John Calvin Commentary Joshua 5

And it came to pass when, etc. The recognition of God's fearful power affected them so much that they were astonished and fainted with terror, yet it did not incline their minds to seek a remedy for the evil. Their hearts melted; for, lacking counsel and strength, they did not rouse themselves to action, but in their defiance, they remained as hard-hearted as before.

We have already seen elsewhere how unbelievers, when stricken with fear, do not stop wrestling with God, and even when they fall, continue fiercely to assail heaven. Therefore, the dread that should have urged them to caution only served to make them rush headlong. They were, however, terrified from above for the sake of the people, so that victory might be more easily obtained and the Israelites might be emboldened when they saw they were dealing with an enemy already broken and stricken with dismay.

Thus God made allowance for their weakness, as if He had opened the way by removing obstacles, because they had otherwise shown themselves to be more sluggish and cowardly than was fitting. In essence, then, before the conflict began, the enemy was already routed by the terror that the report of the miracle had inspired.

At that time the Lord said, etc. It seems very strange, and almost monstrous, that circumcision had been laid aside for so long, especially as it was fitting for 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. It is certain that when they were reduced to extreme circumstances and groaning under tyranny, they always circumcised their children. We also know how sternly God threatened to be an avenger against anyone who should allow the eighth day to pass without circumcision.

If the observance had been neglected in Egypt, their carelessness might have been excusable, as at that time the covenant of God appeared to have become, in a way, obsolete. But now, when God's faithfulness in establishing the covenant is once more radiant, what excuse could there be for them not testifying on their part that they are the people of God?

The defense which commentators offer is altogether frivolous. I admit that they were constantly under arms and always uncertain when they would need to move. But I believe it is wrong to infer from this that they did not have a day’s leisure, and that it would have been cruel to circumcise tender infants when the camp would soon have to be moved.

Nothing should have weighed so heavily with them as to cause a contemptuous disregard of what had been said to Abraham (Genesis 17:14): The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from the people. But if there was a risk to life in the circumcision, the best and only method was to trust in the paternal providence of God, who certainly would not have allowed His own precept to become fatal to infants.

In short, the omission due to a fear of danger could not have originated from any cause other than distrust. But even if it had been certain that infants would be brought into danger, God should nevertheless have been obeyed, since the seal of the covenant by which they were received into the Church was more precious than a hundred lives.

Nor would Moses have allowed such cowardly behavior had he not been influenced by some different motive. Moreover, though the point is doubtful, I presume that they did not stop circumcising their children on the very first day after their departure, but only after they had been forced to retrace their steps due to their own perverseness.

And in this way, both the falling away 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 needed to elapse until those wicked apostates who had cut themselves off from the promised inheritance had perished.

Attention should be paid to the reason given here: namely, that the children of Israel wandered through the desert until the whole generation that had refused to follow God had died out. From this, in my opinion, we may infer that the practice of circumcision ceased during that entire period as a sign of curse or rejection.

It is true, indeed, that the penalty was inflicted on the innocent, but it was fitting that the fathers should be chastised through them, as if God were repudiating them for the time to come. When they saw that their offspring differed in no respect from unholy people and strangers, they had a plain demonstration of what they themselves deserved.

Here, however, an inconsistency seems to arise:

1. First, that while they were condemned, their offspring were immediately received into favor.
2. Secondly, that to themselves also a hope of pardon was left.
3. And more especially, that they were not deprived of the other sacraments, in which they could not partake except on the basis of their being separated from unholy nations.

The Lord, I admit, in rejecting them, declares at the same time that He will be gracious to their children. However, seeing in their offspring a sign of repudiation until they themselves all perished was a wholesome 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. It was as if God were making it clear that He had postponed circumcision for a time so that it would not be profaned, but was waiting for an opportunity to renew it.

If anyone objects that it was absurd to celebrate the Passover in uncircumcision, I admit that it was so according to the usual order. For no one was admitted to the Passover and the sacrifices except 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 partake of other sacred rites. Thus, the people were excommunicated in one matter and yet, in the meantime, were provided with suitable aids to prevent them from falling into despair.

This was just as if a father, offended with his son, were to raise his fist, apparently to drive him away, and at the same time detain him by his other hand—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.

If it is objected that there is a distinct assertion that no one was circumcised on the way after they had set out, I answer that, for the sake of brevity, all things are not stated exactly. Yet, it may be gathered from the context that no one remained uncircumcised except those who were born after the rebellion.

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 take the place of the perverse rebels. It was, moreover, a sad and severe trial that God did not choose to have the people circumcised until 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 its inhabitants. The Lord waits until 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. For, all weakened by their wound, they must have given way at once and been slaughtered almost without resistance.

For if in similar circumstances (Genesis 34), two sons of Jacob were able to force their way into the town of Shechem and plunder it after slaying its citizens, how much easier would it have been for the neighboring nations to attack the Israelites while they were thus wounded and carry out a general massacre of them?

This was, therefore, as I have said, a very harsh trial, and so the readiness with which it was submitted to is deserving of greater praise. The place itself, however, appears to have been purposely selected by divine wisdom so 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, due to the delay thus introduced, might again refuse to enter the land. But now, having been brought into possession under happy auspices, as if by the hand of God, and having conceived from the removal of this one obstacle a sure hope of warring successfully, it is not surprising if they obeyed more willingly than they might have done if they had not been so uniquely strengthened.

The very sight of the promised land must have furnished additional incentives, especially when they understood that they were again being consecrated to God, so that their uncircumcision might not pollute the holy land.

And the Lord said unto Joshua, and so on. The disgrace of Egypt is interpreted by some as meaning that the lack of circumcision made them similar to the Egyptians—in other words, profane and marked with a stigma. It was as if to say that they were again made God's special possession when they were newly stamped with this mark to distinguish them from the unclean nations.

Others interpret it in an active sense, meaning that they would no longer be scorned by the Egyptians, as if God had deceived them. I have no hesitation in rejecting this as too far-fetched. Still others understand that they would no longer be subject to the false accusation of worshipping the gods of that nation.

I prefer to understand the meaning as this: they were freed from an unfair and resentful charge by which they were otherwise burdened. It was considered shameful to have thrown off the yoke and rebelled against the king under whose rule they lived. Moreover, since they proclaimed that God was the avenger of unjust tyranny, it was easy to reproach them for using God's name merely as a pretext for their actions.

They might, therefore, have been seen as deserters if the disgrace had not been wiped away by the act of circumcision, by which the divine election was sealed in their flesh before they went down to Egypt. Consequently, it was made clear by the renewal of the ancient covenant that they were not rebels against legitimate authority, nor had they rashly departed on their own initiative. Instead, their freedom was restored by God, who had long before taken them under his special protection.

The place received its name from this removal of disgrace. For those who think that the foreskin cut off was called Gilgal because it was a type of circle abandon the literal meaning and resort to a completely unnecessary fabrication. It is perfectly obvious, however, that the place was called Rolling Off because God there rolled away from his people the disgrace that had unjustly clung to them. The interpretation of liberty, adopted by Josephus, is baseless and ridiculous, and it shows that he was as ignorant of the Hebrew language as he was of law.

And the children of Israel kept the Passover, etc. Here it is stated that the Passover was celebrated on the regular day, although some think the words used imply that the practice was unusual. They therefore infer that, like circumcision, it had been interrupted for forty years, as it would have been absurd for uncircumcised persons to take part in a sacred feast. To confirm this view, they observe that we do not read of the Passover having been observed after the beginning of the second year.

But it is not probable that what God had recently ordered to be perpetual (Exodus 12:42) was suddenly cast aside. For it had been said to them, It is a night to be observed by the children of Israel in all their generations. How inconsistent, then, would it have been if this practice, which was to be observed throughout all ages, had become obsolete in the course of two years! And again, how heartless it would have been to bury the memory of a recent favor within so short a period!

But it is said that the lack of circumcision must have kept back a large proportion, so that the mystery might not be profaned; for at its institution it had been declared, No uncircumcised person shall eat of it. To this I have already answered that it was an extraordinary privilege, as the children of Israel were freed from the law.

For it is certain that they continued to use sacrifices and to observe the other parts of legal worship, although this was unlawful, unless something of the form prescribed by the law had been remitted by divine authority. It is certain that unclean persons were prohibited from entering the court of the tabernacle, and yet the children of Israel, while uncircumcised, offered sacrifices there, thus doing what was equivalent to the slaying of the Passover. They were therefore permitted, by special allowance, to do what was not lawful according to the rule of the law.

The mention Moses makes of the second celebration of the Passover (Numbers 9) is for a different purpose: namely, to indirectly censure the carelessness and sluggishness of the people, who would not have observed the sacred anniversary at the end of the first year if they had not been reminded of it.

For although God had proclaimed that they should annually renew the memory of their deliverance throughout all ages, they had grown so oblivious before the end of the year that they had become negligent in performing this duty. It is not without reason that they were urged by a new reminder, as they were not sufficiently attentive on their own initiative.

That passage, therefore, does not prove that the use of the Passover was afterwards interrupted. On the contrary, it may, with some probability, be inferred from it that it was annually observed, as the Lord, towards the end of the year, anticipates its observance, telling them to make careful provision for it in the future and never deviate from the command which He had given them.

And they did eat of the old corn, etc. Whether they then first began to eat wheaten bread is not very clear. For they had lived in a country that was not uncultivated and was tolerably fertile. At least in the territories of the two kings, there was enough corn to supply the inhabitants.

It does not seem reasonable to suppose that the children of Israel allowed the corn they found there to rot and perish by mere waste. And I have no doubt that they ate the flesh that remained from the sacrifices. It is quite possible, therefore, that they did not wholly abstain from wheaten bread and yet did not abandon their accustomed food.

For a country assigned to only a part of the people could not have provided sufficient food for the whole multitude, since there is no doubt a just estimate was made when Moses settled only two and a half tribes there. Therefore, up to that point, the twelve tribes had not found sufficient food, especially since the country had been devastated by war, and the Israelites, who were not safe enough to leave the camp, could not devote their attention to agriculture. The manna was thus necessary to feed them until a more abundant supply was obtained. This took place in the land of Canaan, and then, accordingly, they returned to common food.

But why they deferred it until that day is not known, unless it was because after their wound was healed, some days had to be spent collecting corn, while religion did not permit them to bake bread for fear of breaking the Sabbath. But although that rest was sacred, we gather from the circumstances that they hurried, as the flour must have been previously prepared, since they could not grind it and bake it in a single day.

Be this as it may, the Lord supplied them with provisions as long as their need required it. The sudden failure of the manna, at that very moment, must have provided additional proof of the kindness of God, since it was apparent from this that the manna was a temporary resource, which had descended not so much from the clouds as from a paternal providence.

Moreover, it is clear that this refers to the produce of the previous year, and it is unnecessary to raise any question about it. For it would have implied too much rashness to seize the produce of the current year before it was properly matured, and a whole month would hardly have been enough to collect sufficient supply for such a great multitude. I cannot see why commentators should trouble themselves so much with such a clear matter.