And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
9 14. Circumcision the Token of the Covenant
9. thou shalt keep ] “Keep” in the sense of “observe”: the reverse is to “break” ( Gen 17:14) the covenant. Notice the sing, “thou,” and the plur. “ye shall keep” in Gen 17:10; cf. the interchange of plur. and sing. in Gen 17:11-13.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 17:9-14
Every man child among you shall be circumcised
The covenant seal
I.
ITS SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE.
1. It taught the natural depravity of man.
2. It taught the necessity of purification.
3. It taught regeneration.
4. It taught that Gods people are to be distinguished from the children of this world.
5. It taught dedication to God.
6. It pointed to Christ, who does not come by natural generation. He was the promised seed. His human nature was pure from its source. Thus circumcision preaches the whole doctrine of salvation, its necessity, and the means by which it is brought about. It proclaims the souls need–of the mortification of the flesh, of repentance, of a Saviour from sin.
II. ITS SUBJECTS. The rite of circumcision was enjoined not only upon Abraham and his seed, but also upon all his servants or slaves, and upon all born of them in his house. Everyone connected with him by social or domestic ties must submit to this outward sign of the covenant. In his capacity as a father and as a master he had to see that this rite was administered.
1. The principle of human responsibility.
2. That a man is accountable for the souls of those who are connected with him by social or domestic ties.
3. That the covenants of God are not narrow in their range.
4. That in our duty to others there is an element of hope and encouragement.
III. ITS OBLIGATION.
1. Because God commanded it.
2. Because Gods commands were hedged about by sanctions. (T. H.Leale.)
The sign of the covenant
It is only in proportion as we know the spiritual meaning of circumcision that we can enter into the joyous appropriation of the friendship of God. But if we are willing, our Lord and Saviour is both able and willing to effect in us this blessed spiritual result.
I. SEPARATION. Abraham and his seed were marked out by this rite as a separated people. And it is only as such that any of us can be admitted into the friendship of God. Bloodshedding and death–the cross and the grave–must lie between us and our own past life; yea, between us and allcomplicity with evil.
II. PURITY (Col 2:11). There is hardly a single grace dearer to God than this: to keep lily-white amid the defiling atmosphere. Purity can only be attained by the special grace of the Holy Spirit, and by doing two things: first, by our turning instantly from paragraphs in papers, or pictures on the walls, and all things else, which excite impure imaginations; secondly, by our seeking immediate forgiveness, when we are conscious of having yielded, even for a moment, to the deadly and insidious fascinations of the flesh.
III. OBEDIENCE. Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. We do not obey in order to become friends; but having become friends, we hasten to obey. Love is more inexorable than law. And for the love of Him who calls us by so dear a title we are glad to undertake and accomplish what Sinai with all its thunders would fail to nerve us to attempt. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The seat of the covenant
I. THE PROMISE OF THE COVENANT.
1. The renewal of the promise.
2. The fulness of the promise.
3. The wide range of the promise.
II. THE OBLIGATION OF THE COVENANT. Divine promise is connected with human duty.
III. THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT. Circumcision reminded those who used it as a religious rite, ordained of God, of three things–
1. Separation from the world. So baptism is the token of a new life given by God.
2. Consecration to God.
3. Family religion.
(1) Children, servants, all the household, were to come under the covenant.
(2) It was to be handed down from one generation to another.
Conclusion: See, then, in this narrative not merely a history of what took place so long ago, but lessons for us now: lessons as to Divine grace; as to human responsibility; and as to appointed outward ordinances which serve to join together the thought of what God gives, and of the service we ought to render. Such ordinances, used in a faithful, humble, earnest spirit, are seals and channels of covenanted blessing. (W. S. Smith, B. D.)
Circumcision instituted
All benefited, whether slave or master.
I. A PAINFUL CEREMONY. Full of meaning, and suggesting then what the New Testament teaches now, Your bodies are the temple, etc.
II. ADMINISTERED TO CHILD WHO COULD KNOW NOTHING EXCEPT PAIN. What good? Unreasonable? Cruel? Following our own reason, no child would have been circumcised. But Gods command far outstrips mans reason (Gen 17:14). And Col 2:11-12, shows that baptism now answers thereto. And is equally for babes. A week old. Parents ought to do as this tells them. Do you so. And then look for a blessing, if only you will teach and train them as Christians–day by day–every day. (G. Venables.)
Circumcision–the seal of the covenant
I. AS TO THE TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT of this ordinance, it is important to observe, that Abraham is now about to become a father, not according to his own will merely, but according to the will of God; he is to be, in a remarkable manner, the founder of a family or house.
II. THE RITE ITSELF now instituted, the sacramental act, is not an unmeaning form or ceremony. It is significant of the great leading fact in the covenant of which it is the seal–the extraordinary and miraculous birth of Him who is preeminently and emphatically the seed of Abraham, the holy child Jesus.
III. Hence it appears that it is strictly and properly to THE COVENANT OF GRACE THAT CIRCUMCISION, AS INSTITUTED ON THIS OCCASION, HAS RESPECT. It is true that under the Mosaic economy it served a farther purpose. It became a national badge or mark of distinction–the pledge of the national covenant in terms of which God governed the nation of Israel. Even then, however, it did not lose its primary and original significancy. To a spiritually-minded Jew–to one who was an Israelite indeed–it was still the token of the better covenant, and the seal of the righteousness that is by faith. And as at first ordained for Abraham, it had absolutely no other meaning at all. It could have no other. For, in the first place, there is no limitation or restriction of it to the Jewish nation in particular. It is enjoined on Abraham, as the father of many nations; and on all, generally, who are of his house, or may be embraced, by whatever right, even the right of purchase, within it (Gen 17:9-13). And, secondly, the covenant with which it stands associated is not temporal and national, but spiritual and universal. It is the everlasting covenant, in the one seed of Abraham, which is Christ.
IV. THE CHILD, EIGHT DAYS OLD, WAS TO BE CIRCUMCISED. And are the children of Gods people now to be placed on a worse footing than in the days of old? Is there any evidence of a change in this respect? On the contrary, did not the Lord specially distinguish little children as the objects of His love, taking them into His arms, and affectionately blessing them? And do not the apostles proceed all along on the principle that the visible Church is to embrace not only all the faithful, but their children also? Thus Act 8:39) speaks of the promise being to believers and to their children. Paul also (1Co 7:14) founds an argument on the assumption that the children of a believing parent are, not unclean or common, but holy. And, accordingly, we read in the Book of Acts Act 16:33, etc.) of entire households being baptized; the expressions used being such as to render it very unlikely that the little children were excluded.
V. On very much the same principle on which this intiatory rite is administered to the children of Gods people, IT IS DECLARED TO BE OF INDISPENSABLE OBLIGATION, and the neglect of it is made a ground of exclusion from the visible Church (verse 14). So is it also with the sacraments, the signs and seals of grace. No liberty of discretionary choice is left in regard to their observance; it is not merely my precious privilege, but my bounden duty, to receive them. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
Circumcision
It is impossible to arrive at a clear idea of this remarkable rite, and of its true meaning in the Mosaic system, without pursuing its origin and history more clearly than is generally done. We distinguish four chief periods.
1. Circumcision seems to have been first practised by the Ethiopians and other nations of Southern Africa. The question arises, What was the origin of this singular custom? It must evidently have a general cause, inherent either in the human mind or in the human frame, since it was in use among so different nations, possessing no mutual intercourse. Now, a religious motive seems to be out of the question; for some of the nations alluded to are not only strangers to all religious ceremonies, but are destitute of all moral feelings. Philo distinctly observes, that it prevents the painful and often incurable disease of carbuncle; it, further, obviates some fearful disorders; modern travellers testify that it precludes great physical inconvenience among the Bushmen; and the Christian missionaries who exerted themselves for its abolition in Abyssinia were, by the dangerous physical consequences, compelled to desist from their plans. If we hereto add, that among nearly all those tribes the operation is performed not in infancy, but at the approach of puberty, it becomes evident that the burning temperature of their southern climes, in many cases combined with a peculiar bodily structure of those races, gave rise to the custom of circumcision.
2. From the south, it spread northward into Egypt. Many parts of this country were colonized by emigrants from Ethiopia; and thus many primitive customs of the south were transplanted into the land of the Pharaohs. The intercourse with Ethiopia was both constant and animated. Now, the same complaints to which we have referred as frequent in Ethiopia may, in many instances, have appeared in Egypt also; and circumcision may, therefore, as a matter of precaution, have been gradually adopted by all Egyptians. But it recommended itself to this people from another consideration also, in their views of the highest importance: that of cleanliness. The examination of the mummies; the fact that the Colchians, who were Egyptian settlers belonging to the army of Sesostris, performed the ceremony; and the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, Philo and Strabo, concur to prove that circumcision was a general and national institution among the Egyptians. Now, the great authority and exceeding reputation for superior wisdom which they possessed in the ancient world induced many nations to adopt from them, among other institutions, the practice of circumcision also. Thus, it was performed by the Arabians and Edomites, by the Ammonites and Moabites, by the Phoenicians and Syrians about Thermodon and the river Parthenius; and in this instance, not merely blind veneration, but a regard for health and cleanliness, assisted in spreading the custom.
3. It was natural that the wise men of Egypt should connect some higher religious or philosophical notions with the rite of circumcision, especially since it had become entirely their own. Now, it is well known that a great part of the Egyptian religion consisted in the deification of the powers of nature, and especially of generation; this idea is chiefly represented by their two principal deities, Osiris and Isis, who presided both over fertility and fruitfulness. In Egypt a chief part of the festival of Bacchus was the public procession of the phallus, performed in an obscene manner amidst the wild songs of women; and the same rites in honour of Bacchus were from Egypt introduced into Greece. It was, further, generally believed that circumcision enhances prolificness; and the Egyptians ascribed their increasing population, in a great measure, to the same custom, although it was, besides, considered to be attributable to the purity of the air and the quality of the water of the Nile. It seems evident, therefore, that the Egyptian priests connected circumcision with the very centre of their religion; that they regarded it as a part of the system by which they endeavoured to penetrate into the secret working of nature; and that, by dedicating the prepuce to their gods, they ascribed to them the wonderful powers of generation.
4. Among the nations which derived the custom of circumcision from the Egyptians were undoubtedly the Hebrews. But did Mosaism blindly adopt a heathen ceremony? And here we have arrived at the culminating point of this deduction. In no other institution, perhaps, do we see with greater force and distinctness that fundamental principle which pervades the whole legislative part of the Old Testament, and without regard to which it will ever be impossible to comprehend its full spiritual meaning, and to balance its exact historical value . . . By connecting the rite of circumcision with the purest ideas of resignation and piety, Mosaism laid a sure foundation for moral conduct; licentiousness, stimulated by the fiery temperament of the Oriental, was checked; the passions were restrained; and if sinful ideas or vicious imaginations arose within him, he was reminded by the covenant sealed on his flesh that he had promised holiness of life and innocence of the heart. Hence the word uncircumcised was in the Hebrew language generally used in a purely figurative sense; and phrases like uncircumcised of heart or of ear prove that the rite here discussed was indeed conceived as a type of some of those inward virtues which constitute the chief end of religion. The blood of circumcision confirmed the personal covenant; hence the boy was, on the day when that rite was performed, called a bridegroom of blood (Exo 4:25); and the resected foreskin, which was considered unclean, typified both the abnegation of lasciviousness, and, like the offering of the firstlings, the acknowledgment of Gods sovereignty. Thus a custom of the basest sensuality was converted into a rite of morality; worship of nature into reverence of God; and hierarchy into theocracy. Therefore, to sum up our opinion on circumcision, Mosaism was compelled to retain it on account of the ignominy with which its neglect was regarded by neighbouring nations, and, in consequence, by the Hebrews themselves; but it reformed it from a physical expedient or superstitious rite into a symbol of holiness and of alliance between God and man. (M. M. Kalisch, Ph. D.)
Notes on circumcision
Originally circumcision was performed with a stone knife, to prevent inflammation (see note on Exo 4:25), but at present it is safely done with a steel knife, except on boys who die before the eighth day from their birth, when the ancient custom is followed, as is the case in all instances among the Abyssinian Christians. Sons of Hebrew mothers and heathen fathers were admitted, but not compelled, to circumcision. The operation was generally performed by the father himself, but any Israelite was allowed to act in his stead; heathens alone were excluded. In cases of emergency women even were admitted. But as practice is required to prevent danger, pious persons devoted themselves to that office, which they exercised gratuitously, finding their reward in the consciousness of having introduced the children into the holy covenant. The boy generally received his name on the day of circumcision. And hence we may derive another collateral reason why Abrahams name was changed when that ceremony was commanded to him. There is no historical difficulty in the supposition that circumcision was already introduced in Abrahams time, though it can scarcely be doubted that it received its deeper and internal development only since the diffusion of Mosaism; for it was long generally neglected, and Joshua first carried it out in its full extent (Jos 5:2-9); but from that period it seems, on the whole, to have been faithfully observed; the epithet uncircumcised was deemed the greatest insult and ignominy; and the strictures of the prophets are not directed against its omission, but against the uncircumcised circumcised people who observe the external ritual, but are nevertheless uncircumcised in heart; and in this sense even circumcised nations seem sometimes to have been simply called uncircumcised ones, a proof how clearly the internal purity was regarded as the only aim of this rite. Among the Israelites, therefore, circumcision took, in the course of time, deeper root, while it gradually fell into disuse among the Egyptian people–a natural consequence of the fact proved above, that the one regarded it as a matter of religion, the others of expediency. Although it was by no means an exclusive characteristic of the Israelites, since they shared it with many other nations, and though it was not even original among them, its sacredness was, indeed, peculiar almost to them alone; and hence heathen conquerors, as Antiochus Epiphanes and other enemies, often rigorously interdicted it as one of the surest means of weakening among them the faith of their ancestors; but they never succeeded; it was practised in secret till they were again permitted to perform it without restriction. (M. M.Kalisch, Ph. D.)
Significance of circumcision
In its heathen significance it was certainly saturated with that worship of the forces of the physical world in which probably polytheism took its rise, and with polytheism nearly all the religions and mythologies of antiquity. It bore very directly on the deification of the generative or reproductive virtue in nature–the foul source of much that was cruel and nearly all that was obscene in the mysteries of paganism. Transferred to holy soil, and attached to a covenant of grace, it implied an acknowledgment that God, who is above nature, and not any natural force whatever, is the true Author of physical life and its increase; the sovereign Giver of fertility; above all, the only Quickener of a holy or consecrated life. It taught that what is born of the flesh can only be flesh. It suggested that it is by the painful renunciation of fleshly desire and natural self-confidence man must be surrendered to Gods service as His fit instrument for gracious ends. Finally, it served to point forward to one pure and superhuman birth, through which alone the fatal chain that links in one the sinful generations of mankind could be severed, and a new fountain of salvation and blessing opened for the fallen race. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)
Circumcision
The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher says: If there was one thing which the Jews set above another, as they do still, it was circumcision. It not only was a patriotic ordinance, but it had come down to them as a race peculiarity, a symbol of which they were proud, and they ran along the line of that observance clear back to Abraham himself. While I was in the West, I came across a Rabbi who told me that a man had travelled over six hundred miles with a child in order to have him circumcised. I admit, he said, that the people may not have been moral, and may not have been religious, but they wanted the child circumcised anyhow. That feeling existed in the time of the Apostle Paul to the last degree. The Jews felt about that as you feel about baptism and the Lords Supper. Paul says: Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
The baptism of infants founded on this covenant
Mark how this renewal of the covenant turns upon the consecration of children. Hitherto we have to do with grown-up people, but now we are brought face to face with little ones. We have hardly had a child at all as yet in this long history. One wonders what notice God will take of young life; will He say, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, or will He shut them out of His view until they become great men? Is a child beneath Gods notice? Listen to the covenant: He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you. What an oversight on the part of the Lord not to observe that a child eight days old could not understand what it was about! What a waste of piety to baptize an infant of days when it cannot understand what you are doing to it! It cries, poor thing; therefore, how ridiculous to baptize it! It plucks the preachers gown, or chuckles and coos in the preachers arms; therefore, how absurd to admit it into the covenant! For myself, let me say that when I baptize a child I baptize life–human life–life redeemed by the Son of God. The infant is something more than an infant, it is humanity; it is an heir of Christs immortality. If there be anyone who can laugh at an infant and mock its weakness, they have no right to baptize and consecrate it, and give so mean a thing to God. God Himself baptizes only the great trees; does He ever baptize a daisy? He enriches Lebanon and Bashan with rain, but did He ever hang the dew of the morning upon the shrinking rose? Account for it as you please, God did appoint circumcision for the child eight days old! Christian baptism is founded upon this very covenant. Abraham was ninety-and-nine years old when he was circumcised; Ishmael, his son, was thirteen years old; and then came the infant men-children. So in heathen countries the man is baptized, and the woman, and the child of days. We plead Divine precedent. Whatever objections stand against baptism stand against circumcision, and, therefore, stand against God. The child does not understand the alphabet, do not teach it; the child does not understand language, do not teach it; the child does not understand the Lords Prayer, do not teach it. You say the child will understand by and by; exactly so; that answer is good; and by and by the child will understand that it was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God. Beautiful, too, is Christian baptism when regarded as the expansion of the idea of circumcision. It well befits a tenderer law; circumcision was severe; baptism is gentle: circumcision was limited to men-children; baptism is administered to all: circumcision was established in one tribe, or family, or line of descent; baptism is the universal rite–Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So we go from law to grace; from Moses to the Lamb; from the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, to the quiet and holy Zion. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
The agreement is mutual: my part was expressed before; now follows thy part, and the condition to which my promise and blessing is annexed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore,…. Observe the sign or token of it, circumcision, in the manner after related:
thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; in successive ages until the Messiah come, the end of the law for righteousness.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
On the part of Abraham ( thou, the antithesis to , as for me, Gen 17:4) God required that he and his descendants in all generations should keep the covenant, and that as a sign he should circumcise himself and every male in his house. Niph. of , and perf. Niph. for , from = . As the sign of the covenant, circumcision is called in Gen 17:13, “ the covenant in the flesh, ” so far as the nature of the covenant was manifested in the flesh. It was to be extended not only to the seed, the lineal descendants of Abraham, but to all the males in his house, even to every foreign slave not belonging to the seed of Abram, whether born in the house or acquired (i.e., bought) with money, and to the “ son of eight days, ” i.e., the male child eight days old; with the threat that the uncircumcised should be exterminated from his people, because by neglecting circumcision he had broken the covenant with God. The form of speech , by which many of the laws are enforced (cf. Exo 12:15, Exo 12:19; Lev 7:20-21, Lev 7:25, etc.), denotes not rejection from the nation, or banishment, but death, whether by a direct judgment from God, an untimely death at the hand of God, or by the punishment of death inflicted by the congregation or the magistrates, and that whether is added, as in Exo 31:14, etc., or not. This is very evident from Lev 17:9-10, where the extermination to be effected by the authorities is distinguished from that to be executed by God Himself (see my biblische Archologie ii. 153, 1). In this sense we sometimes find, in the place of the earlier expression “ from his people, ” i.e., his nation, such expressions as “from among his people” (Lev 17:4, Lev 17:10; Num 15:30), “from Israel” (Exo 12:15; Num 19:13), “from the congregation of Israel” (Exo 12:19); and instead of “that soul,” in Lev 17:4, Lev 17:9 (cf. Exo 30:33, Exo 30:38), we find “that man.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verse 9-14:
Verses 9-11: God prescribed certain tokens to confirm various covenants. For example, the token of the Noahic Covenant (Ge 9:9-17) is the rainbow. The token of the Abrahamic Covenant-is circumcision. This practice consists of removal of a portion of the foreskin to allow retraction beyond the glans penis. It is performed in modern times primarily as a medical procedure, calculated to promote hygiene and prevent disease. God instituted circumcision for Abraham and his descendants for religious purposes, as a token of His Covenant. Its practice as a religious rite continues among Jews and Muslims alike.
There appears to be a variety of reasons God decreed this token. It would distinguish the seed of Abraham from the nations; it would perpetuate the memory of God’s covenant with Abraham; it is a reminder of the duty of cultivating moral purity (De 10:16). Other tokens could have accomplished this purpose just as effectively as does circumcision. There appears to be deeper meaning than just these. As a physical operation with spiritual application, circumcision relates to procreation, a reminder of God’s promise of fruitfulness to Abraham and his seed. As an operation removing part of one’s flesh, it emphasizes the necessity of putting away of the “flesh-nature” with its cravings, and pictured to the ancients what baptism pictures to the Christian today (Col 2:11, 12).
Verses 12-14: Circumcision was not an option for Abraham’s descendants. It was to be performed on every male born to his seed, unto all generations, on the eighth day after birth (Le 12:3; Lu 2:21; Php 3:5). This included not only the natural-born seed of Abraham, but even those slaves bought or captured in battle, and those of other nations who chose to dwell among Israel as a member of that nation, a proselyte.
The penalty of refusal to observe this rite was severe. It could mean death in some instances at the hands of the civil authorities. It inevitably meant exclusion from the nation (Ex 12:15, 19; Le 17:4-10; Nu 15:30; 19:14). The uncircumcised male forfeited his standing in the nation.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
9. Thou shalt keep my covenant As formerly, covenants were not only committed to public records, but were also wont to be engraven in brass, or sculptured on stones, in order that the memory of them might be more fully recorded, and more highly celebrated; so in the present instance, God inscribes his covenant in the flesh of Abraham. For circumcision was as a solemn memorial of that adoption, by which the family of Abraham had been elected to be the peculiar people of God. The pious had previously possessed other ceremonies which confirmed to them the certainty of the grace of God; but now the Lord attests the new covenant with a new kind of symbol. But the reason why He suffered the human race to be without this testimony of his grace, during so many ages, is concealed from us; except that we see it was instituted at the time when he chose a certain nation to himself; which thing itself depends on his secret counsel. Moreover, although it would, perhaps, be more suitable for the purpose of instruction, were we to give a summary of those things which are to be said concerning circumcision; I will yet follow the order of the text, which I think more appropriate to the office of an interpreter. In the first place; since circumcision is called by Moses, the covenant of God, we thence infer that the promise of grace was included in it. For had it been only a mark or token of external profession among men, the name of covenant would be by no means suitable, for a covenant is not otherwise confirmed, than as faith answers to it. And it is common to all sacraments to have the word of God annexed to them, by which he testifies that he is propitious to us, and calls us to the hope of salvation; yea, a sacrament is nothing else than a visible word, or sculpture and image of that grace of God, which the word more fully illustrates. If, then, there is a mutual relation between the word and faith; it follows, that the proposed end and use of sacraments is to help, promote and confirm faith. But they who deny that sacraments are supports to faith, or that they aid the word in strengthening faith, must of necessity expunge the name of covenant; because, either God there offers himself as a Promiser, in mockery and falsely, or else, faith there finds that on which it may support itself, and from which it may confirm its own assurance. And although we must maintain the distinction between the word and the sign; yet let us know, that as soon as the sign itself meets our eyes, the word ought to sound in our ears. Therefore, while, in this place, Abraham is commanded to keep the covenant, God does not enjoin upon him the bare use of the ceremony, but chiefly designs that he should regard the end; and certainly, since the promise is the very soul of the sign, whenever it is torn away from the sign, nothing remains but a lifeless and vain phantom. This is the reason why we say, that sacraments are abolished by the Papists; because, the voice of God having become extinct, nothing remains with them, except the residuum of mute figures. Truly frivolous is their boasts that their magical exorcisms stand in the place of the word. For nothing can be called a covenants but what is perceived by us to be clearly revealed, so that it may edify our faith; these actors, who by gesture alone, or by a confused murmuring, play as on pipes, have nothing like this.
We now consider how the covenant is rightly kept; namely, when the word precedes, and we embrace the sign as a testimony and pledge of grace; for as God binds himself to keep the promise given to us; so the consent of faith and of obedience is demanded from us. What follows further on this subject is worthy of notice.
Between me and you (407) Whereby we are taught that a sacrament has not respect only to the external confession, but is an intervening pledge between God and the conscience of man. And, therefore, whosoever is not directed to God through the sacraments, profanes their use. But by the figure metonymy, the name of covenant is transferred to circumcision which is so conjoined with the word, that it could not be separated from it.
(407) ’Inter me et to’ But in the chapter itself it stands, ’Inter me et vos;’ as in the English version. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 17:10. My Covenant.] The outward sign is here called the Covenant, for it is the seal set upon the Covenant. The same mode of expression is used in Act. 7:8. Also, in the Lords Supper the Cup is called the New Testament in Jesus blood. (Luk. 22:19-20). Circumcised. Heb. Shall be cut round about, i.e., there shall be an excision of the prepuce or foreskin of the flesh of all the males. Herodotus speaks of this as a custom ancient in his time, and existing among several nations, chiefly the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Gen. 17:11. The flesh of your foreskin.] The Heb. for foreskin signifies that which is superfluous or redundant, not in itself, but in relation to the ordinance. The same word is applied figuratively to other parts, as to the lips (Exo. 6:20); to the ear. (Jer. 6:10); to the heart (Lev. 26:41; Isa. 6:10). St. James plainly alludes to this (Jas. 1:21) superfluity of naughtiness.
Gen. 17:12. Eight days old.] Heb. Son of eight days. This rite was administered on the eighth day, even though it should happen to be a Sabbath. It was a Jewish maxim that circumcision drives away the Sabbath. This maxim was acted upon in Our Lords time. (Joh. 7:22-23). Delayed till the eighth day, because all creatures newly born were reckoned unclean for seven days, and might not sooner be offered to God. (Lev. 12:2-3). No animal could be presented as an oblation before it was eight days old. (Lev. 22:27). Born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.] Here the rite is enjoined in case of household servants or slaves who were born in the housea class so often described (Gen. 17:13). The last phrase qualifies the whole foregoing. The Heb. reads, And a son of eight days shall be circumcised to you. Every man child in your generationsthe one born in the houseand the purchase of (silver) moneyof every son of a stranger who is not of thy seedshowing that those born in the house refer to such as were not their own children, but of strangers (Jacobus).
Gen. 17:14. That soul.] Heb. That person. Cut off from his people. This phrase, first of all, means exclusion from the Covenant membership and treatment as a Gentile or alien. This was sometimes accompanied with the sentence of death (Exo. 31:14). (Jacobus.) We believe the true sense of the phrase to be that the individual who transgresses the condition or sign of the Covenant thereby resigns his connection with the Hebrew community, and ceases to belong to it (Kalisch). Knobel, Murphy, and others, hold this view.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 17:9-14
THE COVENANT SEAL
The Covenant with Abraham, which had been renewed, is now ratified by the additional confirmation of a sacramental pledge. The seal is now affixed. That outward sign does not make the blessings of the Covenant, but only declares themtaking for granted the validity of the previous transaction. It is the closing act of the whole negotiation of the believers peace and fellowship with God.
I. Its spiritual significance. Abraham was now to become a father, not by his own will but according to the will of God. His carnal policy had failed, better hopes were raised within him. A prospect was before him, bright and important beyond all his former expectation. He was to be the human source of a sacred and gifted societythe Church of God. By the presence and the acknowledgement of a Divine guidance and authority, and by sacramental pledges, this Church must ever be distinct from the world. God now sets His seal upon this epoch which marks the founding of the visible Church. Circumcision had an important meaning considered as a seal. It authenticated Gods signature to the Covenant, and executed it on His part. It was an instrument by which blessings were conveyed to those who in faith set their hands to this seal. It was a sign which parents put upon their children to show that they were devoted to God. It was the distinguishing mark of a holy and elect nation. But, besides all this, circumcision had a spiritual meaning. It taught, in a most impressive manner, certain deep truths about the soul and its relation to God.
1. It taught the natural depravity of man. Man was evil in the sight of God, not possessed any longer of that innocence and constancy in goodness which would secure the Divine favour. A new race, representing a regenerated people, was to be propagated; and therefore it was necessary that there should be this sign of holiness in the fountain head. Like baptism, circumcision teaches the uncleanness of the flesh, i.e., of human nature.
2. It taught the necessity of purification. Human nature must be cleansed at its origin and source. The elect of God must separate themselves from evil.
3. It taught regeneration. A kingdom was to be set up, and men could not enter it by right of natural birth. They must be born again, and thus be made naturalised subjects of that kingdom. They enter it by miraculous meansby the favour of a new creation. Hence even the Old Testament dwells upon the necessity for the circumcision of the heart. A new heart can alone ensure a holy life. The stream cannot be pure as long as the fountain is polluted.
4. It taught that Gods people are to be distinguished from the children of this world. The Israelites were distinguished from other nations by this outward mark on the flesh. That pointed to a vital distinction in the spiritual condition of men. This sign of the Covenant spoke of faith in God, who was to guarantee that the blessings it set forth would be bestowed. And faithin the gospel usage of the termis still the most real and conspicuous difference between man and man. This is the surest touchstone of the innermost nature of the heart. The Covenant of Promise is only for the children of faith. They who possess faith feel that they belong to a race having wider prospects, a nobler calling, and higher aspirations than the rest of mankind. They are marked off as the seed of promise.
5. It taught dedication to God. All who received this sign of the Covenant were bound to give themselves up to God. They were no longer their own. Each one bore in his body the marks of a heavenly calling, the sign of a perpetual obligation to serve God.
6. It pointed to Christ, who does not come by natural generation. The true bringer in of salvation was the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the promised seed. His human nature was pure from its source. Thus circumcision preaches the whole doctrine of salvation, its necessity, and the means by which it is brought about. It proclaims the souls needof the mortification of the fleshof repentanceof a Saviour from sin.
II. Its subjects. The rite of circumcision was enjoined not only upon Abraham and his seed, but also upon all his servants or slaves, and upon all born of them in his house. Everyone connected with him by social or domestic ties must submit to this outward sign of the Covenant. In his capacity as a father and as a master he had to see that this rite was administered. Great principles and facts are involved in this description of the nature and extent of this duty.
1. The principle of human responsibility. Gods blessings are not to be received passively by us without any thought or concern. We have to acknowledge, in Gods own appointed way, that these good gifts bind us to the performance of duties. God originates Covenant mercies from His own free goodness, but we have to take our part in reference to them. We have to accept our obligation.
2. That a man is accountable for the souls of those who are connected with him by social or domestic ties. Abraham had to submit his servants and their offspring to this rite (Gen. 17:12-13). The employers of labour should remember that their duties to those who are under them do not end with mere considerations of work and wages. Their humble dependents are something more than dumb machines. They have souls which are capable of receiving impressions for good or evil. They have spiritual interests of a surpassing nature which may be affected for weal or woe by the conduct of those whom Providence has placed over them. This is too often forgotten, as we may see by the confessions of human language which describes the employed as hands. Men speak in a most careless manner in this regard, and do not consider the separate individuality of souls. Property and influence have their privileges, but they have also important duties. No differences of social position can discharge us from the duty of paying profound respect to the image of God in man. With religious men, all duty has reference to God and His purposes concerning the human race.
3. That the Covenants of God are not narrow in their range. The promised blessings were not only for Abraham and his seed, but also for all who were associated with him, even for strangers. The area over which the Covenant mercy was to show itself was thus made very wide. This pointed to the wide charity and universality of the provisions of the Gospel.
4. That in our duty to others there is an element of hope and encouragement. When Abraham imparted the sign of the Covenant to his children and servants, he would see that God had designed blessings for them. His duty would not be performed from a dry sense of obligation, but have an element of gladness in it arising from the thought of the blessings which it would convey to others. He who labours for the highest good of mankind is encouraged by the light of hope. The picture of Abrahams vast posterity was rendered bright and grateful to him by the thought that they, too, would receive the blessings of the Divine favour.
III. Its obligation. The Covenant rite was not a thing indifferent, to be performed or neglected at pleasure. It was binding on all to whom it was committed.
1. Because God commanded it. No one was free to refuse it on the ground that it was unnecessary, and had no real connection with the promised blessings. God commanded, and that was enough. He knows the reason why. God knows what is good for man, and what outward signs he requires to aid him in the apprehension of things spiritual
2. Because Gods commands were hedged about by sanctions. God gives more than mere advice to His creatures. He gives law, which draws after it penalties. An appeal is made not only to our sense of what is reasonable, but also to our sense of fear. We have to consider that we are incurring danger by neglecting Gods plain commands. What God has instituted and made binding upon us cannot be lightly set aside; for this implies contempt for the authority by which it was ordained, and of the grace of which it was the seal.
CIRCUMCISION AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
Abraham is circumcised on the eve of his becoming the father of the Messiahwhen the holy seed is to spring from him; and all the faithful are to be circumcised till the holy seed is come. Hence one reason why this introductory seal of the Covenant is superseded, and another sacrament has been ordained in its place. Circumcision significantly pointed to the future birth of Christ, who was to be of the seed of Abraham. The birth being accomplished, the propriety of circumcision as a sacrament ceases. Any corresponding rite now must be not prospective, but retrospective; not looking forward to the beginning of the Messiahs work, as the righteousness of God, when in His birth He was shown to be His Holy One, and His Son by His miraculous conception in the Virgins wombbut looking back to the end of His work, in His burial, when He was declared to be the Son of God with power, by His resurrection from the grave.
Such a rite, accordingly, is Baptism, as explained by the Apostle when he says, We are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Our baptism signifies our engrafting into Christ, as not merely born, but buried and risen again. It refers not to His entrance into the world, but to His leaving it. It is the symbol, not of His pure and holy birth merely, but of the purifying and cleansing efficacy of His precious blood shed upon the cross, and the power of His resurrection to life and glory. Abraham and the faithful of old were circumcised into His birth, His redemption being yet future; we are baptised into His death, His redemption being now past. The one sacrament was an emblem of purity, connected with a Saviour to be born; the other is an emblem of purity connected with a Saviour who liveth and was dead, and behold! is alive for evermore! Both circumcision and baptism denote the purging of the conscience from dead works, or from the condemnation and corruption of the old nature, through the real and living union of the believer with Christwith Christ about to come in the flesh, in the one case; with Christ already come, in the other.(Candlish.)
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 17:9. Blessings imply obligations. God turns to man as the other party to the Covenant to remind him of his duty.
My Covenant. The Apostle informs us of the true nature of this ordinance, and thus of a sacrament, as such, that it is a sign and seal, in the passage in Romans which refers to this transaction. And he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised (Rom. 4:11). It is an outward sign of an inward grace, and a seal also, whereby the signature is formally attested and authenticated. As in a deed or instrument of conveyance, there is first the signature, and then the seal which confirms it, and in so far executes the instrument. But it needs also beyond that to be delivered. And this calls for the hand of faith.(Jacobus.)
Gen. 17:10. Circumcision, as the rainbow, might have been in existence before it was adopted as the token of a Covenant. The sign of the Covenant with Noah was a purely natural phenomenon, and therefore entirely independent of man. That of the Abrahamic Covenant was an artificial process, and therefore, though prescribed by God, was dependent on the voluntary agency of man. The former marked the sovereignty of God in ratifying the Covenant, and ensuring its fulfilment, notwithstanding the mutability of man; the latter indicates the responsibility of man, the trust he places in the word of promise, and the assent he gives to the terms of the Divine mercy. The rainbow was the appropriate natural emblem of preservation from a flood, and the removal of the foreskin was the fit symbol of that removal of the old man and renewal of nature which qualified Abraham to be the parent of a holy seed. And as the former sign foreshadows an incorruptible inheritance, so the latter prepares the way for a holy seed, by which the holiness and the heritage will at length be universally extended.(Murphy.)
Under the old covenant, as everything pointed forward to Christ the God-manSon of Manso every offering was to be a male, and every covenant rite was properly enough confined to the males. The females were regarded as acting in them, and represented by them. Under the New Testament this distinction is not appropriate. It is not male and female (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).Jacobus.
The appointment of this rite suited well with Gods promise to multiply the seed of Abraham. This outward badge would serve for the attestation of that promise.
All who by Divine Providence are thrown into the midst of the family of God are bound to receive the Covenant sign. Hence the propriety of Christian baptism. The privileges of the Church are also duties. Men must be brought to acknowledge that they are not their own, and that their lives should be dedicated to God. They must be reminded whose they are, and whom they are bound to serve. Sacraments may be neglected, and many may prove unworthy of the grace they seal; yet that obligation which they signify still remains.
Gen. 17:11. As a sign placed upon the foreskin, it designates still more definitely on the one side, that the corruption is one which has especially fallen upon or centres in the propagation of the race, and has an essential source of support in it, as, on the other side, it is a sign and seal that man is called to a new life, and also, that for this new life the conception and procreation should be consecrated and sanctified (Joh. 1:13-14).Lange.
Sacramental Signs.
1. Are outward and visible. They impress the senses.
2. They teach spiritual truths. Circumcision was a teaching ordinance; so are baptism and the Lords Supper.
3. They are the appointed channels of spiritual blessings. Though God is not tied to them, yet He promises grace to the worthy in their use.
4. They serve as perpetual reminders of Gods grace, and of our own duty and responsibility.
Gen. 17:12-13. It is worthy of remark that in circumcision, after Abraham himself, the parent is the voluntary imponent, and the child merely the passive recipient of the sign of the Covenant. This is the first formal step in a godly education, in which the parent acknowledges his obligation to perform all the rest. It is also, on the command of God, the formal admission of the believing parents offspring into the privileges of the Covenant, and therefore cheers the heart of the parent in entering upon the parental task. This admission cannot be reversed but by the deliberate rebellion of the child. The sign of the Covenant is also to be applied to every male in the household of Abraham. This indicates that the servant or serf stands in the relation of a child to his master or owner, who is therefore accountable for the soul of his serf, as for that of his son. It points out the applicability of the Covenant to others, as well as to the children of Abraham, and therefore its capability of universal extension when the fulness of time should come. It also intimates the very plain but often forgotten truth, that our obligation to obey God is not cancelled by our unwillingness. The serf is bound to have his child circumcised as long as God requires it, though he may be unwilling to comply with the Divine commandments.(Murphy).
The fact that Abraham was bound to administer this rite, either to those who were unconscious of its meaning or to those who might be unwilling to receive it, shows that the acceptance of religious privileges is compulsory. Children born of Christian parents are compelled to become Christians, and in after life God holds them responsible for the right use of the privileges implied in that sacred name. They may complain of the appointment by which such things are thrust upon themthat others have chosen for them, but they cannot get rid of this law imposed on their nature, by which they are obliged to accept responsibility. They might as well try to abolish the law of gravitation, which also, in its way, may sometimes prove a tyranny. To everyone brought within the influence of religious privileges, is committed an uncontrollable destinythe destiny of accountableness, the fate of being free, the unalienable prerogative of choosing between life and death.
We have to accept our religious privileges as we have to accept the fact of our birth. We can no more discharge ourselves from the one than we can annul the other.
It has pleased God to perpetuate religion by means of the family relation. Some amongst mankind shall be born to religious privileges which convey inalienable rights and obligations.
If the visible Church were a mere voluntary association, to make me a member of such a body in my infancy, and without my consent, might be held to be an unwarrantable infringement on my freedom of choice. But if the visible Church be Gods ordinance, and not a mere contrivance or expedient of man, there is no absurdity and no injustice in the arrangement. If, while yet unconscious and incapable of consenting, I am enrolled and registered, and sealed as one of the household of Godif I am marked out from the womb as peculiarly His, by privilege, by promise, and by obligationno wrong is done to me, nor is any restriction put upon me. If God makes me, by birth, the scion of a noble stock, the child and heir of an illustrious house, then, by my birth, I am necessarily invested with certain rights, and am bound to certain duties. I may refuse, in after life, to take the place assigned to me; I may never avail myself of its advantages; I may never realise my rank, or imbibe the spirit and enter into the high aims of my honourable calling. Still, if I live not according to my birth, the fault is my own. Whether I take advantage of it or not, my birthin the plan and purpose of Gods providencehad a meaning which might have actually stood me in good stead, if I had so chosen and willed it. So in regard to circumcision or baptism. If God makes meby such a seal and pledge of grace imparted to me in infancya member of that society on earth which bears His name, I may never be in reality what that rite should signify to me. But not the less on that account has the rite a significancy, as implying a spiritual title and spiritual benefits, which are in themselves intended and fitted for my good. And if afterwards I wilfully refuse them, with the badge of them upon my person, it is with aggravated guilt, and at my own increased peril.(Candlish.)
The privileges of a parent and of a master bring obligations with them to perform the duties implied in those relations. We should care for the eternal as well as the temporal interests of those committed to our charge; for all such duty should have reference to God who commands, and to the immortal nature of those on whom it is exercised.
The wide charity of the Gospel reveals itself even in what appears to be the exclusive dealings of God with mankind. Here is a provision for strangers to be admitted into the family of God. The privileges of the kingdom of God are not intended for a favoured few, but for all who are willing to receive them.
The rite of circumcision, though stated to be of eternal obligation, was yet destined to pass away when the better Covenant was established. Yet the grace signified, entering the hearts and purifying the lives of believers, would remain for ever. The essential part of Gods Covenant abides. They have an enduring substance.
Gen. 17:14. However it is to be understood, the threatening is a severe one, and shows conclusively with what reverence God would have His own ordinances regarded, especially those that bear so directly upon our spiritual interests. Having ordained that the sign and the promise should go together, it was at anyones peril that he presumed to sunder them. Yet as God desireth mercy and not sacrifice, so the sickness or weakness of an infant might warrant the delay of the ceremony; and if one chanced to die before the eighth day, it was not to be supposed that this circumstance prejudiced its prospects of future happiness. The same remarks are, in their spirit, applicable to the ordinance of baptism. It is the avowed contempt of the ordinance, and not the providential exclusion from it, that makes us objects of Gods displeasure. The directions here given are to be understood as not only addressed to Abraham personally, but in him to his natural seed in all generations. The reason assigned for this severe edict is, He hath broken my Covenanti.e., hath made prostrate, broken down, demolished, in opposition to the phrase, to establish, to make firm a covenant.(Bush.)
Such is uniformly the Lords manner of dealing with His people. When, in terms of the everlasting Covenant, He freely dispenses the richest spiritual blessings, He places His gift on the footing not of a privilege merely, but of a peremptory order. He not merely permits, and encourages, and invites; He straitly charges and authoritatively commands.(Candlish.)
God does not propose His laws and ordinances for our consideration and acceptance at our own convenience. He still maintains His dignity as Lord; and while He seeks to win us by His gracious favour, at the same time demands our obedience.
The obligation of sacraments.
1. They are means of grace. They are for the strengthening of our soulan aid to our minds in conceiving of spiritual thingsthey afford a greater security for our belief. We should not despise what is so freely offered for our benefit, and so graciously accommodated to our weakness.
2. They are commanded by God. His authority is paramount, and we should yield to it implicit obedience. God knows all the reasons of His appointments. Our business is to observe and do.
3. The wilful neglect of them is visited with Gods displeasure. The culpable neglect of circumcision excluded men from the family of Gods ancient Church. So the contempt and disregard of the Christian sacraments now expose men to the like danger. Every Christian ought not only to use the sacraments as means of grace, but also as occasions for making a public confession of religion, and distinguishing him from those who are strangers to the covenant of promise.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
3. The Covenant-Sign (Gen. 17:9-14)
9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 and the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Fleshly Circumcision: The Greeks had two words for covenant, viz., suntheke and diatheke. The former was used to denote a solemn agreement made between equals; and the latter, to denote any arrangement made by a superior for the acceptance and observance of an inferior. And hence it is, that all of Gods covenants are expressed in Greek by the word diatheke. The word suntheke is not found in the New Testament; but diatheke occurs in it 33 times; and breeth is used 267 times in the Old Testament (Milligan, SR. 77, n.). The former word indicates a contract; the latter, the distinction between a covenant and a contract.
The time has now arrived for the details of the Old Covenant to be set forth. How could a rite of this sort be inaugurated at all in a satisfactory manner without clear directions a) as to what manner of operation it was to be (Gen. 17:11); or b) as to at what age it was to be administered (Gen. 17:12 a); or c) as to who falls under its provisions, whether only the direct descendants of Abraham or also the slaves of the household (Gen. 17:12 b); or d) as to the absolute or relative necessity of this rite for all those enumerated (Gen. 17:13). To impose the rite and leave all these problems open would merely have caused grievous perplexity to those entrusted with the duty of circumcision. Consequently, all such critical remarks as the legal style of this section is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the book of Leviticus, are just another case where the nature of the circumstances that call for just such a presentation is confused with the problem of style. The question of various authors (J, E, and P) does not enter in at this point. No matter who the author is, the case in question calls for this kind of presentation of the necessary details (EG, 522).
The details are, therefore, made very clear. Lange (CDHCG, 423): 1. The act of circumcision: the removal of the foreskin; 2. the destination; the sign of the covenant; 3. the time: eight days after the birth (se ch. Gen. 21:4, Lev. 12:3; Luk. 1:59; Luk. 2:21; Joh. 7:22, Php. 3:5; Josephus, Antiq. I, 12, 2); 4. the extent of its efficacy: not only the children, but slaves born in the house (and those also bought with his money) were to be circumcised; 5. its inviolability: those who were not circumcised should be cut off, uprooted. Note also the clear specification here, Gen. 17:12every male throughout your generation, etc. Females were considered as represented in the males: thus the patriarchal authority was divinely confirmed and the unity and integrity of the family as well. The provisions of the Mosaic Law were directed toward the preservation of the family as the social unit. Circumcision served to cement all families into a single family or people of God. (A people is rightly designated a nation.) It was the sign that set the national family (people) apart as belonging exclusively to the living and true God.
Skinner (ICCG, 293): The Beritb is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to one particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal act of choice on mans part being no essential feature of the relation. (Why say it was so conceived? According to the text it was a self-determination on Gods part.) Concerning Gen. 17:6-7, kings shall come out of thee (cf. Mic. 5:2), I will establish my covenant . . . to be a God unto thee. Jamieson writes (CECG, 151152): Had this communication to Abram been made at the time of his call, it could have conveyed no other idea to the mind of one who had been an idolater, and was imbued with the prejudices engendered by idolatry, than that, instead of the ideal fictitious deities he had been accustomed to look to and worship, the true, living, personal, God was to be substituted. But he had now for a long series of years become familiarized with the name, appearances, and educational training of Him who had called him, and therefore he was prepared to accept the promise in a wider and more comprehensive senseto understand, in short, that to be a God unto him included all that God had been, or had promised to be to him and to his posterityan instructor, a guide, a governor, a friend, a wise and loving father, who would confer upon them whatever was for their good, chasten them whenever they did wrong, and fit them for the high and important destiny for which he had chosen them. It is perfectly clear that this promise was primarily meant to refer to the natural descendants of Abram, who, by the election of grace, were to be separated from the rest of the nations, and to the temporal blessings which it guaranteed to them (Rom. 11:16; Rom. 15:8). Note again Gen. 17:7, to be to thee a God. The essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently recurring formula (Skinner, ICCG, 293).
Leupold (EG, 522): So then, first of all, since a mark in the flesh might be cut into various parts of the body, the divine command specifies what mans thought might well have deemed improbable, that this cutting was to be in the flesheuphemismof their foreskin. Such a peritome will then certainly be a sign of a covenant between God and a member of the covenant people. So little does the unsanctified mind appreciate the issues involved, that in the eyes of the Gentiles circumcision was merely an occasion for ridicule of the Jews. Again (p. 524): It certainly is passing strange to find critics referring to this solemn rite which God ordained as a taboothe taboo of the household required the circumcision of the purchased slave child (Procksch). Taboos are superstitious practices: here is one of the most solemn divine institutions of the Old Testament.
History of Circumcision. Speiser (ABG, 126): Circumcision is an old and widely diffused practice, generally linked with puberty and premarital rites. In the ancient Near East it was observed by many of Israels neighbors, among them the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and certain other nomadic elements (cf. Jer. 9:26). But the Philistines did not follow it (cf. 2Sa. 1:20), and neither did the Hivites (i.e., Horites) of Central Palestine (Gen. 34:15). Nor was the custom in vogue in Mesopotamia. Thus the patriarchs would not have been likely to adopt circumcision prior to their arrival in Canaan, which is just what the present account says in another way. . . . Eventually, the rite became a distinctive group characteristic, and hence also a cultural and spiritual symbol. To P, however, it was essential proof of adherence to the covenant. (P, of course, is the Priestly Code, to which this chapter is assigned by the critics.) Toy (IHR, 68 ff.): The most widely diffused of such customs of initiation is the gashing or the complete removal of the prepuce. It existed in ancient times among the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Hebrews (for the Arabs, the Syrians, and the Babylonians and Assyrians we have no information), not, so far as the records go, among the Greeks, Romans, and Hindus. At the present time it is found among all Moslems and most Jewish communities, throughout Africa, Australia, Polynesia and Melanesia, and, it is said, in Eastern Mexico. It is hardly possible to say what its original distribution was, and whether or not there was a single center of distribution. As to its origin many theories have been advanced. Its character as initiatory is not an explanationall customs of initiation needed to have their origins explained. This author goes on to list these various theories as to the origin of the practice, giving also the objections to them as follows: 1. It cannot be regarded as a test of endurance, for it involves no great suffering, and neither it nor the severer operation of sub-incision (practiced in Australia) is ever spoken of as an official test. 2. A hygienic ground is out of the question for early society. The requisite medical observation is then lacking, and there is no hint of such a motive in the material bearing on the subject. . . . The exact meaning of Herodotuss statement that the Egyptians were circumcised for the sake of cleanliness, preferring it to beauty, is not clear; but in any case so late an idea throws no light on the beginnings. (Cf. Herod. II, 7). 3. Somewhat more to the point is Crawleys view that the object of the removal of the prepuce is to get rid of the dangerous emanation from the physical secretion therewith connected. . . . But this view, though conceivably correct, is without support from known facts. . . . There is no trace of fear of the secretion in question. . . nor does this theory account for the custom of subincision. 4. As circumcision is often performed shortly before marriage, it has been suggested that its object is to increase pro-creative phimosis. . . . Such an object, however, is improbable for low stages of societyit implies an extent of observation that is not to be assumed for savages. 5. There is no clear evidence that the origin of circumcision is to be traced to religious conceptions. It has been held that it is connected with the cult of the generative organs (phallic worship). . . . But each of these customs is found frequently without the other: In India we have phallic worship without circumcision, in Australia circumcision without phallic worship; and this separateness of the two may be said to be the rule. The cult of the phallus seems not to exist among the lowest peoples. 6. The view that circumcision is of the nature of a sacrifice or dedication to a deity, particularly to a deity of fertility, appears to be derived from late usages in times when more refined ideas have been attached to early customs. The Phrygian practice of excision was regarded, probably, as a sacrifice. But elsewhere, in Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, and Canaan, where the worship of gods and goddesses of fertility was prominent, we do not find circumcision connected therewith. In the writings of the Old Testament prophets it is treated as a symbol of moral purification. Among the lower peoples there is no trace of the conception if it as a sacrifice. It is not circumcision that makes the phallus sacredit is sacred in itself, and all procedures of savage veneration for the prepuce assume its inherent potency. 7. Nor can circumcision be explained as an attenuated survival of human sacrifice. The practice (in Peru and elsewhere) of drawing blood from the heads or hands of children on solemn occasions may be a softening of an old savage custom, and the blood of circumcision is sacred. But this quality attaches to all blood, and the essential thing in circumcision is not the blood but the removal of the prepuce. 8. The suggestion that the object of detaching and preserving the foreskin (a vital part of ones self) is to lay up a stock of vital energy, and thus secure reincarnation for the disembodied spirit, is putting an afterthought for origin. The existence of the practice in question is doubtful, and it must have arisen, if it existed, after circumcision had become an established custom. Savages and other peoples, when they feel the need of providing for reincarnation, commonly preserve the bones or the whole body of the deceased.
Lange (CDHCG, 423, 424): The Epistle of Barnabas, in a passage which has not been sufficiently regarded (ch. 9) brings into prominence the idea, that we must distinguish circumcision, as an original custom of different nations, from that which receives the patriarchal and theocratic sanction. The heathen circumcision, as Delitzsch remarks, leaving out of view the Ishmaelites, Arabians, and the tribes connected with them both by blood and in history, is thus very analogous to the heathen sacrifice. As the sacrifice sprang from the feeling of the necessity for an atonement, so circumcision from the consciousness of the impurity of human nature. But that the spread of circumcision among the ancient nations is analogous to the general prevalence of sacrifice, has not yet been proved. It remains to be investigated, whether the national origin of circumcision stands rather in some relation to religious sacrifice; whether it may possibly form an opposition to the custom of human sacrifice (for it is just as absurd to view it with some, as a remnant of human sacrifice, as to regard it with others, as a modification of eunuchism); whether it may have prevailed from sanitary motives, or whether is has not rather from the first had its ground and source in the idea of the consecration of the generative nature, and of the propagation of the race. At all events, circumcision did not come to Abraham as a custom of his ancestors; he was circumcised when ninety-nine years of age. This bears with decisive weight against the generalizing of the custom by Delitzsch. As to the destination of circumcision to be the sign of the covenant, its patriarchal origin is beyond question. Again, Gosman (CDHCG, 424): As the rainbow was chosen to be the sign of the covenant with Noah, so the prior existence of circumcision does not render it less fit to be the sign of the covenant with Abraham, nor less significant. Murphy (MG, 310): The rainbow was the appropriate natural emblem of preservation from a flood; and the removal of the foreskin was the fit symbol of that removal of the old man and renewal of nature, which qualified Abraham to be the parent of a holy seed. And as the former sign foreshadows an incorruptible inheritance, so the latter prepares the way for a holy seed, by which the holiness and the heritage will at length be universally extended. Again, Lange, ibid., p. 424): See Joh. 7:22. Still it was placed upon a new legal basis by Moses (Exo. 4:24-25; Lev. 12:3), and was brought into regular observance by Joshua (Jos. 5:2). That it should be the symbol of the new birth, i.e., of the sanctification of human nature, from its source and origin, is shown both by the passages which speak of the circumcision of the heart (Lev. 26:41; Deu. 10:16; Deu. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Jer. 9:25; Eze. 44:7), and from the manner of speech in use among the Israelites, in which Jewish proselytes were described as new-born.
Details of the Ordinance of Circumcision. (1) Gen. 17:10every male among you shall be circumcised. (Cf. Exo. 12:48-49, Jos. 5:3; Jos. 5:7). This allowed for no exceptions; at the same time it exempted all females. (It should be noted that circumcision of girls (by the removal of the clitoris and the labia minora) was a common custom among many primitive peoples and continues to be practised by some groups in our own time. Closely related to circumcision of girls was the practice of introcision (enlargement of the vaginal orifice by tearing it downward) and infibulation (the closing of the labia just after circumcision). The first two of the practices mentioned were for the purpose of facilitating coition; the last-named was for the purpose of preventing coition until the proper age was reached. These practices were all characteristic of initiation ceremonies associated with arrival at the age of puberty. Obviously this could not have been the design of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant: hence, we must conclude that in it females were considered as represented by the males, as stated above. (2) Gen. 17:8he that is eight days old (cf. Lev. 12:3; Luk. 1:59; Luk. 2:21; Php. 3:5). This specific age requirement shows that in the Abrahamic covenant circumcision could not have been a puberty rite in any sense of the term: we know of no puberty rites performed on infants only eight days old. (Note the interesting case of Zipporah and Moses and their two sons, Exo. 2:22; Exo. 18:2-4; Exo. 4:24-26. The narrative in Gen. 17:24-26 is somewhat obscure. It seems, however, that Eliezer had been born a few days before Zipporah and Moses set out on the journey back to Egypt. In the course of the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived and his circumcision should have taken place. Evidently the rite was repugnant to Zipporah and she deferred it, with Moses weakly consenting to this act of disobedience. At the end of the eighth day, when Moses went to rest for the night, he was seized by what was probably a dangerous illness of some kind. This he rightly regarded as a divinely inflicted punishment, visited on him for his act of disobedience. To dishonor that sign and seal of the covenant was criminal in any Hebrew, particularly so in one destined to be the leader and deliverer of the Hebrews; and he seems to have felt his sickness as a merited chastisement for the sinful omission. Concerned for her husbands safety, Zipporah overcomes her maternal feelings of aversion to the painful rite, performs it herself, by means of one of the sharp flints with which that part of the desert abounded, an operation which her husband, on whom the duty devolved, was unable to do; and having brought the bloody evidence, exclaimed, in the painful excitement of her feelings, that from love to him she had risked the life of her child (Jamieson, CEC, Exo., in loco). Note her reproachful words, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. That is, surely I have redeemed thy life, and, as it were, wedded thee anew to me in the bloody circumcision of thy son (SIB, Exo., in loco). Note the following explanation (JB, 83): Zipporah circumcises her son and simulates circumcision for her husband by touching his male organ with her sons foreskin. Not to circumcise was tantamount to abrogating the covenant (Gen. 17:14) and meant that the uncircumcised was cut off from inclusion in the covenant people. Since the advent of Christ, real circumcision has been of the heart and not of the flesh, Rom. 2:29 (HSB, 89). The rite once performed, albeit reluctantly, God abated His anger and permitted Moses to recover his strength and continue his journey to Egypt. This incident surely proves that fleshly circumcision was not to be treated lightly under the Old Covenant. It points up the fact also that no divine ordination is to be treated lightly. Think of the many ways in which churchmen have ignored, rejected, distorted, even ridiculed, Christian baptism! (3) Why on the eighth day? Perhaps because it was held that the child was not separated and purified from its embryonic state until seven days had gone by following birth, seven having been regarded as the number (symbol) of perfection and the week of birth was a terminus for the birth throes and labor (the time element may have been definitely connected with the ceremonial purification of the mother, Leviticus 12). Moreover, as the law regarded animals used for sacrifice as entering upon their independent existence with the eighth day (Exo. 22:30, Lev. 22:17), so the human infant was probably viewed from the same angle.
The following summation (K-D, 227) is worthy of careful study here: Eternal duration was promised only to the covenant established by God with the seed of Abraham, which was to grow into a multitude of nations, but not to the covenant institution which God established in connection with the lineal posterity of Abraham, the twelve tribes of Israel. Everything in this institution which was of a local and limited character, and only befitted the physical Israel and the earthly Canaan, existed only so long as was necessary for the seed of Abraham to expand into a multitude of nations. So again it was only in its essence that circumcision could be a sign of the eternal covenant. Circumcision, whether it passed from Abraham to other nations, or sprang up among other nations independently of Abraham and his descendants, was based upon the religious view that the sin and moral impurity which the fall of Adam had introduced into the nature of man had concentrated itself in the sexual organs, because it is in sexual life that it generally manifests itself with peculiar force; and, consequently, that for the sanctification of life, a purification or sanctification of the organ of generation, by which life is propagated, is especially required. In this way circumcision in the flesh became a symbol of the circumcision, i.e., the purification of the heart (Deu. 10:16; Deu. 30:6; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 4:4; Jer. 9:25, Eze. 44:7), and a covenant sign to those who received it, inasmuch as they were received into the fellowship of the holy nation (Exo. 19:6), and required to sanctify their lives, in other words, to fulfill all that the covenant demanded. It was to be performed on every boy on the eighth day after birth, not because the child, like its mother, remains so long in a state of impurity, but because, as the analogous rule with regard to the fitness of young animals for sacrifice would lead us to conclude, this was regarded as the first day of independent existence (Lev. 22:27, Exo. 22:29).
(4) Gen. 17:12-13Every male child that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed (cf. Lev. 24:22, Num. 15:15-16). Murphy (MG, 310): This points out the applicability of the covenant to others, as well as the children of Abraham, and therefore its capability of universal extension when the fullness of the time should come. It also intimates the very plain but very often forgotten truth, that our obligation to obey God is not cancelled by our unwillingness. The serf is bound to have his child circumcised as long as God requires it, though he may be unwilling to comply with the divine commandments. It will be noted that the two classes specified here were those male children born within the limits of Abrahams own household, and foreign male children born of parents who had been bought with his money. Obviously these two classes had to be taught to know Jehovah after their induction into the covenant. Cf. Jer. 31:31-34here we learn that this fleshly covenant was to give way in due time to a new spiritual covenant, a covenant of faith; that is, all who enter into this new covenant relationship should know Jehovah as a condition of admission. Under this New Covenant Gods law would be written in their hearts (put into their inward parts) as a prerequisite of their induction into the covenant (cf. 2Co. 3:1-11, Heb. 8:6-13). Fleshly circumcision should give way to spiritual circumcision, circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29, Php. 3:3, Col. 2:9-13). But now the further question: Were such uncircumcised slaves and slave children incorporated into the chosen people by this rite? Leupold (EG, 524): We believe that the answer must be, Yes. Israel certainly never had a separate slave class, who were deemed inferior beings and mere chattels. What then became of the slaves that originally were part of the household establishment and went down into Egypt at Jacobs time? The answer seems to be: They were naturally absorbed by the Israelites and blended with the Israelite stock, adopting the Israelite religion. So with all its necessary exclusiveness Israel was at the same time broader in its attitude than many assume. But there certainly could be little hesitation about letting circumcised slaves be merged with the chosen race. The rite of circumcision, instead of being the badge of any favored class within the nation destined to spring from Abrahams loins, was, on pain of excommunication, to be open to the lowliest member of the commonwealth of Israel, even to the bond-servant and the stranger. (5) The penalty for disobedience, either by omission or commission: that soul shall be cut off from his people. Not infants, who could not circumcise themselves, but such as wilfully neglected the ordinance when they grew up, would nationally be cut off from their people. Anyone who renounced this distinguishing mark of Abrahams seed, renounced his covenant alliance with God and fellowship with His people. Nothing could be more reasonable, therefore, than that they should be excluded from the privileges of the nation and accounted as heathens. This is the import of cutting off from his people in most of the passages where we find the phrase (cf. Exo. 12:15; Exo. 12:19; Exo. 30:33; Exo. 30:38.Lev. 7:20-21; Lev. 7:25; Lev. 7:27; Lev. 17:4; Lev. 17:9-10; Lev. 17:14; Lev. 22:3.Num. 9:3; Num. 19:13; Num. 19:20). In some passages, however, death is certainly connected with the phrase, that is, death by the immediate hand of God thru the magistrate (cf. Exo. 31:14; Lev. 18:29; Lev. 19:8; Lev. 20:3; Lev. 20:5-6; Lev. 20:17; Num. 15:30-36). It is difficult to determine whether this phrase indicated anything beyond excommunication in the present instance. Certainly, however, to despise and reject the sign, was to despise and reject the covenant itself; hence, he who neglects or refuses the sign, he hath broken my covenant (Gen. 17:14). It can not be doubted that in some cases capital punishment (by stoning to death) was the sanction inflicted for flagrant violations of Gods law under the Mosaic institution. However, to suppose that such was its meaning here necessitates the restriction of the punishment to adults, whereas with the alternative signification no such restriction requires to be imposed on the statute. The uncircumcised Hebrew, whether child or adult, forfeited his standing in the congregation, i.e., ceased to be a member of the Hebrew commonwealth: he hath broken my covenant (Whitelaw, PCG, 234).
Design of the Covenant Sign. Not a divinely ordained instrumentality for initiation into the people of God, at least not for a native Israelite. He was a member of the people of God by virtue of birth. By circumcision he was made aware of his covenant obligations and received a perpetual badge or reminder of these obligations (Leupold, EG, 521). Was it, as some would have it, a self-imposed obligation on the part of God, irrespective of any condition on the part of man, or was it, as others would say, a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obligations between God and men? We think Skinners explanation is more to the point (ICCG, 298): The truth seems to lie somewhere between two extremes. The Berith is neither a simple divine promise to which no obligation on mans part is attached (as in Gen. 15:18), nor is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination of Gods purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate; but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the individual from its benefits. (The same is equally true of the New Covenant). Circumcision here becomes a sign which, like the rainbow of Gen. 9:16-17, is to remind God of his Covenant and man of the obligations deriving from his belonging to chosen people (JB, 33, n.). Circumcision was covenantal in nature, being the outward sign or seal of the Abrahamic agreement which God made (Gen. 17:11). The failure to be circumcised separated one from the people of Israel. The command was perpetuated in the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:3, Joh. 7:22-23). In the gospel dispensation, circumcision was abolished (Eph. 2:11-15, Col. 3:11), and to require it now is to revert to legalism. Circumcision in this age is of the heart and not of the flesh, but even when it was binding it had no value unless accompanied by faith and obedience (Rom. 3:30, Gal. 5:6, Rom. 2:25, 1Co. 7:19) (HSB, 28). The most important fact of all is that circumcision is tied up closely with the Messianic hope. For if it indicates the purification of life at its source, it in the last analysis points forward to Him through whom all such purification is to be achieved, who is Himself also to be born by a woman, but is to be He in whom for the first time that which circumcision prefigures will be actually realized (EG, 521).
REVIEW QUESTIONS
See Gen. 17:22-27.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
9. Thou shalt keep God has now said what he for his part will do; here he directs Abraham’s part of observing the covenant . Comp . Gen 17:4, note .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And God said to Abraham, “And as for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant that you shall keep between me and you and your seed after you, every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it will be a token of a covenant between me and you”.’
In Genesis 15 a sign was given to Abram in the form of a covenant ceremony where the blood of animals was shed to seal the covenant. Here that is replaced by the shedding of blood in person in each one who would enter the covenant. By being specifically circumcised with a view to membership in the covenant community they showed their response to God’s covenant with His people and their commitment to the God of the covenant.
We note here that the respective positions are made clear. It is God Who ‘establishes’ the covenant (Gen 17:7). It is Abraham who ‘keeps’ it (Gen 17:9-10). Circumcision is not the making of a covenant but the response to a covenant already established by God.
The rite, which was restricted to males, was to be carried out on the eighth day after birth (Gen 17:12) although any male who was uncircumcised and who wished to join the covenant community at any age was also required to be circumcised whether slave or free (Gen 17:12-13).
We have unintentional confirmation of how ancient this ceremony is in Jos 3:5 where we are told that Joshua used flint knives for the performance of the rite at a time when the use of metal was well known. It is clear from that that the ceremony was seen as so sacred that the original methods had to be followed. Moses’ failure to circumcise his son led to almost fatal illness until the situation was remedied (Exo 4:24-26). Again a flint was used. At the Exodus it is stipulated that the Feast of the Passover could only be celebrated by circumcised males (Exo 12:44; Exo 12:48).
Circumcision was an ancient institution not limited to the family tribe of Abraham and was practised in Egypt in the Old Kingdom period. But there it was carried out during boyhood rather than at infancy. A sixth dynasty Egyptian tomb relief depicts a boy being circumcised and two prisoners of a Canaanite king depicted on a 12th century BC Megiddo ivory were also circumcised. But it is clear that in Abraham’s family tribe general circumcision was not practised up to this point, and it was not generally practised in Mesopotamia from where Abraham came. Modern medicine has shown the value of circumcision in protecting the health of those who live in semi-desert conditions as it helps to prevent foreign bodies becoming trapped under the foreskin.
Later the peoples round Israel are also seen to be in the main circumcised for the Philistines are disparagingly marked down as ‘the uncircumcised Philistines’ (Jdg 14:3; Jdg 15:18), because their state was considered unusual and despised. How far this arose from connection with the covenant with Abraham (and later Moses) and how far from Egyptian and other influence we do not know. It is to be noted that the inhabitants of Shechem were recognised as being uncircumcised at the time of Jacob (Genesis 34). Thus we have here an example, as later with the sacrificial system, of a more general practise which is taken over and given specific meaning.
Circumcision would also become the symbol of the need for a purified heart – see Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6; Jer 9:25-26. Just as ritual circumcision was the outward sign of entry into the covenant, so ‘spiritual circumcision’ signified a genuine commitment of the heart to God’s covenant and obedience to His commands. Without the latter the former was meaningless. Moses spoke of himself as having ‘uncircumcised lips’ (Exo 6:12; Exo 6:30). This is probably metaphorical and demonstrates early usage of such an idea. It may mean that Pharaoh would see him as inferior, or be a reference to his lack of ability as an orator. It is signifying that he is not fit to do the task required.
Gen 17:12-14
“And he who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house or bought with wealth from any stranger, who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your wealth must necessarily be circumcised, and my covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”
To share in the benefits of God’s covenant circumcision is now required. It becomes the symbol of response to and commitment to the covenant. It applies to all, both slave and free. This is confirmation that even the lowest of the low in the family tribe were seen as within God’s covenant and therefore as His people. Refusal would mean excommunication or worse, but this is an emphasis on the totality of the requirement rather than being given as a practical alternative. It is not really facing people with a choice. The one who refused would be revealing himself as deliberately blaspheming God, but there is always the possibility of those who will take an extreme position. Compare the seriousness with which Moses’ lapse was treated (Exo 4:24-26).
We note again here how the covenant community was made up of nationals from many nations.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Circumcision Instituted
v. 9. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep My covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. v. 10. This is My covenant, which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. v. 11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you.
v. 12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
v. 13. He that is born in thy house, and he that in bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
v. 14. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut oft from his people; he hath broken My covenant.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 17:9. God said unto Abraham, &c. Having declared what he would himself perform, the Lord goes on to signify what he expected from Abraham, and to appoint a sign or token of his covenant with him. Thou shalt keep my covenant, i.e.. observe and fulfil thy part of it: and this is my covenant, i.e.. the token of the covenant betwixt me and you, Gen 17:11. Every man-child shall be circumcised: a ceremony, which appears, as plain as words can make it, to have been now first instituted; and consequently both their opinion, who suppose that it was ordained from the fall, and theirs, who think that it was derived to the Jews from the AEgyptians, are erroneous. If it had been customary, or known to Abraham before this time, is it to be imagined that it would have been spoken of in such manner as we read in these verses, 9-14?
Herodotus is the author from whom the arguments are drawn for its original usage in AEgypt; but his credit is acknowledged to be very uncertain. The principal lexicographer of the Jews (Baal Aruch) observes, that the AEgyptians were circumcised in the times of Joseph; and when Joseph died they left off the custom. And if the custom did continue afterwards, it does not by any means appear, even from Herodotus himself, to have been universal in AEgypt, but of a very partial nature, probably confined only to their priests. Artapanus, a heathen writer, observes, that the AEthiopians, though enemies, had such a regard for Moses, that they learned from him the rite of circumcision. It is not very difficult to account how other nations, besides the Jews, should receive circumcision, which was first enjoined Abraham and his seed. The Ishmaelites had it from Ishmael the son of Abraham; from them the old Arabs; from the Arabs the Saracens; and from the Saracens the Turks to this day. Other Arabian nations, as the Midianites and others, received it from the sons of Abraham by Keturah; and perhaps the AEgyptians and AEthiopians from them, if the former had it not from the Israelites. The Edomites had it from Edom or Esau, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham: so that all originally had it from Abraham, and he by a Divine command. They who would enter more minutely into the argument will find it well discussed in Calmet’s dissertation on the subject.
REFLECTIONS.1. By God’s order Abram’s name is changed into Abraham, correspondent to the promise, I will make thee a father of many nations. A new name from God is a new honour; but it is better still; it is a confirmation of his faith. What God calls him, he is. Though the children are unborn, faith gives subsistence to the things hoped for. More people probably this day are descended from him; and more kings have reigned, and do still reign, of his posterity, in Isaac, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah, than from any man who lived in his or any succeeding time. But in a more exalted and extensive sense, as the father of the faithful, his seed are yet, or shall be, more numerous, and every one a king.
2. Observe God’s covenant with him: full of promises great and precious; a numberless progeny, a fruitful land, a kingly throne, and everlasting possession of it: part to be fulfilled on earth, the better part in heaven, where Jesus is set down upon the throne for ever and ever. Note; (1.) The great blessing of the covenant of grace is, that all God is and hath are made over to us; wisdom to guide, grace to pardon, power to support, goodness to comfort; all things, in short, are ours, if God be ours. (2.) The crowning mercy is, It is eternal in its continuance.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 27
CIRCUMCISION OF ABRAHAM
Gen 17:9-10. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised.
TO a Jewish auditory the subject before us would be so familiar, that it might be treated without any difficulty. But as it is otherwise with us, we shall wave every thing relative to the right of circumcision, and fix our attention upon the ends for which it was instituted. The writings of the New Testament, as well as of the Old, abound with references to this ordinance: and a just knowledge of its original design is necessary to a due understanding of the corresponding ordinance under the Christian dispensation. Let us then state to you,
I.
What were the great ends of circumcision
The importance attached to this rite under the Jewish dispensation clearly shews, that it was not a mere arbitrary imposition, but an ordinance fraught with instruction. It was imposed on Abraham and all his posterity,
1.
As a seal of their privileges
[Abraham had from the first believed the promises which God had given him relative to a numerous posterity, and to that seed in particular, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed: and, in consequence of that faith, he was justified before God; or, to use the expressive language of Scripture, his faith was counted to him for righteousness. But when five and twenty years had elapsed, and it was more distinctly made known to him that the promised seed was to spring from Sarah, he had some pledges given him that Gods word, however improbable, should be fulfilled. His name was changed from Abram, which means high father; to Abraham, the high father of a multitude. His wifes name also was changed, from Sarai, my princess, to Sarah, the princess of a multitude [Note::15.]. Now also circumcision was enjoined on him and fill his posterity: and St. Paul expressly says, that it was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised [Note: Rom 4:11.]. To Abraham and his believing seed, this seal assured the certain enjoyment of God as their God and Portion for ever [Note:, 8.]: but as administered to infants, it assured only that they should participate all the blessings of Gods covenant, as soon as ever they exercised the faith of Abraham, and walked in his steps [Note: Rom 4:12.]. But towards all, it had the same force as a seal has when annexed to a covenant: it was Gods seal impressed on their flesh [Note: See 3, latter part.], that he would fulfil to them all the promises which he had given.]
2.
A memorial of their engagements
[In the verse following our text, God calls circumcision a token of the covenant between him and his people. It was designed by God that his people should be separated from all the world, and that they should be constantly reminded of their engagements to him. When they submitted to that rite, whether it were in infancy or at an adult age, they were no longer to consider themselves as at their own disposal, but as dedicated to the service of their God. St. Paul, in reference to the scars and bruises with which his body had been covered in the service of his Lord, said, I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus [Note: Gal 6:17.]. The same language might with propriety be used by every Jew in reference to this sacred memorial: for, having in his own person the appointed sign of his relation to God, he must be continually reminded whose he was, and whom he was bound to serve.]
3.
An emblem of their duties
[We cannot doubt but that this painful rite was intended to represent the mortification of sin. The Scripture speaks much of the putting off the whole body of sin; the crucifying of the flesh with the affections and lusts; the putting off the old man, and putting on the new: which expressions exactly coincide with the chief intent of this ordinance: they shew, that we bring a corrupt nature into the world with us; and that it must be the labour of our lives to put away sin, both original and actual, both root and branch. Indeed St. Paul explains the ordinance in this way, and calls it a putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh. But there are also other expressions of Scripture which shew that this rite imported the highest degrees of sanctification and holiness. Moses repeatedly speaks of the circumcising of the heart to love the Lord with all our heart and all our soul [Note: Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6.]. And the prophet Jeremiahs language is singularly emphatic: Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it [Note: Jer 4:4.]. From all these passages we learn, that the ordinance was figurative, and designed to instruct the Lords people in. the nature and extent of their duties towards him.]
This rite however being dropped, it will be proper to shew,
II.
How those ends are attained under the Christian dispensation
The rite of circumcision has been superseded by the rite of baptism, just as the passover has given way to the supper of our Lord. The dispensations being changed, a change was made of the two great ordinances which were adapted to Judaism; and others were introduced more immediately suited to Christianity. St. Paul, in reference to the ordinances which we are now comparing, distinctly draws the parallel; and shews that, though different in their nature, they were of precisely the same import: In Christ, says he, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead [Note: Col 2:11-12.].
Now in Baptism we have,
1.
A seal of our privileges
[When Christianity was first preached, the ordinance was principally administered to adults, because they alone were capable of that instruction which the Apostles were sent to convey. To them the baptismal rite was administered after they had believed in Christ, and after their faith had been imputed to them for righteousness: and to them it was, precisely what circumcision had been to Abraham, a seal of the righteousness which they had being yet unbaptized. It assured them, that they were accepted in the Beloved; that, they had redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins; that grace and glory should be given them; and that while the inheritance of heaven was kept for them, they also should by the mighty power of God be preserved for it [Note: 1Pe 1:4-5.]. But to their infant offspring the ordinance of baptism assured nothing more than an external right to these blessings, and a certainty of possessing them as soon as they believed. It was of the unbelieving and impenitent Jews that St. Paul said, Theirs is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises [Note: Rom 9:4]. This therefore must be understood of the title to these things which they enjoyed by means of their admission into covenant with God. The actual enjoyment of these things they could not have, till they became obedient to the commands of God. It is exactly in the same manner that our Church instructs children to say, that in their baptism they were made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. They have a title to these privileges, as a woman has to the estate of her deceased husband, which yet she cannot legally possess, till she take out administration: so these cannot attain the actual enjoyment of their privileges, till they sue them out by believing.]
2.
A memorial of our engagements
[The effects of the baptismal water are not indeed long visible upon the body; but the name given to us at our baptism (emphatically called our Christian name) continues with us until death: and the name of the society into which we are introduced (that of Christians) is an indelible badge of our profession, and of the solemn engagements that we have entered into. It is worthy of observation that, when the sacred historian says, They were called Christians first at Antioch, he uses a word, which, with one only exception, always implies a divine appointment [Note: It is used nine times in the New Testament;Mat 2:12; Mat 2:22; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Act 11:26; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25. See also Rom 11:4.]: and in the passage that we except, it may very properly be so interpreted [Note: Rom 7:3. If it be considered that our Lord abolished the polygamy which obtained by divine connivance, and in some cases, as it should seem, by divine appointment, the excepted case will perhaps be thought no exception at all.]. Now, in this view of the subject, the divine appointment of the name Christian, to those who had before no right or title to it, is exactly equivalent to the change of Abrams and of Sarais names: and in thus being brought to name the name of Christ, we are taught to depart from all iniquity. We can never recollect to what society we belong, or hear ourselves addressed by our Christian name, but we have a striking memorial, that we are not our own; and that, having been bought with a price, we are bound to glorify God with our body and our spirit which are his [Note: 1Co 6:19-20.].]
3.
An emblem of our duties
[In our Catechism we are told that baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace: nor are we at any loss to declare what that grace is which it was intended to represent: the symbol is clear enough of itself; but it is explained by God himself; who informs us, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God [Note: 1Pe 3:21.]. In this, of course, the cleansing of ourselves from outward pollutions is intended: but there is also much more implied, even a life of entire devotedness to God: for thus it is said in another place; We are buried with Christ by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life [Note: Rom 6:4.]. While our blessed Lord sojourned upon earth, he set us a perfect example of the divine life: but in his resurrection and ascension to heaven he left us, if I may so speak, a visible exhibition of our duty: he shewed us that it consists in a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; and in having our conversation henceforth, as much as possible, in heaven.]
The instruction which we would further suggest as arising from this subject, is comprised in two things. We learn from it,
1.
Why infants ought to be baptized
[The great argument for not baptizing infants is, that they are incapable of performing the duties of the Christian covenant, and therefore they ought not to have the seal of that covenant applied to them. Now if children had never been admitted into covenant with God at all, this argument would have had some weight. But under the Jewish dispensation they were admitted into covenant with God at eight days old; and the seal of that covenant was applied to them. Moreover, this was done by the absolute command of God; who ordered, that a contemner of this ordinance should be cut off from his people. This objection therefore can be of no validity under the Christian dispensation. It is further objected, that God does not particularly order children to be baptized. True, he does not; nor was it necessary that he should: for there was no change of the persons who were to be admitted into covenant with him, but only of the rite by which they were to be admitted. If there was to be a change of the persons as well as of the rite, we might well expect that he should have revealed his will to us respecting it. But there is not one syllable in the whole New Testament that will admit of any such construction: and if God has not deprived children of the honour and privilege of being admitted into covenant with him, who are We, that we should take it away from them? By thus robbing them of their privileges, we represent Jesus Christ as less merciful to children now, than he was to the children of Jewish parents: and we put an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of the Jews; who, though convinced of the truth of Christianity, might justly keep back from embracing it, on account of their children; seeing that, while they remain Jews, their children are partakers of the covenant; but, when they become Christians, their children are cut off from all interest in it.
Some indeed are superstitiously anxious about the early administration of this ordinance to their children, as if their salvation entirely depended upon it. That it should not be needlessly delayed we grant: but the command to circumcise the children on the eighth day sufficiently shews, that the children who died under that age, did not perish for the mere want of that ordinance: and Christian parents may be equally assured, that, if their infants die before they have been initiated into the Christian covenant by baptism, the want of that ordinance will not at all affect their eternal welfare. It is the avowed contempt of the ordinance, and not the providential seclusion from it, that makes us objects of Gods displeasure.]
2.
How baptized persons ought to live
[Though this idea has been in part anticipated, it may very properly be repeated in our practical application of the subject. The persons whom we address, have all been devoted to God in their infancy. But have all remembered the obligations which their baptism entailed upon them? Have all experienced the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost [Note: Tit 3:5.] ? Are all walking worthy of Him into whose sacred name they have been baptized? Are not many at this hour still uncircumcised in heart and ears? If we be not conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, to what purpose are we called Christians? We are told by St. Paul, that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God [Note: Rom 2:28-29.]. All this is true in reference to those who have been baptized. Our baptism is, in fact, no baptism [Note: Rom 2:25.], if we be not washed from our filthmess, both of flesh and spirit. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is any thing; but the keeping of the commandments of God [Note: 1Co 7:19 and Gal 5:6.]. St. Paul, in holy contempt and indignation, calls the ungodly Jews, the concision, as being unworthy of the name by which the more pious among them were designated [Note: Php 3:2.]. Let us know then, that even the heathen themselves are in a better state than we, if we walk not worthy of our high vocation [Note: Eph 4:1.]: and that, if we would be Christians indeed, we must answer to the character given of them by the apostle; we must worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh [Note: Php 3:3.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Ver. 9. Thou shalt keep my covenant. ] This is the stipulation on Abraham’s part, by receiving the sacrament of circumcision, to “avouch God to be his God”. Deu 26:17 Now to the making the Lord to be our God, it is required, that with highest estimations, most vigorous affections, and utmost endeavours we bestow ourselves upon him. Thus, if we choose God for our God, Psa 73:25 we shall be assured that he hath chosen and avouched us for his people. 1Jn 4:19
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 17:9-14
9God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Gen 17:9 “you shall keep My covenant” This VERB (BDB 1036, KB 1581, Qal IMPERFECT) is repeated in Gen 17:10. Remember that the covenant was conditional on Abraham’s faith response, both initially and throughout his life. This truth can be clearly seen in Gen 26:5; Exo 12:24; Exo 13:10; Exo 15:26; Exo 19:5; Exo 20:6; Exo 23:17; Lev 18:4-5; Lev 18:26; Lev 18:30; Lev 19:19; Lev 19:37; Lev 20:8; Lev 20:22; Lev 22:31; Lev 25:18; Lev 26:3; Deu 4:2; Deu 4:6; Deu 4:9; Deu 4:23; Deu 4:40; Deu 5:1; Deu 5:29; Deu 6:2-3; Deu 6:12; Deu 6:17; Deu 6:25; Deu 7:9; Deu 7:12; Deu 8:1-2; Deu 8:6; Deu 8:11; Deu 10:13; Deu 11:1; Deu 11:8; Deu 11:22, etc. Obedience is crucial, not optional!
Gen 17:10 “circumcised” Circumcision (BDB 557 II) was not an uncommon rite in the ancient Orient. All of the surrounding people circumcised their children at puberty except possibly the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hivites, or Horites of central Palestine and the Philistines (Aegean people) who invaded the southern coast of Palestine in the 1200’s B.C. (cf. Jer 9:25-26). However, circumcision had a religious purpose for the Israelites. It was always an outer sign of an inner faith (cf. Deu 10:16; Jer 4:4; Jer 9:26; Rom 2:28-29; Col 2:11-13).
Gen 17:12-14 Other races and peoples besides the Israelites were included in the covenant if they were obedient to God’s will (cf. Exo 12:44; Exo 20:10). This is the OT precedent for household faith as seen in the NT (cf. Act 10:2; Act 11:14; Act 16:15; Act 16:31-34; Act 18:8).
Gen 17:12 The word “circumcision” (BDB 557 II) is mentioned several times in this chapter.
1. Gen 17:10 – Niphal INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE
2. Gen 17:11 – Niphal PERFECT
3. Gen 17:12 – Niphal IMPERFECT
4. Gen 17:13 – Niphal INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE (the combination of the IMPERFECT VERB and an INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE intensifies the action, “you shall surely be circumcised”)
5. Gen 17:24 – Niphal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
6. Gen 17:25 – Niphal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
7. Gen 17:26 – Niphal PERFECT
8. Gen 17:27 – Niphal PERFECT
YHWH took a common cultural practice, changed the time of its initiation and used it as a visible sign of His unique people. This was not for hygiene, but religious purpose.
Gen 17:14 “that person shall be cut off from his people” This is the same VERB used in the phrase “to cut a covenant” (Qal stem, cf. Gen 15:10). In the Niphal stem it denotes the death penalty (cf. Exo 12:15; Exo 12:19; Exo 30:33; Exo 30:38; Exo 31:14; Lev 7:20-21; Lev 7:25; Lev 7:27; Lev 17:4; Lev 17:9; Lev 17:14; Lev 18:29; Lev 19:8; Lev 20:17-18; Lev 22:3; Lev 23:29; Num 9:13; Num 15:30-31; Num 19:13; Num 19:20; see note at NIDOTTE, vol. 3, p. 431). Disobedience had serious consequences. It affected the application of the “eternal covenant” to an individual.
There are some scholars who prefer to see this VERB as representing a disfellowshiping or removal from the community instead of death. Scholarly discussion continues on this point.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
thy seed. Still practiced by Ishmaelites and others. Noncircumcision was the “reproach” of Egypt (Jos 5:9).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Psa 25:10, Psa 103:18, Isa 56:4, Isa 56:5
Reciprocal: Act 3:25 – the covenant Act 7:8 – the covenant 2Co 11:22 – the seed
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
God wanted Abraham to circumcise his male servants as well as his children. The reason was that the Abrahamic Covenant would affect all who had a relationship with Abraham. Consequently they needed to bear the sign of that covenant. The person who refused circumcision was "cut off" from his people (Gen 17:14) because by refusing it he was repudiating God’s promises to Abraham.
"This expression undoubtedly involves a wordplay on cut. He that is not himself cut (i.e., circumcised) will be cut off (i.e., ostracized). Here is the choice: be cut or be cut off." [Note: Hamilton, p. 473.]
There are two main views as to the meaning of being "cut off" from Israel. Some scholars hold that it means excommunication from the covenant community and its benefits. [Note: J. Morganstern, "The Book of the Covenant, Part III-The Huqqim," Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32):1-150; and Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, pp. 28-32.] However there is also evidence that points to execution, sometimes by the Israelites, but usually by God, and premature death. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:224; Hamilton, p. 474; M. Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel," Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):195-201; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 241-43; W. Horbury, "Extirpation and excommunication," Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):16-18, 31-34; and Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 25.] The threat of being cut off hung over the Israelite offender as the threat of a terminal disease, that might end one’s life at any time, does today.
The person who refused to participate in circumcision demonstrated his lack of faith in God by his refusal. Thus he broke the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:14).
Only males underwent circumcision, of course. In the patriarchal society of the ancient Near East people considered that a girl or woman shared the condition of her father if she was single, or her husband if she was married.
Circumcision was a fitting symbol for several reasons.
1. It would have been a frequent reminder to every circumcised male of God’s promises involving seed.
2. It involved the cutting off of flesh. The circumcised male was one who repudiated "the flesh" (i.e., the simply physical and natural aspects of life) in favor of trust in Yahweh and His spiritual promises.
3. It resulted in greater cleanliness of life and freedom from the effects of sin (i.e., disease and death).
Circumcision was not a new rite. The priests in Egypt practiced it as did most of the Canaanites, the Arabs, and the Hurrians (Horites), but in Mesopotamia it was not customary. Later the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites practiced it, but the Philistines did not. [Note: See Davis, p. 192; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 23-24; and J. Sasson, "Circumcision in the Anceint Near East," Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-76.] By commanding it of Abraham and his household God was giving further evidence that he would bless the patriarch. Circumcision has hygienic value. One evidence of this is that cancer of the penis has a much higher incidence in uncircumcised males. [Note: Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, "Moses and Preventive Medicine," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):276.] Circumcision was a rite of passage to adulthood in these cultures. [Note: Kidner, p. 174.] Normally it was practiced on young adults (cf. ch. 34). Circumcising infants was something new.
"Research indicates that other Middle Eastern cultures practiced circumcision . . . However, the Hebrews were unique in that they practiced infant circumcision, which, though medically risky if not properly performed, is less physically and psychologically traumatic than circumcisions performed at an older age." [Note: Fawver and Overstreet, p. 277.]
"Designating the eighth day after birth as the day of circumcision is one of the most amazing specifications in the Bible, from a medical standpoint. Why the eighth day?
"At birth, a baby has nutrients, antibodies, and other substances from his mother’s blood, including her blood-clotting factors, one of them being prothrombin. Prothrombin is dependent on vitamin K for its production. Vitamin K is produced by intestinal bacteria, which are not present in a newborn baby. After birth prothrombin decreases so that by the third day it is only 30 percent of normal. Circumcision on the third day could result in a devastating hemorrhage.
"The intestinal bacteria finally start their task of manufacturing vitamin K, and the prothrombin subsequently begins to climb. On day eight, it actually overshoots to 110 percent of normal, leveling off to 100 percent on day nine and remaining there for the rest of a person’s healthy life. Therefore the eighth day was the safest of all days for circumcision to be performed. On that one day, a person’s clotting factor is at 110 percent, the highest ever, and that is the day God prescribed for the surgical process of circumcision.
"Today vitamin K (Aqua Mephyton) is routinely administered to newborns shortly after their delivery, and this eliminates the clotting problem. However, before the days of vitamin K injections, a 1953 pediatrics textbook recommended that the best day to circumcise a newborn was the eighth day of life. [Note: L. Holt Jr. and R. McIntosh, Holt Pediatrics, pp. 125-26.]
Another writer saw the eighth day as symbolic of completing a cycle of time corresponding to the Creation. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 261.]