John Calvin Commentary Joshua 5:2

"At that time Jehovah said unto Joshua, Make thee knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time." — Joshua 5:2 (ASV)

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.