John Gill Commentary Joshua 5

And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, which
[were] on the side of Jordan westward
On the side the Israelites were now on; and this is observed, to distinguish them from the other kings of the Amorites beyond Jordan, on the eastern side, who were already conquered by the Israelites, Sihon and Og, who seem to be a colony that went over from the Amorites in Canaan, and possessed themselves of that part of the land of Moab. These seem to be put for several others of the nations of the land not mentioned, who doubtless were as much dispirited as they; and they are the rather mentioned, because they were a principal nation, and a very powerful and warlike one, see (Amos 2:9) .

and all the kings of the Canaanites which [were] by the sea ;
the Mediterranean sea; the Septuagint version calls them the kings of Phoenicia; and that which was strictly and property so lay on that coast, in which were the cities of Tyre and Sidon, though the whole land of Canaan was sometimes so called; unless this is to be understood, either of the dead sea, or of the sea of Galilee; of which Canaanites, see (Numbers 13:29) ; however, be they the one or the other, or both, as most likely, when they

heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the
children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted ,
neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of
Israel ;
they lost all their courage, and never recovered it any more; concluding it was all over with them, since such wonderful things were done for them by the Lord: the word "we" shows that the writer of this history was one that passed over Jordan, and who can be supposed but Joshua himself? this circumstance, I think, strongly corroborates that opinion.

At that time the Lord said to 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 has 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 ^F16 interprets the words, and as they are rendered in various versions ^F17 ; with such an instrument Zipporah circumcised her son; and like them were the "samia testa" ^F18 , with which the priests of the mother of the gods were castrated; and the "saxum acutum" of Ovid ^F19 ; and such the Americans used in slaying beasts, and the Egyptians ^F20 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 ^F21 ; (See Gill on Exodus 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 ^F23 ; or rather some time in the three days' darkness of the Egyptians, as Dr. Lightfoot ^F24 thinks; or else when they were about Sinai, just before the celebration of the passover there, (Numbers 9:1Numbers 9:2) ; from which time it had been neglected.

Not because 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, (Exodus 12:43Exodus 12:44) ; and partly because they had now entered into the land of Canaan, which was given them in the covenant of circumcision, (Genesis 17:8–10) ; 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.

FOOTNOTES:

• F16: Moreh Nevochim, par. 1. c. 16.
• F17: (Myru twbrh) (macairav petrinav) , Sept. "cultros lapideos", V. L. "cultros petrarum", Munster, Montanus, Piscator.
• F18: Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 35. c. 12. Arnob. adv. Gentes, l. 5. p. 189.
• F19: Fast. l. 4. ver. 237.
• F20: Herod. Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 86.
• F21: Vid. Pfeiffer. Dubia Vexata, cent. 2. loc. 46.
• F23: So in Pirke Eliezer, c. 29.
• F24: Works, vol. 1. p. 40.

And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children
of Israel Not that Joshua circumcised them himself, any more than he made the knives himself, but he ordered both to be done, and took care that they were done. And as any that had skill might make the knives, so might any circumcise; circumcision was not restrained to any order of men, not to the priests and Levites, but any might perform it; so that though the number to be circumcised was great, it might soon be finished: and this was done

at the hill of the foreskins; as the place was afterward called from hence; these being heaped up one upon another, made a hill of them, as the Jews say ^F25, being covered with dust. This circumcision performed by Joshua, or his orders, was typical of the spiritual circumcision without hands, which those that believe in Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, partake of.

FOOTNOTES:

• F25: Pirke Eliezer, ut supra. (c. 29.) Jarchi in loc.

And this [is] the cause why Joshua did circumcise
Or the reason of the command given him to circumcise the children of Israel at this time, namely, what follows:

all the people that came out of Egypt [that were] males, [even] all
the men of war ;
meaning such that were twenty years old, and upwards:

died in the wilderness, by the way, after they came out of Egypt ;
not directly, but in a course of forty years, as they journeyed through the wilderness;

this is to be understood with an exception of Joshua, Caleb, Eleazar but then there was a large number who were under twenty years of age, that came out of Egypt, and were now living.

Now all the people that came out were circumcised
All that came out of Egypt, and males, were circumcised, whether under or above twenty years of age.

For though it is possible all were circumcised before they came out of Egypt, which favours the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, that they might be circumcised during the three nights' darkness of the Egyptians, when they could take no advantage of it, as Levi and Simeon did of the Shechemites; and which seems more probable than that it should be on the night they came out of Egypt, when many must have been unfit for travelling, and seems preferable to that of their being circumcised at Mount Sinai, which was a year after their coming out of Egypt.

but all the people [that were] born in the wilderness by the way, as
they came forth out of Egypt, [them] they had not circumcised ;
the reasons of which neglect; (See Gill on Joshua 5:2). The phrase, "by the way", seems to point at the true reason of it, at least to countenance the reason there given, which was on account of their journey; that is, their stay at any place being uncertain and precarious; so the Jews say {z}, because of the affliction or trouble of journeying, the Israelites did not circumcise their children. This is to be understood of all males only born in the wilderness, they only being the subjects of circumcision.