Joshua 5:2 At that time Yahweh said to Joshua, "Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time."
Brian and I recently were discussing this passage. It is one of the verses that make you go "hmmm". e.g.
* Why were they not circumsized? This was a practice given to Abraham (Gen 17) and also commanded in the Torah (Lev 12:3)
* Why was this not mentioned earlier? Why did Yahweh bring it to Israel's attention as they entered Canaan?
* Were they keeping Passover in the wilderness? (which required circumcision; Ex 12)
The entire context:
NASB (with name) Joshua 5:1-12 Joshua 5:1 Now it came about when all the kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jord an to the west, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard how Yahweh had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the sons of Israel until they had crossed, that their hearts melted, and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the sons of Israel.
2 At that time Yahweh said to Joshua, "Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time."
3 So Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth.
4 This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way after they came out of Egypt.
5 For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
6 For the sons of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, that is, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished because they did not listen to the voice of Yahweh, to whom Yahweh had sworn that He would not let them see the land which Yahweh had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
7 Their children whom He raised up in their place, Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them along the way.
8 Now when they had finished circumcising all the nation, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.
9 Then Yahweh said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." So the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.
10 While the sons of Israel camped at Gilgal they observed the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month on the desert plains of Jericho.
11 On the day after the Passover, on that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain.
12 The manna ceased on the day after they had eaten some of the produce of the land, so that the sons of Israel no longer had manna, but they ate some of the yield of the land of Canaan during that year.
A mini-summary
1. Israel had just crossed the Jordan (v1)
2. Yahweh tells Joshua to circumcise Israel (v2), which Joshua dutifully performed (v3)
3. The reason they were circumcised was because all the males who were born during the wilderness wanderings had not been circumcised (v.5)4. All the males who left Egypt over the age of 20 had been circumcised (v5) but had died in the wilderness (v4)
5. The sons of Israel were in the wilderness 40 years until all the men of war (i.e. over 20) died because they did not obey Yahweh (v6)
6. Joshua circumcised their children, whom Yahweh had raised up in their place (v7); these (for whatever reason) had not been circumcised on the way
7. They stayed at the Hill of Foreskins a while to heal (v8)
8. Yahweh tells Joshua, [i]"Today I have rolled away ([i][b]galal[/b][/i]) the reproach of Egypt from you" [/i]and thus the place was called Gilgal. Gilgal means "heap of stones" or "stone circle"; it sounds similar to galal ("to roll away") (v9)
9. Israel observed Passover at Gilgal on the evening of the 14th day of the month (v10)
10. The day after Passover they ate the some of the produce of the land which included unleavened bread and parched grain (v11)
11. The mana ceased the day after and from there on they ate from the land of Canaan (v12)
---
In the recent BAR magazine there was an interesting suggestion:
* The Israelites who entered Canaan had to be [b]re-[/b]circumsiced because Egyptians circumsiced differently (they did a little 'v' slit and left most of the foreskin on). The author appeals to these verses:
Joshua 5:2 At that time Yahweh said to Joshua, "Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time."
Joshua 5:9 Then Yahweh said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." So the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.
This suggestion has some appealing aspects:
A) Joshua 5:2 does emphasize "again" and "second" time
B) Removing of the foreskin is associated with the reproach of the Egyptians; Egyptians were circumcised, but not fully
But there are also some problems in context and/or other explainations that make more sense in context:
A) Joshua 5.7 states that those who who came out of Egypt had been circumcised (and are now dead), but those who were born in the wilderness (v.5) had not been circumcized -- so the issue is one of not being circumcised incorrectly (as those who left Egypt seemed to be classified as "circumcised"), but not having it done at all.
This passage, at face value, does appear to put a big hurdle in the way of this theory.
B) "Again" and "Second time" may be relational, not to a second circumcision for the individual to "do it right", but a temporal comment relating to circumcision before the first Passover (Ex 12). Israel had began circumcising in Abraham's time (Genesis 17:10ff; 21:4; Ex 4:26) and the foreigners who were among Israel had also became circumcised (Exodus 12:44-48). Since "no uncircumcised person" was allowed to eat the first Passove (Ex 12:48) and Joshua affirms those who left Egypt were circumcised (Josh 5:5).
C) "reproach of Egypt". On the surface it is VERY enticing to consider "Egyptian Circumcision" (i.e. incomplete) as the reproach removed. i.e. This practice had been carried over from Egypt and was displeasing to Yahweh.
The problem is that those who left Egypt were considered "circumcised" so it would be hard to fathom that the method used by the Israelites and given to the mixed multitude (Ex 12) would have either changed after leaving Egypt or that their method was insufficient to begin with.
The text also plainly explains: (a) Those who left were all circumcised (b) they are all dead now because of being disobedient and (c) their children had not been circumcised. While it is possible a rebellous generation decided to change its ways (just a note: Egyptian circumcision is typically done at puberty) the context does not seem to give much credance to this view.
The reproach of Egypt may be nothing more than finally leaving the events of bondage related to their dwellings in Egypt and they are finally entering the promised land; part of this is the sign of the covenant (circumcision) and participating the Passover. Or it could simply be Egyptian's (of that time?) were considered to be uncircumcised and they had this reproach (uncircumcision) removed from them.
I don't necessarily have "solutions" to all these problems, but it is a worthy topic to look into... while admittadly I feel like it is a, "Who did Cain marry?" type question at times. The text says it happened, but the details and surrounding issues are left for us to piece together... very... carefully.
Of course the answer could be right in front of me and I am just missing it :lol: But on the surface it does seem those born in the wilderness were not circumcised; and in general there does appear to be an absence of Passover observance during the wilderness wanderings. A quick survey indicates other than the exodus from Egypt (Ex 12ff; Num 33:3) the only other recorded Passover is in Year 2 of the exodus (Numbers 9:2ff). Other examples of talk about the Passover (Deu 16; Num 28:16; Lev 23:5; Ex 34:25) tend to be ordinances about the observation of Passover.
I am not saying they did not practice Passover in the wilderness, but it is an interesting question. And the firm requirement of being circumcised to eat the Passover and the association of "Circumcise THEN eat the Passover" in Joshua 5 seem to lead me this direction. I could be wrong.
I also see the Passover and the events of Israel entering Canaan as analogies of the "big picture" of salvation. The crossing of waters (Red Sea, Jordan River), circumcision, Passover feastivals, ratifying of the Torah (Exodus 19ff; Joshua 8:31ff), etc. In general I see the work of Ruach, in particular at the resurrection, as having strong parallels. Similarly the charge (and eventual reality) of a "circumcised heart". And in general Yeshua's immersion (Matt 3:16) is immediately followed by post-Baptismal obediance to the Torah (Matt 4). In my opinion many of the earthly events are foreshadowing of eternal realities and historical realities of the "story of salvation" so to speak.
Anyhow... back on topic:
* What are your thoughts on Joshua 5:2-12? Circumcision of the uncircumcised or recircumcision of the wrongly circumcised?
* Did the Israelites keep Passover in the wilderness after Year 2?
* Why did Yahweh wait until entering Canaan to tell the Israelites to fix the circumcision problem?
* Other thoughts, ideas, solutions, problems>
I realize the middle two may be unanswerable from the text, but maybe I have missed something. :)