Genesis 17:9-14

3. The Covenant-Sign (Genesis 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 God's 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 b-'reeth 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 (Genesis 17:11); or b) as to at what age it was to be administered (Genesis 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 (Genesis 17:12 b); or d) as to the absolute or relative necessity of this rite for all those enumerated (Genesis 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. Genesis 21:4, Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21; John 7:22, Philippians 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, Genesis 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 man's part being no essential feature of the relation. (Why say it was so conceived? According to the text it was a self-determination on God's part.) Concerning Genesis 17:6-7, kings shall come out of thee (cf. Micah 5:2), I will establish my covenant ... to be a God unto thee. Jamieson writes (CECG, 151-152): 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 (Romans 11:16; Romans 15:8). Note again Genesis 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 man's thought might well have deemed improbable, that this cutting was to be -in the flesh-'euphemismof 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 -taboo-'-the 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 Israel's neighbors, among them the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and certain other nomadic elements (cf. Jeremiah 9:26). But the Philistines did not follow it (cf. 2 Samuel 1:20), and neither did the -Hivites-' (i.e., Horites) of Central Palestine (Genesis 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 Herodotus's 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 Crawley's 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 one's 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 feelthe 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 John 7:22. Still it was placed upon a new legal basis by Moses (Exodus 4:24-25; Leviticus 12:3), and was brought into regular observance by Joshua (Joshua 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 (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25; Ezekiel 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) Genesis 17:10every male among you shall be circumcised. (Cf. Exodus 12:48-49, Joshua 5:3; Joshua 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) Genesis 17:8he that is eight days old (cf. Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21; Philippians 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, Exodus 2:22; Exodus 18:2-4; Exodus 4:24-26. The narrative in Genesis 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 husband's 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 son's foreskin. Not to circumcise was tantamount to abrogating the covenant (Genesis 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, Romans 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 (Exodus 22:30, Leviticus 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 ofAbraham 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 (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25, Ezekiel 44:7), and a covenant sign to those who received it, inasmuch as they were received into the fellowship of the holy nation (Exodus 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 (Leviticus 22:27, Exodus 22:29).

(4) Genesis 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. Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 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 Abraham's 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. Jeremiah 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 God's law would be written in their hearts (put into their inward parts) as a prerequisite of their induction into the covenant (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-11, Hebrews 8:6-13). Fleshly circumcision should give way to spiritual circumcision, circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 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 Jacob's 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 wasat 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 Abraham's 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 Abraham's 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. Exodus 12:15; Exodus 12:19; Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38.Leviticus 7:20-21; Leviticus 7:25; Leviticus 7:27; Leviticus 17:4; Leviticus 17:9-10; Leviticus 17:14; Leviticus 22:3.Numbers 9:3; Numbers 19:13; Numbers 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. Exodus 31:14; Leviticus 18:29; Leviticus 19:8; Leviticus 20:3; Leviticus 20:5-6; Leviticus 20:17; Numbers 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 (Genesis 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 God's 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 Skinner's 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 man's part is attached (as in Genesis 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 God's 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 Genesis 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 (Genesis 17:11). The failure to be circumcised separated one from the people of Israel. The command was perpetuated in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:3, John 7:22-23). In the gospel dispensation, circumcision was abolished (Ephesians 2:11-15, Colossians 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 (Romans 3:30, Galatians 5:6, Romans 2:25, 1 Corinthians 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 Genesis 17:22-27.