Joshua 5:1-7 seems to indicate that the rite of circumcision that is normally performed on male Israelite boys on the eighth day after birth, was not being done since the days of Israel's bondage in Egypt. While on their journey to the Promised Land, this act of being marked out as belonging to the God of Israel, was neglected during their onward march.
So in verse 2, we read, "At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time". This "second time" phrase is misleading & certainly cannot mean a re-circumcision as that is not really possible nor required. I feel that we can understand it to mean that "what Israel had neglected to do according to God's directions, they must now do as a second (or, renewed) act to perform. So these who will now been circumcised would not just be babies but also men, as the rite has been re-established, which was once overlooked.
But if you're also enquiring about the rite of circumcision, then this physical cutting was the permanent sign required by God that Israel was a separated people, different from any other people or nation ("a token of the Covenant betwixt Me & you", Deut 10:16). If it were only a marking on the flesh, then this would over time be obliterated, but circumcision would permanently show a separation of a people to God. For the Christian, circumcision & all Jewish rites are not observed, as Jesus death & resurrection & gift of the Holy Spirit meant that it would no longer be our skin, but our hearts that would be circumcised, as sin would no longer reign in us ( Colossians 2:11). And this, God also would do for Israel ( Deuteronomy 30:6) which is what circumcision of the flesh should direct all God's people to have: circumcision of the heart. But how often we fail, as Israel failed - but we find forgiveness at the Cross.
So in verse 2, we read, "At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time". This "second time" phrase is misleading & certainly cannot mean a re-circumcision as that is not really possible nor required. I feel that we can understand it to mean that "what Israel had neglected to do according to God's directions, they must now do as a second (or, renewed) act to perform. So these who will now been circumcised would not just be babies but also men, as the rite has been re-established, which was once overlooked.
But if you're also enquiring about the rite of circumcision, then this physical cutting was the permanent sign required by God that Israel was a separated people, different from any other people or nation ("a token of the Covenant betwixt Me & you", Deut 10:16). If it were only a marking on the flesh, then this would over time be obliterated, but circumcision would permanently show a separation of a people to God. For the Christian, circumcision & all Jewish rites are not observed, as Jesus death & resurrection & gift of the Holy Spirit meant that it would no longer be our skin, but our hearts that would be circumcised, as sin would no longer reign in us ( Colossians 2:11). And this, God also would do for Israel ( Deuteronomy 30:6) which is what circumcision of the flesh should direct all God's people to have: circumcision of the heart. But how often we fail, as Israel failed - but we find forgiveness at the Cross.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?