And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
14. shall be cut off ] The penalty of being “cut off” is frequently mentioned in P. It does not appear certain, (1) whether the penalty is to be inflicted by God or by man; (2) whether, if it be the infliction of a judicial punishment by man, it denotes capital punishment, or expulsion from the ranks of the community. The formula has probably been transmitted from a very early period; and the lapse of time led to change in practice. Thus, in Exo 31:13-14, the penalty of death is inflicted by the people: see Num 15:32-36. But, in Lev 17:10; Lev 20:3, the sentence is pronounced by God, “I will cut him off.”
from his people ] Lit. “from his peoples,” a phrase used by P, which seems to denote “father’s kin,” and evidently possessed a special technical meaning of clanship. See note on Gen 25:8.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 14. The uncircumcised – shall be cut off from his people] By being cut off some have imagined that a sudden temporal death was implied; but the simple meaning seems to be that such should have no right to nor share in the blessings of the covenant, which we have already seen were both of a temporal and spiritual kind; and if so, then eternal death was implied, for it was impossible for a person who had not received the spiritual purification to enter into eternal glory. The spirit of this law extends to all ages, dispensations, and people; he whose heart is not purified from sin cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Reader, on what is thy hope of heaven founded?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And the uncircumcised man-child; or rather, and as for the uncircumcised man-child. So the nominative is put absolutely, as is frequent in the Hebrew tongue.
Whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, or, who shall not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin; for the Hebrew verb may be rendered actively, which seems best here; because the punishment seems more justly to belong to the parent, who was guilty of this neglect; than to the child, who was not capable of this precept, and therefore not guilty of the violation of it. And this may further appear from Exo 4:24,25, where God seeks to kill, not the child, but the father, Moses, for this sin. And the flesh of the childs foreskin is rightly called the flesh of his, i.e. the parents, foreskin, because the child is a part and the possession of his parent. So that this threatening concerns only grown persons, and of them only such as shall wilfully and unnecessarily neglect this duty; for otherwise it was neglected by the Israelites for forty years together in the wilderness, Jos 5:7, without any token of Gods displeasure for it.
That soul shall be cut off from his people. This phrase denotes either,
1. An exclusion from fellowship with Gods people, and from all the promises, privileges, and blessings belonging to them, either in this life or that to come. Or rather,
2. An untimely and violent death, as may be gathered from Exo 31:14, to be inflicted by the magistrate, to whom God committed the execution of this as well as other laws; and in case of his neglect and default, or the secrecy of the fact, by the extraordinary hand of God, who sometimes ascribes this act to himself, as Lev 17:10; 20:6.
He hath broken my covenant, that sacred bond which tied him and me together; and by his neglect and contempt of the condition required on his part, he hath forfeited the blessing promised on my part.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised,…. Whose circumcision was neglected by his father, or by his mother, or by the civil magistrate, or by himself; for each of these, according to the Jewish canons, were obliged to see this performed;
“the commandment lies upon a father to circumcise his son, and upon a master to circumcise his servants born in his house, or bought with money m:”
and it is elsewhere said n,
“if a father does not circumcise his son, the sanhedrim are bound to circumcise him; and if they do not circumcise him, he is obliged when he is grown up to circumcise himself; and if he does not circumcise himself, he is guilty of cutting off,”
as it here follows:
that soul shall be cut off from his people; which Jarchi interprets of his being childless, and dying before his time; and which, according to some in Aben Ezra, is, when a man dies before he is fifty two years of age; and some erroneous persons, as the same writer calls them, thought that if a child died, and was not circumcised, it had no part in the world to come. The simplest and plainest meaning of the phrase seems to be, that such should be cut off, and deprived of all civil and religious privileges with the Israelites in the land of Canaan, and be reckoned as Heathens. Concerning this matter, Maimonides o thus writes;
“a father or a mother that transgress, and circumcise not, make void the affirmative commandment, but are not guilty of cutting off; for no cutting off depends but upon the uncircumcised person himself; and the sanhedrim are commanded to circumcise a son or a servant in its time, that they may not leave an uncircumcised person in Israel, nor among their servants; if the thing is hid from the sanhedrim, and they do not circumcise him, when he is grown up, he is bound to circumcise himself; and every day that passes over him, after he is grown up, and he does not circumcise himself, lo, he maketh the commandment to cease; but he is not guilty of cutting off until he dies, and he is a presumptuous uncircumcised person;”
and so, according to him, this must respect his punishment after death in another world:
he hath broken my covenant; made it null and void, neglecting the token of it, circumcision.
m Maimon. ut supra, (Hilchot Milah) c. 1. sect. 1. n Schulchan Aruch, ib. c. 361. sect. 1. o Maimon. Hilchot. Milah, c. 1. sect. 1, 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
14. And the uncircumcised man-child In order that circumcision might be the more attended to, God denounces a severe punishment on any one who should neglect it. And as this shows God’s great care for the salvation of men; so, on the other hand, it rebukes their negligence. For since God thus benignantly offers a pledge of his love, and of eternal life, for what purpose does he add threatening but to rouse the sluggishness of those whose duty it is to run with diligence? Therefore, this denunciation of punishment virtually charges men with foul ingratitude, because they either reject or despise the grace of God. The passage however teaches, that such contempt shall not pass unpunished. And since God threatens punishment only to despisers, we infer that the uncircumcision of children would do them no harm, if they died before the eighth day. For the bare promise of God was effectual to their salvation. He did not so attest this salvation by external signs, as to restrict his own effectual working to those signs. Moses, indeed, sets aside all controversy on this subject, by adducing as a reason, that they would make void the covenant of God: for we know, that the covenant was not violated, when the power of keeping it was taken away. Let us then consider, that the salvation of the race of Abraham was included in that expression, ‘I will be a God to thy seed.’ And although circumcision was added as a confirmation, it nevertheless did not deprive the word of its force and efficacy. But because it is not in the power of man to sever what God has joined together; no one could despise or neglect the sign, without both rejecting the word itself; and depriving himself of the benefit therein offered. And therefore the Lord punished bare neglect with such severity. But if any infants were deprived by death of the tokens of salvation, he spared them, because they had done nothing derogatory to the covenant of God. The same reasoning is at this day in force respecting baptism. Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples, as much as in him lies, upon the blood of Christ, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore, just punishment follows the contempt of the sign, in the privation of grace; because, by an impious severance of the sign and the word, or rather by a laceration of them, the covenant of God is violated. To consign to destruction those infants, whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in superstition. But that the promise belongs to such children, is not in the least doubtful. For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of Gods or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.
He hath broken my covenant For the covenant of God is ratified, when by faith we embrace what he promises. Should any one object, that infants were guiltless of this fault, because they hitherto were destitute of reason: I answer, we ought not to press this divine declaration too closely, as if God held the infants as chargeable with a fault of their own: but we must observe the antithesis, that as God adopts the infant son in the person of his father, so when the father repudiates such a benefit, the infant is said to cut himself off from the Church. For the meaning of the expression is this, ‘He shall be blotted out from the people whom God had chosen to himself’. The explanation of some, that they who remained in uncircumcision would not be Jews, and would have no place in the census of that people, is too frigid. We must go farther, and say, that God, indeed, will not acknowledge those as among his people, who will not bear the mark and token of adoption.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(14) Shall be cut off from his people.Jewish commentators generally consider that this penalty consisted in the offender being left to the direct interposition of God, who would punish him with childlessness and premature death (Talmud: Tract Yebam, 55). Most Christian commentators suppose that the offender was to be put to death by the civil magistrate; but this view is untenable. For a distinction is constantly drawn between the penalty of death, and the being cut off from among the people, as, for instance, in Leviticus 20. So, too, the killing of a clean beast anywhere, except at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:4), and the eating of blood (Lev. 17:9; Lev. 17:14), are to be thus dealt with, while blasphemy and murder are to be punished with death (Lev. 24:16-17). Now it became very common to kill clean beasts in all parts of the land, and the eating of blood, though regarded with horror (1Sa. 14:32-34), apparently had no penalty attached to it. The Jewish commentators seem to err only in being too special, and in defining the method in which God would punish. The punishment really seems to have been that of excommunication or outlawry, to which other penalties might have been attached by custom: but the main point was that one uncircumcised (as subsequently one who violated the principles of the Mosaic law) forfeited his privileges as a member of the Jewish nation, could claim no protection from the elders for life and property, and could not take his place at the gate of the city.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. Shall be cut off from his people This may mean either excommunication, or, as these words seem to signify in Exo 31:14, the penalty of death . The neglect of such a sign and ordinance would be an open breach of the covenant, and demand a severe penalty .
He hath broken my covenant To neglect this sign was looked upon as open and defiant disobedience . It was equivalent to a violation of the covenant itself .
Note now the five points of circumcision: 1) It was an outward ceremony of the flesh. 2) It was the token of the covenant. 3) It was to be performed on the eighth day. 4) It was to be applied to all the regular household. 5) It was imperative and inviolable under penalty of death.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 17:14. The uncircumcised man-child, &c. It seems to follow very plainly from the foregoing verses, as well as from this, that nobody could possibly belong to Abraham’s family who did not submit to this rite; but then, it follows as plainly, that the blessings of this Abrahamic covenant were not by any means confined to his descendants only: all who would embrace the terms and accept the sign of that covenant might share in its advantages. The eighth day was appointed for this operation, that parents might see it duly performed at a period least dangerous to the infant: and it was to be performed no sooner than the eighth day; because, say the Jewish writers, the infant was not looked upon as perfect till that time: for which reason brute animals were not to be offered to God till the eighth day after their birth, Exo 22:30. Had circumcision been appointed earlier, the ordinary mortality of children from other causes soon after their birth would have been imputed to this rite; and had it been deferred much longer, the growing fondness of parents would often delay, and perhaps, in the end, defeat the institution.
We are informed by the Jewish writers, that, after the full establishment of their economy, certain officers of an institution, called the house of judgment, were bound to circumcise the children, if the parents neglected it: and if they did it not, through ignorance of the parent’s neglect, the child, when he came of age, was bound himself to get it done. But if he omitted, then was to take place what is mentioned in this verse; for it cannot be supposed that the child should be cut off merely for a neglect which it could not prevent; and therefore we must understand, that he who, when he came to years of discretion, omitted this rite, should be cut off from his people, i.e.. should be separated from all the benefits and privileges which that people enjoyed through the covenant which God had made with them, whereof circumcision was the sign; and which whosoever refused, he consequently broke the covenant, omitting to do his part, and therefore having no right to expect that God should perform his. This appears the plain and natural sense of the passage; and thus interpreted, it plainly comprehends all spiritual as well as temporal loss, since both temporal and spiritual blessings are contained in the covenant. Some have supposed, and the Syriac version supports the opinion, that the parent or person omitting to circumcise should be cut off: Whosoever shall not circumcise, &c. shall be cut off. But the former seems the best interpretation: “Whosoever, when he comes to years of discretion, shall totally omit this rite, shall forfeit all the blessings and privileges of that covenant, whereof circumcision is the appointed sign.”
REFLECTIONS.The covenant being given, the seal of it is prescribed, circumcision; a bloody rite, to signify the necessity of shedding blood for the remission of sin; which all, from the infant to the aged, must in some sense submit to; for none can enter the kingdom of heaven but through the Blood of the covenant; intimating also the necessity of putting off the sins of the flesh, and of that inward circumcision, without which the other availed nothing, for he was not a Jew, who was one outwardly; and it was also armed with the threatening of excision on non-compliance, because neglect of the sign implied rejection of the covenant. Note; They who would have God for their God must consecrate themselves to him under the instituted seals of the covenant.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Ver. 14. That soul shall be cut off. ] From the commonwealth of Israel; so shall those be from benefit by Christ, that are uncircumcised in heart; as hateful to him as Goliath was to David. Pray, therefore, that God will thrust his holy hand into thy bosom, and pull off that abominable foreskin. He had much ado to forbear Moses, when he met him in the inn; and we know why. Exo 4:24-25
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
soul. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13. Figure of speech Synecdoche, for person.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
cut: Exo 4:24-26, Exo 12:15, Exo 12:19, Exo 30:33, Exo 30:38, Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21, Lev 7:25, Lev 7:27, Lev 18:29, Lev 19:8, Num 15:30, Num 15:31, Jos 5:2-12
broken: Psa 55:20, Isa 24:5, Isa 33:8, Jer 11:10, Jer 31:32, 1Co 11:27, 1Co 11:29
Reciprocal: Lev 17:4 – be cut off Lev 23:29 – he shall be Lev 23:30 – General Lev 26:15 – break Num 9:13 – forbeareth Num 19:20 – shall not Eze 44:7 – broken Gal 5:12 – cut
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
17:14 And the uncircumcised {e} man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
(e) Though women were not circumcised, they still partook of God’s promise: for under mankind all was consecrated. Here it is declared, that whoever condemns the sign, also despises the promise.