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 God’s 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 soul’s 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 God’s 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 (Colossians 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 God’s command far outstrips man’s reason (Genesis 17:14). And Colossians 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 (Genesis 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 God’s 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 Acts 8:39) speaks of the promise being to believers and to their children. Paul also (1 Corinthians 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 Acts 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 God’s 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” (Exodus 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 God’s 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 Exodus 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 Abraham’s name was changed when that ceremony was commanded to him. There is no historical difficulty in the supposition that circumcision was already introduced in Abraham’s 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 (Joshua 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 God’s 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 Lord’s 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 God’s 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 preacher’s gown, or chuckles and coos in the preacher’s 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 Christ’s 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 Lord’s 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.)