A Second Circumcision?


#1

Reading the following passage the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelite nation for the second time." – Joshua 5:2

I thought circumcision was a very serious command to be performed eight days after birth “If a male is uncircumcised, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:14. The Lord was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son in Exodus 4:24-26. Why wasn’t the Lord angry with the uncircumcised in Joshua 5:2?


#2

Hi Augustine,

Please read right down to verse 9. The Hebrews were on the move in the desert and circumcision was impractical. A rest was needed after circumcision. (see verse 8)

Verbum


#3

Thanks for your prompt repsonse :thumbsup:

Sorry I fail to agree with your explanation. The context speaks of the two generations of the Israelites. It does not suggest the impracticality of circumcision while wondering in the desert. What’s the difference of getting a circumcision done in the desert or an inhabited land?


#4

[quote="Augustine3, post:3, topic:350562"]
Thanks for your prompt repsonse :thumbsup:

Sorry I fail to agree with your explanation. The context speaks of the two generations of the Israelites. It does not suggest the impracticality of circumcision while wondering in the desert. What’s the difference of getting a circumcision done in the desert or an inhabited land?

[/quote]

I'm just thinking about sand here, and the thought is not making me comfortable. :eek:


#5

[quote="Augustine3, post:3, topic:350562"]
Thanks for your prompt repsonse :thumbsup:

Sorry I fail to agree with your explanation. The context speaks of the two generations of the Israelites. It does not suggest the impracticality of circumcision while wondering in the desert. What’s the difference of getting a circumcision done in the desert or an inhabited land?

[/quote]

The requirement for circumcision was set aside during the time of the desert wandering due to God's requirement for them to camp or be ready to travel at His command. As circumcision requires a recovery period, they would not have been able to travel when instructed. So the requirement was suspended until the crossing of the Jordan, and then re-initiated "a second time" before proceeding into the promised land.


#6

[quote="sousley, post:5, topic:350562"]
The requirement for circumcision was set aside during the time of the desert wandering due to God's requirement for them to camp or be ready to travel at His command. As circumcision requires a recovery period, they would not have been able to travel when instructed. So the requirement was suspended until the crossing of the Jordan, and then re-initiated "a second time" before proceeding into the promised land.

[/quote]

Ok that makes sense. Thanks.


#7

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 2. Time. While the enemy was rendered incapable of attacking the Israelites by excessive fear (Calmet) and consternation, Josue was commanded to renew the sign of the covenant, by which they were to take possession of the land, and it is supposed that he complied the day after he arrived at Galgal; (Haydock) so that the wound would be healing, when the feast of the Passover commenced four days later. On the third day it is most painful. (Genesis xxxiv. 25.) — Of stone. Hebrew tsurim, which some translate, “sharp;” but the Septuagint and the best interpreters agree, that the word indicates a stone. Such a knife was used by Sephora. (Exodus iv. 25.) It was supposed that sharp stones would cause less inflammation or danger. Samiâ testâ…amputabant, nec aliter citra perniciem. (Pliny, [Natural History?] xxv. 12.) Herodotus (ii. 86,) observes, that the Egyptian embalmers opened the body of the deceased with a “sharp Ethiopian stone.” The people of Africa, and of America, have frequently used stone to cut wood, &c. Some of the Fathers assert, that Christ was circumcised with a knife of stone. But any other sharp instrument might be used for the purpose. Any person might perform the operation. Izates, king of the Adiabenians, received circumcision from the hand of a surgeon. (Josephus, [Antiquities?] xx. 2.) (Calmet) — Time. Not that such as had been circumcised before were to be circumcised again: but that they were now to renew, and take up again the practice of circumcision; which had been omitted during their 40 years’ sojourning in the wilderness; by reason of their being always uncertain when they should be obliged to march. (Challoner) — St. Augustine (q. 6,) seems to think that the Israelites despised this ceremony in the desert. Theodoret (q. 2,) supposes it was disused because it was not then necessary, to distinguish the Israelites from other nations. Masius is of opinion that God would not allow them to employ it, after their revolt at Cades-barne, when they would not take possession of the land of Chanaan; and hence they could not resume that privilege, till God had authorized them again, ver 7., and Numbers xiv. 33. The covenant with God, of which circumcision was the seal, had been, in the mean time, suspended. But as the Israelites are no where blamed, in Scripture, on account of this omission, it seems that God dispensed with them during the 38 years after they left Sinai, that the children might not be exposed to the evident danger of perishing, as the people knew not how soon the cloud would give notice for an immediate departure. (Calmet) — Since they were now in the midst of the nations of Chanaan, this distinctive mark (Menochius) was to be henceforth diligently observed. (Haydock)


#8

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.