Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 5:2
At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
2. Make thee sharp knives ] Or, as in margin, knives of flint. “Stonen knyues,” Wyclif. In Exo 4:25 we read that Zipporah, the wife of Moses, took a “sharp stone,” or “knife of flint,” and circumcised her son. Joshua followed the custom of antiquity on this occasion, for they had no other knives with them. Herodotus, 11. 86, mentions “stone knives” as used by the Egyptian embalmers, and with such the priests of Cybele mutilated themselves. A representation of the Egyptian flint knife from the Museum at Berlin is given in Smith’s Biblical Dictionary.
and circumcise ] For forty years in the wilderness the nation had been under judgment, and those born there had not received the covenant mark of circumcision. To renew that rite in their case was the first necessity, that Israel might be restored to its full position as the Covenant-people of God.
the second time ] All, it is to be remembered, who, having come out from Egypt, were at the time of the sentence at Kadesh under twenty years old (Num 14:29), i.e. all at Gilgal, who were 38 years old and upwards, had been circumcised. The rite, therefore, now applies only to the residue.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Make thee sharp knives – Render rather as marg., and compare marginal reference and note. Knives of flint or stone were in fact used for circumcision, and retained for that and other sacred purposes, even after iron had become in common use. The rendering of the margin is adopted by almost all ancient versions, by most commentators, and by the fathers generally, who naturally regarded circumcision performed by Joshua and by means of knives of stone or rock, as symbolic of the true circumcision performed by Christ, who is more than once spoken of as the Rock (compare 1Co 10:4; Rom 2:29; Col 2:11). See Jos 21:42.
Circumcise again … – i. e. make that which once was a circumcised people but is not so now, once more a circumcised people. (See Jos 4:4-7.)
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Jos 5:2-9
Make thee sharp knives and circumcise.
The circumcising at Gilgal
Even those comparatively unenlightened people must have realised that there was deep spiritual significance in the administration of that rite at that juncture. On more than one occasion they had heard Moses speak of circumcising the heart, and they must have felt that God meant to teach them the vanity of trusting to their numbers, or prowess, or martial array. Their strength was nothing to Him. The land was not to be won by their might, but to be taken from His hand as a gift. Self and the energy of the flesh must be set aside, that the glory of coming victory might be of God and not of man. We must be content to be reckoned among the things that are not, if we are to be used to bring to nought the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. We, too, must have our Gilgal. It is not enough to acknowledge as a general principle that we are dead and risen with Christ, we must apply it to our inner and outer life. We have no warrant to say that sin is dead, or that the principle of sin is eradicated, but that we are dead to it in our standing, and are dead to it also in the reckoning of faith. But for this we need the gift of the Blessed Spirit, in His Pentecostal fulness. It was by the Eternal Spirit that our Lord offered Himself in death upon the Cross, and it is by Him alone that we can mortify the deeds of the body. For, first, the spirit of self is so subtle. It is like a taint in the blood, which, stayed in one place, breaks out in another. Protean in its shapes and ubiquitous in its hiding-places, it requires omniscience to discover, and omnipresence to expel. And, secondly, only the Spirit of God has cords strong enough to bind us to the altar of death; to remind us in the hour of temptation; to enable us to look to Jesus for His grace; to inspire us with the passion of self-immolation; to keep us true and steady to the resolves of our holiest moments; to apply the withering fire of the Cross of Jesus to the growth of our self-conceit and self-energy–for all these the grace of the Spirit is indispensable. He is the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, therefore He must be the Spirit of death to all that pertains to the old Adam. There is a sense in which all believers have been circumcised in Christ; but there is another sense in which it is needful for them to pass one after another through the circumcision of Christ which is not made with hands, and which consists in the putting off of the body of the flesh. To that all who would lead a life of victory and inherit the land of promise must submit. The process may be sharp, for the knife does not spare pain. But it is in the hands of Jesus, the lover of souls. Oh, shrink not from it! (F. B Meyer, B. A.)
Christian character
The more a man learns of God, the more he knows of grace. If we would apply to ourselves spiritually the lessons of the circumcision in the land, we must give the grace of God, which led to the circumcision, full place, and remember that God asks for the devotion of His people, because He has, in Christ, brought them into perfect favour. Was it by observing Gods ordinances, or was it through Gods almighty grace that Israel entered the land of promise? They entered it as a nation in uncircumcision, and therefore exclusively by Gods sovereign grace. And why did God not seek for circumcision from the people of Israel, so long as they walk in the wilderness? The wilderness was the scene of their distrust of God. A distrusting spirit is ignorant of Gods real character, and consequently is not morally fitted for separation to Himself; but God, having brought us by His grace to know ourselves to be in the heavenly places in Christ, seeks separation to Himself, corresponding with the liberty into which He has brought us. Grace known and realised is the only true power for heart separation to God. Circumcision with Israel was merely a carnal ordinance, and, in common with all ordinances, gave neither power for communion with God, nor for conflict with His enemies. It was a sign that the children of Israel were Gods earthly family, and a people separated from all the rest of mankind. The circumcision made without hands, with which the Christian is circumcised, in Christ, is a separation to God from the whole world. As the people of Israel, because brought through the Jordan, were enjoined by God to be circumcised, and their careless wilderness ways were allowed no longer, so the Christian, because he has died with Christ to the world, and to his old self, is exhorted to mortify his members, and his worldly ways are no longer permitted. This mortification is simply self-denial, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Man naturally loves sin; he loves his own way which is the essence of sin; but he who lives in Christ is called to die to himself in daily walk and conduct. There is no way of living to Christ but by dying to self. It was by no means sufficient to Israel to know that they went across the Jordan, in order to enjoy the riches of the inheritance; for until circumcision was effected none of Canaans food was spread before them, nor were they called to conflict. And we may be sure that so long as we walk in the flesh and please ourselves, there can be no communion–no feeding upon Christ. Neither can there be any victories for the Lord, unless self is subdued. Satan would beguile the youthful believer into the misty atmosphere of a Canaan of the imagination, where the flesh is allowed to work. In this aerial Christianity, circumcision–self-mortification–is not permitted; the practical result of being dead with Christ is not allowed to wound the will. But there is no stability of soul, no solid devotedness. Such a believer is like the insect, which, well-nigh composed of wings, and possessing scarcely any weight, is driven from the flower garden by the first storm. Sorrowful as is the result of letting the imagination carry away the soul, perhaps the effect of accepting Divine truth in intellectualism is more so. A Christian holding the doctrine of death with Christ, and resurrection with Christ, in the understanding only, goes out from the sunlight of Gods presence into a land of deathlike coldness. If circumcision in its spiritual signification were rightly valued, such abuses of the truth of God would certainly find no place in the believers heart. To mortify our members is not a painless exercise. Saying, We are dead, is not mortifying; but it is to deny the wishes of our old nature because we are dead (Rom 8:13). The mere fact of the people of Israels entrance into Canaan did not constitute them at liberty before God. They were brought into the land of promise by the passage of the Jordan, but were not pronounced free by Jehovah until circumcised. Gods liberty for His people is that of His own making, and therefore perfect. It is what He thoroughly approves and delights in. And the means by which, step by step, He brings His people into the enjoyment of this liberty, is grace. If we are Gods free men, it is evidently in the land of promise that we have liberty, for only in the fulness of Gods favour can we experience His rolling away the reproach of our bondage. (The Gospel in the Book of Joshua.)
Why was circumcision suspended in the wilderness?
Some have said that, owing to the circumstances in which the people were, it would not have been convenient, perhaps hardly possible, to administer the rite on the eighth day. Moving as they were from place to place, the administration of circumcision would often have caused so much pain and peril to the child, that it is no wonder it was delayed. And once delayed, it was delayed indefinitely. But this explanation is not sufficient. There were long, very long periods of rest, during which there could have been no difficulty. A better explanation, brought forward by Calvin, leads us to connect the suspension of circumcision with the punishment of the Israelites, and with the sentence that doomed them to wander forty years in the wilderness. When the worship of the golden calf took place, the nation was rejected, and the breaking by Moses of the two tables of stone seemed an appropriate sequel to the rupture of the covenant which their idolatry had caused. And though they were soon restored, they were not restored without certain drawbacks–tokens of the Divine displeasure. Probably the suspension of circumcision was included in the punishment of their sins. They were not to be allowed to place on their children the sign and seal of a covenant which in spirit and in reality they had broken. But it was not an abolition, only a suspension. The time might come when it would be restored. The natural time for this would be the end of the forty years of chastisement. These forty years have now come to an end. Doubtless it would have been a great joy to Moses if it had been given him to see the restoration of circumcision, but that was not to take place until the people had set foot on Abrahams land. We may well think of it as an occasion of great rejoicing. The visible token of his being one of Gods children was now borne by every man and boy in the camp. In a sense they now proved themselves heirs to the covenant made with their fathers, and might thus rest with firmer trust on the promise–I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee. Two other points demand a word of explanation. The first is the statement that all the people that were born in the wilderness . . . they had not circumcised (Jos 5:5). If the view be correct that the suspension of circumcision was part of the punishment for their sins, the prohibition would not come into operation for some months, at all events, after the exodus from Egypt. We think, with Calvin, that for the sake of brevity the sacred historian makes a general statement without waiting to explain the exceptions to which it was subject. The other point needing explanation is the Lords statement after the circumcision (Jos 5:9). The words imply that, owing to the want of this sacrament, they had lain exposed to a reproach from the Egyptians, which was now rolled away. What seems the most likely explanation is, that when the Egyptians heard how God had all but repudiated them in the wilderness, and had withdrawn from them the sign of His covenant, they malignantly crowed over them, and denounced them as a worthless race, who had first rejected their lawful rulers in Egypt under pretext of religion, and, having shown their hypocrisy, were now scorned and cast off by the very God whom they had professed themselves so eager to serve. But now the tables are turned on the Egyptians. The restoration of circumcision stamps this people once more as the people of God. (G. W. Blaikie, D. D.)
The reproach of Egypt
By this reproach we are to understand all that stigma which clung to Israel through its relation to Egypt. This stigma had two aspects, an inner and an outer; an active and a passive. It consisted in that feeling of humiliation and self-reproach, which must have rested on the heart of every intelligent and pious Israelite during the wilderness wanderings. And it also consisted in the feeling of scorn and contempt with which their great oppressors the Egyptians must have looked upon them during all that period. In its inward aspect, the reproach of Egypt was caused by spiritual assimilation to Egypt. Moses had said, The Lord will put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel. This difference was manifested in many striking ways, during the progress of Israels gradual emancipation. But when this rite was in abeyance, this difference was lost in a measure. Physically, there was no difference between the children born in Egypt after the Exodus and those born in the wilderness. Circumcision was, as it were, Gods brand on His people marking them for His own. Its lack proclaimed that they were Lo Ammi, not Gods people. But there could be no greater outward stigma than this. It was Israels glory to be Jehovahs peculiar people and to bear in their bodies the seal of His covenant. From this height of privilege they looked down on all men. For an Israelite, therefore, to consider his position during the forty years, would be to acknowledge that there was no difference, so far, between him and an Egyptian. Jehovah was no longer, in this mode of outward recognition, his God. But there was a deeper and more potent assimilation, of which the outward and physical was only the sign. There was on the part of Israel assimilation to Egypt in spirit. They reproached God for their redemption, saying that He had brought them from Egypt to destroy them; they actually went the length of appointing a leader to guide them back to the house of bondage. What could be more grievous than such sin? what could more plainly show their assimilation in heart to Egypt? Therefore to a pious and penitent Israelite there was here cause for the deepest abasement. His cry in self-reproach would be, My sin is ever before me. This also would be implied in the inner aspect of the reproach of Egypt. But in addition to this inner aspect of the reproach, there is also the outer to be considered. The reproach of Egypt not only consisted in those feelings which must have taken possession of a pious Israelite, but also in those taunts which must have been hurled at them by Egypt. Their haughty taskmasters would no doubt make their former bondmen a subject of reproach and mocking scorn. They would look down upon them, and speak of them with unutterable contempt. They would describe them as a despicable race of worthless runaways. And they would also find good cause for merriment in the prolonged wanderings in the wilderness. Where are all their high hopes? they might have said. They have ended in smoke. A great deal better off they are now than they were with us, hungering and thirsting in that desert, instead of living on the fat of the land! A nice wild-goose chase that famous Moses has led them. Such was the reproach of Egypt; but here and now it is rolled away. By this act at Gilgal Israel is no longer assimilated to Egypt in body. The knives of flint have again put a difference between Israel and Egypt. Each man bears in his body the mark of Jehovahs covenant. And seeing the land of Canaan was Gods gift to them as Abrahams seed, and to Abrahams seed as faithful to Jehovah, i.e., as circumcised, this act was a Divine and formal conveyance of the land to these men of Israel. Thus at Gilgal the title-deeds of Canaan were signed, sealed, and delivered; and thus again, the reproach of Egypt was rolled away. Israel is no longer a homeless wanderer but an heir of God. Also the assimilation to Egypt in spirit has come to an end. No longer are they uncircumcised in heart. Never again do they cast a longing, lingering look behind. Surely this transaction is also recorded for our instruction and reproof. Gilgal says, Put off the old man with his affections and lusts; put off all moral and spiritual assimilation to the world. Crucify the flesh and its deceitful lusts. Mortify the deeds of the body. The great need of the present age is to be brought in spirit to Gilgal, i.e., to learn to the very centre of our souls the spirit of self-sacrifice. The process may be painful, like cutting off a right arm or plucking out a right eye; yet it is the necessary sequel of entrance into Gods inheritance. And as it is the necessary sequel of entrance, so is it the necessary prelude to worship and to victory. There can be no true worship of God except our hearts are cleansed from the filthiness of the flesh. There can be no true victory for God, either within or without, except our souls are purged from the power of sin. (A. B. Mackay.)
The consecration of the Lords host at Gilgal; or, a revival
The need, the tokens, and the blessedness of this revival are set before us.
(1) Its need appears in the reproach of Egypt.
(2) Its tokens are the restoration of ordinances.
(3) Its blessedness consists in the return of favour.
I. Let us first dwell upon the need of Israels revival, as seen in the reproach of Egypt. There are many among us who have indeed left Egypt. To the questions, Is the Lord among us, or not?–Are we His people? they can humbly answer Yes; for He has given them sure pledges of their interest in the everlasting covenant. And yet, if asked to give a reason of the hope that is in them, they would not be ready. The answer of faith can scarce find utterance amid the sins and shortcomings that compass them round, and testify against them. Their words, their tempers, their works, their experiences, all seem to give the lie to their Christian profession and to their hope. The world of unbelievers, too, joins issue against them, and, discerning their failures and inconsistencies, derides their religion, calls them hypocrites, and prophesies their doom. This reproach of Egypt, lies heavy upon Gods saints who thus walk in darkness.
II. The narrative goes on to tell of the tokens of Israels revival, as seen in the restoration of ordinances. As the sacrament of baptism perpetuates and expands the teaching of the rite of circumcision, so that of the Lords Supper repeats the lessons of the Passover. The Christian ordinance looks back, as the Jewish sacrifice looked forward, to the death of Jesus as our substitute. Since the fall of Adam, there has been but this one way of salvation. May we, amid our fuller privileges, and clearer light, approach the same God whom Israel worshipped, confiding in the same atonement, and renew our covenant with Him in the breaking of bread, and the drinking of the cup of blessing. Our feast similarly commemorates the past, the present, and the future: for we herein shew forth an accomplished redemption, our own reconciliation thereby, and our participation in our Saviours love at the marriage feast above.
III. It remains for us now to speak of the blessedness of Israels revival, as seen in the return of favour.
1. First, the Lord expressly declares to Joshua, as the head and representative of the nation, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Blessed assurance!
2. Beside the answer of God to Joshua, a second gracious token was granted. The enemy was still as a stone. With blanched cheeks and palpitating hearts, the Canaanites looked on and saw the people all en-camped at Gilgal. Now, shall not Israel, with soldierly decision, seize on the opportunity, and ere they have recovered from their panic, strike a decisive blow, and so possess the land? Such is not the Lords order: but until the fourteenth day of the month the men of war are shut up in their tents; and then, as though in a land of peace, during a full week the Passover is kept throughout their families.
3. Was it not providentially ordered by a loving Father that Israel should be brought into the land at the time of harvest? Thus temporal supplies shall not fail those whom God accepts and approves: thus, also, spiritual provision shall never fail Gods people.
4. The close of the chapter presents us with a fourth token of the return of favour to Israel, in the manifestation to Joshua of the great Angel of the Covenant, with His drawn sword lifted, not in vengeance against Israel, but against their foes. This was the promised angel who should go before them, and lead them to victory. (G. W. Butler, M. A.
Gilgal
I. Attention to the special services which we owe to God ought to stand before all other considerations. What is religion? The question seems a simple one; but, indeed, it is one the true answer to which involves a great deal. The term is a most comprehensive one, including all that men should believe and all that men should do. A religious person is one whose heart has been imbued with Christian truth, and whose affection has laid hold on God as revealed in the Scriptures with a firm grasp; a person whose life, regulated increasingly by such principles, manifests more and more of the beauty of holiness. In religion, then, we come to deal with the doctrine and the practice of the Bible. It tells of what may alarm, and what may soothe. It shows a reality of wretchedness, want, guilt and death in which men are by nature; and a reality of joy, perfection, righteousness and life in which they may be by grace. It appeals to men as immortal beings, urges on them the consideration of their immortal interests, and in the words of Him, around whom all true religion circles and to whom it is intended to lead, charges all thus: Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. I would ask you, seriously, should not this matter have our first and most solemn consideration? Is there any matter which ought to engage us before this?
II. We may repose implicit confidence in God while walking in his ways and aiming at his glory. Men are never losers by religion. The man who can style himself servant of Christ has a Master whose service is the guarantee for every possible good. Affairs and matters come to be so differently weighed and estimated, when heavenly wisdom is granted for the test, that it is no wonder to find men reckoning gains and losses, probabilities and duties, by a standard the reverse of that which they formerly used. What if we had accosted the leader of the hosts of Israel when he promulgated the order for observing circumcision and the Passover at Gilgal? Suppose that we had said, Strike your decisive blow; push on at once; select your picked men, and leave the rest to fortify your position, and to take care of the women and children; go straight up to Jericho. Your rite of circumcision Will render you defenceless, your paschal feast is hardly fitted to such a critical position and such unusual circumstances as yours. Suppose that we had argued with Joshua thus. Would not his reply have been, We can trust God: we know Him. He has said, I will not fail you, nor forsake you? (C. D. Marston, M. A.)
Time taken for religious duties is not lost
Dr. James Hamilton once related an anecdote which illustrates a vital question in the Christian life. A writer recounts it as follows: A gallant officer was pursued by an overwhelming force, and his followers were urging him to greater speed, when he discovered that his saddle-girth was becoming loose. He coolly dismounted, repaired the girth by tightening the buckle, and then dashed away. The broken buckle would have left him on the field a prisoner; the wise delay to repair damages sent him on in safety amid the huzzas of his comrades. The Christian who is in such haste to get about his business in the morning that he neglects his Bible and his season of prayer rides all day with a broken buckle.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 2. Make thee sharp knives] charboth tsurim, knives of rock, stone, or flint. Before the use of iron was common, all the nations of the earth had their edge-tools made of stones, flints, c. In the lately discovered islands this is found to be a common case. Our ancestors in these countries made their arrow and spear-heads of flint: these I have often seen turned up by the plough. But we cannot suppose that at the time here referred to the Israelites were destitute of iron, and were therefore obliged to use knives made of stone or flint, their different manufactures in the wilderness prove that they must have had both iron and steel. Why then use knives made of stone? Probably it was unlawful to use metal of any kind in this religious rite and indeed this seems likely from the circumstance of Zipporah (Ex 4:25) taking a sharp stone and circumcising her son; and we find, from the most ancient and authentic accounts, that the Egyptians considered it unlawful or profane to use any kind of metal to make incisions in the human body, when preparing it for embalming; see the note on Ge 50:2, and on Ex 4:25. That it was deemed improper to use any other kind of instrument in circumcision we have a proof in the tribe Alnajab, in Ethiopia, who follow the Mosaic institution, and perform the rite of circumcision, according to Ludolf, cultris lapidibus, with knives made of stone. – Hist. AEthiop., lib. iii., c. 1. And as God commanded the people to make him an altar of unhewn stones, on which no tool of iron had been lifted up, because this would pollute it, (see Ex 20:25, and De 27:5), he might require that no instrument of iron should be used in a rite by which the body and soul of the person were in the most solemn and sacred manner dedicated to him to be his house and temple, the heart itself being the altar on which continual sacrifices to God must be offered. A physical reason has been given for preferring knives of stone in this operation, “the wound suffers less through inflammation, and is sooner healed.” For this a reason may be given. It is almost impossible to get an edge made so even and firm as not to leave particles of the metal in the incisions made even in the most delicate flesh; these particles would soon become oxidized by the action of the air, and extra inflammation in the part would be the consequence. The great aptitude of iron to be oxidized, i.e., to be converted to rust, is well known; but how far this reasoning, thus applied, may be supported by fact, I cannot pretend to determine: it is sufficiently evident that it was a common custom to use knives of stone in circumcision, and in all operations on those parts of the human body. I shall give a few examples. Pliny says, when they amputate certain parts they do it with a sharp stone, because nothing else could be employed without danger. Samia testa virilitatem amputabant: nec aliter citra perniciem.
Ovid, Fast. lib. iv., ver. 237, relates a circumstance where the saxum acutum, or sharp stone, was used about those parts: –
Ille etiam SAXO corpus laniavit ACUTO,
Longaque in immundo pulvere tracta coma est.
Voxque fuit, Merui; meritas dem sanguine poenas;
Ah! pereant partes quae nocuere mihi;
Ah! pereant; dicebat adhuc, onus inguinis aufert;
Nullaque sunt subito signa relicta viri.
This quotation is produced in order to prove that a knife made of a sharp stone was used in making incisions and amputations of certain parts of the body, even when the use of iron was well known; but a translation of the verse is not necessary, and would be improper. The
Mollia qui RAPTA secuit GENITALIA TESTA
of Juvenal (Sat. vi., ver. 513) is a farther proof of this. Many other proofs might be produced but those who wish for more may consult Calmet and Scheuchzer.
Circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.] This certainly does not mean that they should repeat circumcision on those who had already received it. This would have been as absurd as impracticable. But the command implies that they were to renew the observance of a rite which had been neglected in their travels in the desert: this is sufficiently evident from the following verses.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
At that time; as soon as ever they were come to Gilgal, which was on the tenth day; and so this might be executed the next, or the eleventh day, and that in the morning: on the thirteenth day they were sore of their wounds, and on the fourteenth day they recovered, and at the even of that day kept the passover.
Make thee sharp knives; or, prepare, or make ready, as this word is sometimes used. As it was not necessary for those who had such knives already to make others for that use; so it is not probable that such were commanded to do so, but only to make them sharp and fit for that work. They are called in Hebrew knives of flints, not as if they were all necessarily to be made of flints, but because such were commonly used, especially in those parts, where there was but little iron; and because such knives were oft used in this work, as the Jewish doctors note, and in such like works, as the heathen writers relate. Thus we call that an ink-horn which is made of silver, because those utensils are commonly made of horn.
Circumcise again; he calleth this a second circumcision, not as if these same persons had been circumcised once before, either by Joshua, or by any other, for the contrary is affirmed below, Jos 5:7; but with respect unto the body of the people, whereof one part had been circumcised before, and the other at this time, which is called a
second time, in relation to some former time wherein they were circumcised; either,
1. In Egypt, when many of the people, who possibly for fear or favour of the Egyptians had neglected this duty, were by the command of Moses (who had been awakened by the remembrance of his own neglect and danger thereupon) circumcised; which during the ten plagues, and the grievous confusion and consternation of the Egyptians, they might easily find opportunity to do. Or,
2. At Sinai, when they received the passover, Num 9:5, which no uncircumcised person might do, Exo 12:48; and therefore it may not seem improbable, that all the children born in that first year after their coming out of Egypt, and all they who peradventure might come out of Egypt in their uncircumcision, were now circumcised.
Object. 1. All that came out of Egypt were circumcised, Jos 5:5.
Answ. 1. This may be true, but he doth not say when and where they were circumcised; nor doth he deny that this was done to some of them, either in time of the plagues in Egypt, or at Sinai.
2. All is very oft used of the greatest part, as is confessed.
Object. 2. All the people that were born in the wilderness were not circumcised, Jos 5:5.
Answ. 1. Understand this also of the greatest part.
2. This is limited to them that were born by the way, as it is said there, and emphatically repeated, Jos 5:7, i.e. in their journeys and travellings; which insinuates the reason why they were not circumcised, because they were always uncertain of their stay in any place, and were constantly to be in a readiness for a removal when God took up the cloud: but this reason ceased at Sinai, where they knew they were to abide for a considerable time; and seeing they took that opportunity for the celebration of the passover, it is likely they would improve it also to the circumcision of their children or others, which they ought to prize highly, and to embrace all occasions offered for it; which though the people might, it is not likely that biases would neglect.
Object. 3. They are said to have remained uncircumcised forty whole years in the wilderness, Jos 5:6.
Answ. i.e. For almost forty years; as the same phrase is used Num 14:33,34; 32:13, when there was above one year of that number past and gone. Or,
3. In Abraham; and so the sense may be, The first circumcision conferred upon Abraham, and continued in his posterity, hath been for many years neglected or omitted; and so that great and solemn pledge of my covenant with you is in a manner wholly lost, and therefore it is but fit and necessary to have this long-interrupted practice of circumcision revived, and to have Abrahams posterity circumcised a second time for the renewing of the covenant between them and me again.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. At that timeon theencampment being made after the passage.
the Lord said unto Joshua,Make thee sharp knivesStone knives, collect and make themready. Flints have been used in the early times of all people; andalthough the use of iron was known to the Hebrews in the days ofJoshua, probably the want of a sufficient number of metallicimplements dictated the employment of flints on this occasion(compare Ex 4:25).
circumcise again the childrenof Israel the second timeliterally, “return andcircumcise.” The command did not require him to repeat theoperation on those who had undergone it, but to resume the observanceof the rite, which had been long discontinued. The language, however,evidently points to a general circumcising on some previous occasion,which, though unrecorded, must have been made before the celebrationof the passover at Sinai (compare Exo 12:48;Num 9:5), as a mixed multitudeaccompanied the camp. “The second time” of generalcircumcising was at the entrance into Canaan.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
At that time the Lord said unto Joshua,…. When the people had passed over Jordan, and had pitched in Gilgal, and Joshua had set up the stones there; and particularly when the dread of them had seized the inhabitants of Canaan, and deprived them of all their courage; and so was a fit time for the execution of what is next ordered, and seems designed in the providence of God among other things particularly for that:
make them sharp knives; not that Joshua was to make them himself, but to order them to be made; for a considerable number would be wanted for the use to be made of them: the Targum calls them sharp razors; and Ben Gersom says they were made of brass, more likely of iron or steel, which perhaps he means; but the Hebrew text is, “knives of rocks”, “flints” or “stones”; and so Maimonides p interprets the words, and as they are rendered in various versions q; with such an instrument Zipporah circumcised her son; and like them were the “samia testa” r, with which the priests of the mother of the gods were castrated; and the “saxum acutum” of Ovid s; and such the Americans used in slaying beasts, and the Egyptians t in the dissecting of their dead bodies; and which the Talmudists allow of as lawful; and in the east the Jews to this day use knives of stone in circumcision u;
[See comments on Ex 4:25].
and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time; not that circumcision was to be repeated on them that had been circumcised already, who had found out ways and means to draw over the foreskin again, as some in later times did; or who had been imperfectly circumcised according to the rite enjoined by Abraham, which some Jewish writers say was not perfect; neither of which was the case. Kimchi, and so Ben Melech, interpret the word, “oftentimes”, frequently, one time after another; as if the sense was, Joshua was to circumcise them, or take care they were circumcised, some at one time, and some at another, until the whole was finished; but this is not what is meant, it refers to a former general circumcision; not to the circumcision, as first administered in Abraham’s time, for there had been a multitude of instances of it since that time; but to the circumcision of the Israelites at, about, or quickly after their coming out of Egypt; either before their eating of their first passover, the night they went out of Egypt, as Jarchi w; or rather some time in the three days’ darkness of the Egyptians, as Dr. Lightfoot x thinks; or else when they were about Sinai, just before the celebration of the passover there, Nu 9:1; from which time it had been neglected; not cause unnecessary, while they were in the wilderness, to distinguish them from others, which was not the principal, at least not the only use of it; nor because forbidden the Israelites for their disobedience, murmurings, and rebellion, it not being probable that God should prohibit the observance of a command of his on that account; nor so much through criminal neglect, at least contempt of it, as because of their frequent journeying, and the inconvenience of performing it, being always uncertain, when they had pitched their tents, how long they should stay, and when they should remove, since this depended upon the taking up of the cloud; wherefore, unless they could have been sure of a continuance for a proper time, it was not safe to administer it; and now it was enjoined, partly because they were about to celebrate the passover, which required circumcision in all that partook of it,
Ex 12:43; and partly because they had now entered into the land of Canaan, which was given them in the covenant of circumcision,
Ge 17:8; wherefore it became them now to observe it, and as typical of spiritual circumcision, necessary to the heavenly Canaan, as well as to distinguish them from the uncircumcised Canaanites they were coming among; and they did not think themselves under obligation to observe it till they came to settle in that land, as some think, who hereby account for their long neglect of it.
p Moreh Nevochim, par. 1. c. 16. q , Sept. “cultros lapideos”, V. L. “cultros petrarum”, Munster, Montanus, Piscator. r Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 35. c. 12. Arnob. adv. Gentes, l. 5. p. 189. s Fast. l. 4. ver. 237. t Herod. Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 86. u Vid. Pfeiffer. Dubia Vexata, cent. 2. loc. 46. w So in Pirke Eliezer, c. 29. x Works, vol. 1. p. 40.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Reproach of Egypt Removed, Vs. 2-9
The act now necessitated among the Israelites is illustrative of the rebellious hearts of the generation which fell in the wilderness during Israel’s forty years of wandering. Their rebellion and disbelief which made them refuse to enter the land of Canaan when they first arrived caused them to wander until all the rebels had died. It is interesting to note here that the inspired author makes clear that only those “who were men of war”, thus those of the numbering, died under the Lord’s judgment, so exempting females and Levites who were not in the number, though they may have been in the age bracket. This does not mean that many of these did not die of natural consequences of age. Their stubborn rebelliousness included their failure to circumcise their sons, born in the wilderness, according to the covenant with Abraham. Now the Lord commands Joshua to make sharp knives and to circumcise these upon whom the rite had not been performed. This failure is called the “reproach of Egypt,” indicating that the people of the old generation had retained the habits of Egypt. The place of their camp was called Gilgal, which means “rolling” (Hebrew), because with the circumcision of the new generation the Lord declared that He had rolled away the reproach of Egypt from the Israelites, (2Co 5:17).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. At that time the Lord said, etc It seems very strange and almost monstrous, that circumcision had so long been laid aside, especially as it became those who were receiving daily admonitions to be more than usually careful to cultivate the exercises of piety. It was the symbol of the adoption to which they owed their freedom. And it is certain that when they were reduced to extremity and groaning under tyranny, they always circumcised their children. We know also how sternly God threatened to be an avenger against any one who should allow the eighth day to pass. Had the observance been neglected in Egypt their carelessness might have admitted of excuse, as at that time the covenant of God appeared to have become in a manner obsolete. But now when the divine faithfulness in establishing the covenant is once more refulgent, what excuse could there be for not testifying on their part that they are the people of God
The apology which commentators offer is altogether frivolous. I admit that they were constantly under arms, and always uncertain when they would require to move. But I hold it erroneous to infer from this that they had not a day’s leisure, and that it would have been cruel to circumcise tender infants when the camp must shortly after have been moved. Nothing ought to have weighed so much with them as to produce a contemptuous disregard of what had been said to Abraham, (Gen 17:14) The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from the people. But if there was risk of life in the circumcision, the best and only method was to trust to the paternal providence of God, who certainly would not have allowed his own precept to become fatal to infants. In short, the omission from a fear of danger, could not originate in any other cause than distrust. But even had it been certain that infants would be brought into danger, God ought nevertheless to have been obeyed, inasmuch as the seal of the covenant by which they were received into the Church was more precious than a hundred lives. Nor would Moses have suffered such cowardly procedure had he not been influenced by some different motive. Moreover, though the point is doubtful, I presume that they did not desist from circumcising their children, the very first day after their departure, but only after they had been obliged to retrace their steps through their own perverseness. And in this way both the defection and the punishment are accurately expressed, For it is not said that circumcision was resumed, because the constant change of place during their wanderings made it previously impossible, but because forty years behooved to elapse until those wicked apostates who had cut themselves off from the promised inheritance were consumed.
Attention should be paid to the reason here given, namely, that the children of Israel wandered through the desert till the whole of the generation which had refused to follow God was extinct; from this we may, in my opinion, infer, that the use of circumcision ceased during the whole of that period as a sign of malediction or rejection. It is true, indeed, that the penalty was inflicted on the innocent, but it was expedient that the fathers should be chastised in their person, as if God were repudiating them for the time to come. When they saw that their offspring differed in no respect from profane persons and strangers, they had a plain demonstration of what they themselves deserved.
Here, however, an inconsistency seems to arise in respect, first, that while they were condemned, their offspring were immediately received into favor; and secondly, that to themselves also was left a hope of pardon; and more especially, that they were not deprived of the other sacraments of which they could not be partakers, except on the ground of their being separated from profane nations.
The Lord, I admit, in rejecting them, declares at the same time that he will be propitious to their children, but to behold in their offspring a sign of repudiation till they themselves all perished, was salutary chastisement. For God withdrew the pledge of his favor only for a time, and kept it, as it were, locked up until their death. This punishment, therefore, was not properly inflicted on the children who were afterwards born, but had the same effect as a suspension, just as if God were making it manifest that he had put off circumcision for a time lest it should be profaned, but was waiting for an opportunity of renewing it.
Should any one object that it was absurd to celebrate the Passover in uncircumcision, I admit that it was so according to the usual order. For none were admitted to the Passover and the sacrifices save those who were initiated into the worship of God; just as in the present day the ordinance of the Supper is common only to those who have been admitted into the Church by baptism. But the Lord might choose for a time to alter the ordinary rule, and allow those from whom he had taken away circumcision to be partakers of other sacred rites. Thus the people were excommunicated in one matter, and yet, in the meanwhile, furnished with fit aids to prevent them from falling into despair; just as if a father, offended with his son, were to raise his fist, apparently to drive him away, and were at the same time to detain him by his other hand, — were to frighten him by threats and blows, and yet be unwilling to part with him. This seems to me to have been the reason why God, while depriving the people of the special pledge of adoption, was, however, unwilling to deprive them of other ordinances.
Should it be objected that there is a distinct assertion that none were circumcised on the way after they had set out, I answer, that, with a view to brevity, all things are not stated exactly, and yet that it may be gathered from the context that none remained uncircumcised but those who were born after the sedition. For it is said that their sons, whom God substituted for them, were circumcised by Joshua. From this it appears that a new people were then created to supply the place of perverse rebels. It was, moreover, a sad and severe trial that God did not choose to have the people circumcised till they were hemmed in by enemies on every side. It would, certainly, have been safer and more convenient to perform the rite before crossing the Jordan, in the land of Bashan, which had been reduced to peace by the overthrow of the inhabitants. The Lord waits till they are shut up in the midst of enemies, and exposed to their lust and violence, as if he were purposely exposing them to death; since all weakened by their wound must have given way at once, and been slaughtered almost without resistance. For if in similar circumstances (Gen 34:0) two sons of Jacob, were able to force their way into the town of Sichem and plunder it, after slaying its citizens, how much more easy would it have been for the neighboring nations to attack the Israelites while thus wounded, and make a general massacre of them.
This was, therefore, as I have said, a very harsh trial, and hence the readiness with which it was submitted to is deserving of the greater praise. The place itself, however, appears to have been purposely selected by the divine wisdom, that they might be more disposed to obey. Had the same command been given on the other side of the Jordan, there was reason to fear that they might be cast into despondency, and from the delay thus interposed might again decline to enter the land. But now, when they had been brought into possession under happy auspices, as if by the hand of God, and conceived from the removal of this one obstacle a sure hope of warring with success, it is not wonderful if they obey more willingly than they might have done if they had not been so singularly strengthened. The very sight of the promised land must have furnished additional incentives, when they understood that they were again consecrated to God, in order that their uncircumcision might not pollute the holy land.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE CIRCUMCISION OF ISRAEL BY JOSHUA (Jos. 5:2-9).
(2) Make thee sharp knives.Authorities are divided between the rendering sharp knives and knives of flint. The first seems best supported, as far as the meaning of the words is concerned. The expression is knives of tsurim. The word tsr does not seem anywhere to be connected with the material of the tool, but rather with the edge of it. Knives of keen edge is, therefore, the better translation. At the same time they may have been stone knives in this instance. The idea that they were so is supported by an addition in the LXX. to Jos. 24:30 : They put with him (Joshua) into the tomb . . . the knives of stone with which he circumcised the children of Israel . . . and there they are to this day. The ceremony being a kind of special consecration, it is not unlikely to have been performed with special instruments, which were not used before or after. Comp. Psa. 89:43, Thou hast turned the tsr (keen edge) of his sword; 2Sa. 2:16, Helkath Hazzurimi.e., the field of keen blades; Exo. 4:25, Zipporah took a tzr ; Eze. 3:9, an adamant harder than tzr.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CIRCUMCISION RESTORED, Jos 5:2-9.
[It seems at first sight strange that the chosen people for forty years neglected circumcision. The clue to a proper explanation of this neglect is furnished in the following verses, especially in Jos 5:9, where allusion is made to the reproach of Egypt. This reproach is explained, in Exo 32:12; Num 14:13-16; Deu 9:28, as the scoffing words and ridicule which the Egyptians would so naturally utter against the Hebrews when the latter suffered from God’s anger. After the rebellion and murmuring at Kadesh, Jehovah condemned that generation to perish in the wilderness. Num 14:29-34. During the forty years that followed they were under the ban of that sweeping curse, and observed neither circumcision nor the passover. These sacraments were sacred seals of their covenant with Jehovah, and, the covenant being broken by their rebellion, that cursed generation could not renew it. See further on Jos 5:5-6. But the mighty miracle of the Jordan, which now spread terror among the nations, silenced this reproach, and hence the propriety of renewing the covenant in Gilgal.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2. At that time That is, during the interval of four days between the passage of Jordan and the passover, (see Jos 4:19, note,) and while their foes are dismayed and panic-stricken. This was a very opportune occasion to perform the rite of circumcision, which for a season unfitted its subjects for military duty.
Circumcise again the second time This does not imply that there had been a previous time of general circumcising, as some say, at Sinai, but a previous state of circumcision. See Jos 5:5. The rite was not performed twice on the same individual, but the sense is, Resume again the rite of circumcision as it was practiced forty years ago.
The children of Israel All the males who were born after the Hebrews left Egypt.
Sharp knives Hebrew, knives of rocks, stones, or flints.
Such an instrument was used by Zipporah in circumcising the son of Moses. Exo 4:25. Knives among rude barbarians are first made of flint. It is probable that this was used in the first circumcision by the patriarchs, and the same instrument was used by Joshua not from necessity for he had iron tools but from deference to ancient custom. It is said also that the wound made with a sharp stone is less liable to inflammation than one made with metal. These knives were to be made for the occasion, as it would not be proper to use in a religious rite instruments employed in common uses. Knives that had been used for other purposes might inoculate the circumcised person with the virus of some disease. Hiob Ludolph, in his history of the Ethiopians, speaks of a tribe of the Alnaei who performed the rite with stone knives as recently as one hundred and sixty years ago. According to the Septuagint version of Jos 24:30, the stone knives used on this occasion were deposited in the tomb of Joshua as sacred relics. Perhaps some modern geologists would consider them relics of a “stone age.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘At that time YHWH said to Joshua, “Make yourself knives of flint and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.” ’
This did not mean circumcising those who were already circumcised for a second time (see Jos 5:7), but reintroducing circumcision as something to be carried out on those who had not been circumcised during the journey through the wilderness and what followed.
Circumcision was an ancient rite practised in both Egypt and Canaan, and Abraham, having arrived from the north, was told to adopt the practise as a sign of YHWH’s covenant with him (Genesis 17). No one who was uncircumcised was to be allowed to eat the Passover (Exo 12:44; Exo 12:48). Thus Abraham circumcised the whole of his family tribe ‘the first time’. Then from Abraham to the Exodus the rite of circumcision on the eighth day after birth was carried out on every male child as a continuation of that ceremony. But the journey from Egypt had interrupted the rite, for no circumcision took place in the wilderness. Thus it had to commence as a group matter ‘a second time’. It had possibly not been seen as helpful for people to be circumcised while constantly travelling due to the days of soreness that followed, and we must presume that Moses considered that YHWH Himself had given them a dispensation from it for the period.
Joshua used flint knives for the performance of the rite, even though it was at a time when the use of metal was well known and metal knives were to hand. It is clear from this that the ceremony was seen as so sacred, and so ancient, that the original methods had to be followed. Moses’ failure to circumcise his son had led to almost fatal illness until the situation was remedied (Exo 4:24-26). A flint was also used there. The use of flint knives, freshly prepared from new flints, meant that the knives were naturally the equivalent of having been sterilised, which metal knives would not have been.
Circumcision was an ancient institution not limited to the family tribe of Abraham and was practised in Egypt in the Old Kingdom period. But there it was carried out during boyhood rather than at infancy. A sixth dynasty Egyptian tomb relief depicts a boy being circumcised, probably with a flint knife, and two prisoners of a Canaanite king depicted on a 12th century BC Megiddo ivory, were also circumcised. But it is clear that in Abraham’s family tribe circumcision was not practised up to Genesis 17, and it was not generally practised in Mesopotamia from where Abraham came. Modern medicine has shown the value of circumcision in protecting the health of those who live in semi-desert conditions as it helps to prevent foreign bodies becoming trapped under the foreskin.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 2. At that time the Lord said unto Joshua This was the morning after the passage, the 11th day of the first month, as the learned Usher and others have very probably conjectured.
Make thee sharp knives Or, as in the Margin of our Bibles, knives of flints; which stones might be found in great plenty on the adjacent mountains: and, as Theodoret observes, perhaps, after a pilgrimage of forty years in the solitary wilderness of Arabia, the Hebrews might not be provided with knives of iron or steel, such as we now use. ‘Tis very evident, that Joshua here commands them to provide knives, and it is by no means improbable that they were made of flint. The Jews acknowledge in the Talmud, that flints, glass, or quills of reed, might be used for killing of beasts. Whence Hackspan apprehends, that as knives of stone were sufficient for killing of animals, they might be employed in circumcision. He adds, however, that the rabbis forbad the use of reeds in this operation, because there was danger lest they might hurt the part. They at present circumcise in the east with knives made of stone, in imitation of Zipporah, who is said to have set the example in the circumcision of her son; see Exo 4:25 but this matter is very uncertain: Be it as it may, we cannot doubt that the use of knives and axes of stone were common among the ancients. The Americans commonly make use of stones for knives, razors, and lancets. Thus every thing tends to give the Hebrew word tzur its natural signification, and to confirm Maimonides’s translation, who renders it, not sharp knives, but knives of stone. Justin Martyr and Theodoret, who likewise give this version, think there was something mysterious in the life of these knives; something emblematical of the spiritual circumcision of Christians; because Jesus Christ is called a rock in 1Co 10:4. See Scheuchzer on the place.
And circumcise again the children of Israel the second time This badly-translated passage has given room for strange notions, both among the Jews, and with several Christian interpreters. It does not imply that they were now to be circumcised, who had already undergone that operation. Indeed, the rabbis pretend that this was the case; and St. Augustine informs us, that some ancient doctors, on this supposition, founded a necessity of repeating baptism. But, whatever the Jews may advance respecting the imperfect manner in which circumcision was administered in the wilderness, it has no foundation but in their fancy. All that God here commands, is, “to resume the custom of circumcision, which, generally speaking, was neglected in the desart.” But if it be asked, When was this injunction to revive circumcision first given? We answer, probably at the foot of mount Sinai, in the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt. Some are of opinion, that the expression, a second time, refers to the circumcision of Abraham and his family. It is well known, that, on the 14th day of the first month, the Israelites were called to the solemn celebration of the passover; and that, according to the law, no one could share in the solemnities of that feast if uncircumcised, or even if any one of his family or household was so. Certainly then, Moses took care to have all those circumcised who had neglected in Egypt to assume this token of the covenant: and though it be nowhere said that circumcision was so neglected in Egypt, especially during the year in which the Israelites left it, we may easily conceive, that in their servitude, wherein they groaned under the cruel yoke of the Egyptians, and afterwards in the long and toilsome marches which they had to make till their arrival at mount Sinai, several of them had dispensed with the performance of their duty. Perhaps, even, the frequent absence of Moses at the beginning of their stay in the neighbourhood of Sinai favoured this negligence of the parents towards their children; so that, on the eve of celebrating the passover, Moses was obliged to rectify this evil, by ordering, without delay, those to be circumcised who had neglected that sacrament. Here Joshua receives orders to require the same thing; and as this is the second time of giving that command, it is expressed in those terms which specify the repetition of it, and amounts to this, namely, let the ceremony of circumcision, which has been so long discontinued, be renewed.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
As circumcision was a sign or seal of the everlasting covenant God made with Abraham, and evidently referred to Him in whom the law was to be completed: it is not very easy to account for the long neglect of this rite, while the church was in the wilderness state. Might it not be omitted, from the frequent unbelief, which so many times broke out in the camp? And, as the Lord had sworn in his wrath, that the generation which came out of Egypt, should not enter the land of promise; which, as a type of the great promise of redemption, was referred to in circumcision; probably the Israelites concluded the rite to be no longer their privilege, when the blessing folded up in it they were no longer entitled to. Be this as it may; the Lord commands the rite to be renewed. The people have now entered upon the promised land. This seal reminds them once more of the covenant. It distinguisheth them from their idolatrous neighbours; takes away the reproach of Egypt, who had said, that for mischief the Lord had brought them out to destroy them in the wilderness. The slander is now done away. They are proved to be God’s people, and the Lord their God. But, Reader, let not you and I stop here. Circumcision had an eye to Jesus. In the Old Testament it was appointed with reference to Him, with whom the everlasting covenant is made, and in whom it is completed. And from our Father’s entrance into Canaan, until the coming of Jesus in the flesh, it is plain that it was appointed as a standing ordinance. But when the Son of God came in substance of our flesh, and submitted to this Jewish rite, by way of taking upon him the obligation to fulfil the whole law, from that time it ceased to be necessary, or even proper. The substance being come, the shadow is forever done away. Believers in Jesus are included, as the Holy Ghost taught the church by the apostle, in that circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. Gal 5:2 ; Col 2:11 ; Gal 6:15 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jos 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
Ver. 2. Make thee sharp knives. ] Heb., Knives of edges, or knives of flints, cultros lapideos (so one rendereth it) id est, cote acutos.
And circumcise again the children of Israel the second time,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED TEXT): Jos 5:2-7
2At that time the LORD said to Joshua, Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time. 3So Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. 4This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way after they came out of Egypt. 5For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6For the sons of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, that is, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished because they did not listen to the voice of the LORD, to whom the LORD had sworn that He would not let them see the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7Their children whom He raised up in their place, Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them along the way.
Jos 5:2 There are three Qal IMPERATIVES in Jos 5:2 :
1. make, BDB 793, KB 889
2. again (literally turn or return), BDB 996, KB 1427
3. circumcise, BDB 557, KB 555
This was an act of covenant obedience and an act of faith because they were so close to Jericho and would be unable to defend themselves for several days. Circumcision for adults is a painful and debilitating experience (cf. Gen 34:25).
make for yourself flint knives These flint knives became a traditional instrument with which to perform circumcision because they are very sharp (cf. Exo 4:25). It is unusual that the Septuagint of Jos 24:30 tells us that these very flint knives were later buried with Joshua.
NASBthe second time
NRSVa second time
TEV– omits —
NJB(a second time)
It seems that for some reason the children of Israel did not circumcise during the wilderness wandering period. It is obvious from Exo 12:48 that to partake of the Passover one must be circumcised. The term the second time (literally, return, BDB 996, KB 1427) is not found in the Septuagint and probably in Hebrew means return again (shub) which refers to the institute of circumcision (cf. Genesis 17), not that someone would be circumcised a second time.
Jos 5:3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth Joshua himself did not personally make all of the flint knives, nor did he circumcise all of the people. The priests or Levites may have circumcised the people. However, the men apparently separated themselves from the rest of the camp and performed the circumcision at a precise geographical place which came to be known as the hill of the foreskins.
Jos 5:4 and the reason why Joshua circumcised them; all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way Because of the unbelief of the spies, all of the men who were twenty years old and older were condemned to die in the wilderness wandering period (cf. Num 14:29-35; Num 26:64-65; Deu 2:14-15).
Jos 5:5 for all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised The Egyptians and most other Semitic people which surround the Jewish nation also circumcised their male children. The only uncircumcized group of people in this area were the Philistines who invaded Palestine about 1250 B.C. They were from the Aegean Islands (i.e., Greek culture). However, most other Near Eastern cultures viewed circumcision as a rite of passage from childhood to manhood, but for Israel it was a religious symbol of the covenant which was performed on the eighth day after birth (cf. Genesis 17).
Jos 5:6 forty years in the wilderness The number forty is very common in the Bible. Sometimes it should be taken literally, but at other times it is symbolic for a long period of indefinite time. The Hebrews stayed at Sinai two years and the wilderness wandering period lasted thirty-eight years. See Special Topic: Symbolic Numbers in Scripture .
they perished because they did not listen to the voice of the LORD This goes back to the unbelief of the twelve spies (cf. Numbers 13-14). Only two of them, Joshua and Caleb, had faith to enter the promised land (cf. Num 14:38). Biblical faith is based on trusting in God and His word.
the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give us This refers to the patriarchal blessing of Abraham in Gen 12:1-3. The same promise of a land is given to both Isaac and Jacob and later to the children of Israel. The initial promise to Abraham involved a land and a seed. The Old Testament majors on the land while the New Testament majors on the seed (Messiah).
a land flowing with milk and honey The land of Palestine was known by this descriptive title in both Assyrian and Persian documents. It was a very fertile place!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
said. See note on Jos 3:7.
again . the second time. Not repeated as an act on the person, but on the nation on a second occasion (compare for this usage Isa 11:11 and Jud 1:5, implying that the rite was performed in Egypt. See verses: Jos 5:4-7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
circumcision
Circumcision is the “sign” of the Abrahamic Covenant Gen 17:7-14; Rom 4:11. “The reproach of Egypt” was that, during the later years of the Egyptian bondage, this separating sign had been neglected (cf. Exo 4:24-26 and this neglect had continued during the wilderness wanderings. The N.T. analogue is world conformity; the failure openly to take a believer’s place with Christ in death and resurrection.; Rom 6:2-11; Gal 6:14-16. Spiritually it is mortifying the deeds of the body through the Spirit.; Rom 8:13; Gal 5:16; Gal 5:17; Col 2:11; Col 2:12; Col 3:5-10.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
sharp knives: or, knives of flints, Before the use of iron was common, all the nations of the earth had their edge tools made of stones, flints, etc. Our ancestors had their arrows and spearheads made of flint; which are frequently turned up by the plough. And even when iron became more common, stone knives seem to have been preferred for making incisions in the human body. The Egyptians used such to open the bodies for embalming; and the tribe of Alnajab in Ethiopia, who follow the Mosaic institution, perform the rite of circumcision, according to Ludolf, cultris lapidibus, with knives made of stone.
circumcise: Gen 17:10-14, Deu 10:16, Deu 30:6, Rom 2:29, Rom 4:11, Col 2:11
Reciprocal: Gen 17:14 – cut Gen 17:23 – circumcised Gen 34:14 – uncircumcised Exo 4:25 – a sharp stone Hos 9:15 – is in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jos 5:2. At that time Namely, the morning after the passage, on the eleventh day of the first month, as Archbishop Usher and others have very probably conjectured. On the thirteenth day they were sore of their wounds, on the fourteenth they recovered, and on the even of that day kept the passover. Make thee sharp knives Or, knives of flints, as the original , charboth tzurim, more properly signifies, and is translated by Maimonides. These stones might be found in abundance on the adjacent mountains; and it is likely, as Theodoret observes, that after a pilgrimage of forty years in the wilderness of Arabia, the Israelites might not be provided with knives of iron or steel, such as are now in use. But whatever kind of knives may be here meant, those who had them already were not hereby commanded to make others, but only to make them sharp. Again the second time This does not mean that those very persons who had before been circumcised should be circumcised again, but that the rite or custom of circumcising, which had been disused in the wilderness for some years, should be again practised. That this is the sense, appears very evident from the following verses. If it be inquired, when the former time, here referred to, was? it may be answered, either in Egypt, when many of them, who, possibly through fear or favour of the Egyptians, had neglected this duty, were circumcised by the command of Moses; or at Sinai, when they received the passover, which no uncircumcised person might do.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, {b} and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
(b) For now they had left it off, about 40 years.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
"The book of Joshua continues as a dialogue between the divine and human commander." [Note: Butler, p. 58.]
Flint knives (Jos 5:2) were sharp flint rocks (obsidian). The first mass circumcision of the Israelites evidently took place in Egypt before the first Passover and the Exodus.
"The sentence upon the fathers, that their bodies should fall in the desert, was unquestionably a rejection of them on the part of God, an abrogation of the covenant with them. This punishment was also to be borne by their sons; and hence the reason why those who were born in the desert by the way were not circumcised." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, p. 55.]
Another explanation is that most of the older generation simply neglected to circumcise their sons out of forgetfulness, discouragement, or for some other reason.
Why did God wait to command the circumcision of the new generation until now rather than on the plains of Moab? Perhaps He did so because He wanted to bring the people into the land before enforcing this aspect of the Law. This is consistent with God’s dealings with humankind. He first gives and then asks (cf. Rom 12:1).
"Had Joshua acted on the principles common to all other generals, when invading an enemy’s country, he would either have prosecuted his advantages instantly, while his enemies were filled with terror, and crushed them before they had time to prepare for their defence [sic]; or he would have fortified his own camp to prevent surprise, and to be in constant readiness for any emergency that might arise. But instead of adopting any military plans whatever, the very day after he had invaded the country, without waiting to know what effect the invasion would have, he appoints nearly every male in the congregation to be circumcised! Thus by one act disabling the greater part of his whole army from even standing in their own defence [sic]! What but a principle of the most triumphant faith could have brought them to submit to such an injunction as this?" [Note: Bush, p. 56.]
The reproach of Egypt (Jos 5:9) was the charge that originated with the Egyptians that Yahweh had led the Israelites out of Egypt only to destroy them in the wilderness (cf. Exo 32:12; Num 14:13-16; Deu 9:28). Now that He had brought them into the land He had promised them, He had negated or "rolled away" this criticism. Gilgal sounds like the Hebrew word translated "rolling" (galal) and means "circle." Another view is that the reproach of Egypt refers to the disgrace the Israelites experienced in Egyptian slavery. When the Israelites obeyed God by circumcising their young men, the Lord’s deliverance of them reached its climax. [Note: Butler, p. 59.]
The Israelites seem to have regarded the rolling away of the foreskins in the circumcision operation as having a double symbolic meaning. It represented God’s removal of their reproach as well as their renunciation of the flesh (cf. Genesis 17).
"Flint knives [cf. Exo 4:25] are sharpened by chipping away at the edge of the stone, so that clean, sterile stone is exposed, since bacteria and viruses cannot grow in rock. Circumcision was thus performed with an instrument possessing comparable sterility to today’s surgical scalpels. In view of the likelihood of infection following this operation with a contaminated instrument, use of the flint knife was enormously beneficial and therefore commanded by the Ultimate Healer (or in this case the preventer). [Note: Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, "Moses and Preventive Medicine," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September):277.]
God specified knives of flint even though this was the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.C.), and bronze implements were common.