their children even dead, when they could not do it while they lived.
Lastly, a writer of great reputation has advanced a conjecture, that the mixed multitude of the Egyptians which followed the Israelites being an image of the calling, of the Gentiles, it became necessary, that as the ceremonies, and particularly circumcision, were to be abolished; so, to take away the distinction which was between their posterity, the use of circumcision should be then suspended. Besides, God was unwilling that the suspension of this ceremony should continue till the Israelites took possession of the land of Canaan: 1st, For fear it might give room for the intrusion of Canaanites among the Hebrews. 2nd, That those who entered into the land of Canaan, being uncircumcised, as well as the children of the Egyptians, and afterwards becoming equal by circumcision, might have no opportunity to reproach them for their different original. See Allix on the Pentateuch.
Whatever may be the truth, or the different degrees of probability or strength of these reflections; it is certain, that God did not condemn the interruption of circumcision, or impute any crime to the Israelites on that account: and we may easily conceive, that the precept not being founded in nature, but merely positive and ceremonial, the argument drawn from the inconveniences of travelling was alone sufficient for dispensing with it under the divine approbation. The Israelites then only followed a maxim which they have generally followed; namely, that the administration of this sacrament may be deferred when it cannot be received without danger.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jos 5:4 And this [is] the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, [that were] males, [even] all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
Ver. 4. Died in the wilderness by the way. ] There their carcasses fell for their rebellion; and a new generation rose up which were now to be circumcised, that they might be in case to keep the passover.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
men. Hebrew, plural of ‘ish or ‘enosh. App-14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
All the: Num 14:22, Num 26:64, Num 26:65, Deu 2:16, 1Co 10:5, Heb 3:17-19
Reciprocal: Gen 17:10 – Every
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jos 5:4. All that came out of Egypt that were males died This is to be restrained to such as were then above twenty years old, and such as were guilty of the rebellion mentioned Numbers 14., as it is expressed Jos 5:6.