Becoming Israelite: Joshua 5:2–9 as the Final Stage of Shedding Egyptian Mores

Abstract

The exodus event demonstrates a culture and religious shift from an Egyptian context to that of national Israel. Scholars have underplayed the influence of Egypt on Israel during the exodus while overplaying the influence of Canaan. To be sure, Canaanite mores influence the practices of the Israelites. However, the generation that left Egypt (according to the Biblical account) would have been assimilated to Egyptian mores. Thus, the present article seeks to establish the exodus event as the means by which Israel sheds its former Egyptian mores and becomes “national Israel”.

1. Introduction

Scholars debate the significance of the circumcision narrative at Gilgal in Joshua 5:2–9.1 The need to circumcise adult males implies that the practice of circumcision ceased or at the least had been neglected by the first Israelite generation. However, the role of this mass circumcision is to remove the “disgrace of Egypt” (Josh 5:9; all scripture references are from the NET unless otherwise noted) from the second generation who had no association with Egypt. This implies that a connection to Egyptian mores remained in the foreground of the Israelite worldview until the final days of the exodus. T. C. Butler broadens the interpretation of חֶרְפַּת by suggesting that “disgrace” refers to the whole Egyptian captivity experience. For Butler, the entrance into the promised land reflects genuine freedom (Butler 1983, p. 59). However, Butler ignores the narrative setting of this circumcision narrative which provides the context for Yahweh’s pronouncement. Creach suggests the circumcision narrative denotes the removal of the consequences of the first generation.

In Joshua’s theological schema, the wilderness generation never completely shook off the stigma of Egyptian bondage because it was not willing to accept the freedom of land possession. The wilderness wanderers carried a disgrace they could not remove, since they had a ‘life sentence’ that disallowed their realization of the promise of Canaan (Creach 2003, p. 57).

The second generation born in the wilderness did not know about life in Egypt apart from the assimilation of the Israelites to Egyptian culture that remained during the migration. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how any “disgrace of Egypt” in terms of tyranny and captivity might still be upon the Israelites in the context of exodus and conquest.

The narrative displays Yahweh’s command for the new generation of Israelite men “who had not been circumcised along the way” (Josh 5:7) to undergo Abrahamic circumcision according to the standard set forth in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:9–14). The Egyptians (along with other ANE cultures) practiced circumcision; however, they performed the rite to adolescent and adult males by making a dorsal incision in the foreskin which exposed the glans penis (Sasson 1966, p. 474). There are two points of contention between Abrahamic circumcision and the circumcision practices of the Egyptians: (1) the Egyptians adopted the practice of circumcising infants at a much later date, and (2) Egyptian circumcision did not remove the entire foreskin. The book of Exodus presents a people-group who are ethnically different from but culturally assimilated to Egypt. This suggests that an Egyptian form of circumcision replaced the prescribed Abrahamic form of circumcision (cf. Gen 17:12), allowing the law of Moses to specify the Abrahamic version in Lev 12:3. Therefore, the male children of the second generation must undergo Abrahamic circumcision—removing the entire foreskin—to become partakers in the Abrahamic covenant, which granted the land of Canaan to the Israelites.2

This article first explores the purpose and method of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant as it defines Israelite identity in terms of “other”. Having developed a foundation of Abrahamic identity throughout the patriarchal history, an evaluation of Israel’s time in the wilderness as the process of forming national Israelite identity is necessary. This frames Joshua 5:2–9 as Israel’s final stage of developing a national identity.

2. Pre-Israelite Identity: Who Is and Who Is Not?

The patriarchal tradition presents a cycle in which a man marries a barren woman who supernaturally becomes pregnant and gives birth to two sons who exist as a dichotomy against the other. Yahweh accepts one of the sons as the one through whom the original Abrahamic promise passes along. Abraham, the first patriarch, married Sarah, a barren woman, and had two sons—Ishmael, the son of Hagar, and Isaac, the son of Sarah.3 Isaac carried the covenant as the child of promise. Then, Isaac married Rebekah, a barren woman who, through supernatural means, had two sons—Jacob and Esau. Jacob carried the covenant promise while Esau began his own people-group.4 Jacob married Rachel, a barren woman, and, through the provision of God, had two sons with her—Joseph and Benjamin.5 In its earliest form, the term “Israel” speaks specifically of Jacob the patriarch and subsequently of his twelve sons and their lineage.6 The twelve sons of Israel/Jacob present the first time in the patriarchal narrative where all the male descendants of a patriarch make up a united people-group who share equally in the covenantal Abrahamic blessing.7

Understanding circumcision within the Abrahamic covenant establishes a disjunction between the original rite and the removal of the “disgrace of Egypt” in the recircumcision narrative at Gilgal. Genesis 12:1–3 establishes the relationship between Abram and Yahweh from which the covenant and its sign will derive. Abram’s call narrative mentions nothing of circumcision. For Yahweh, Abram’s obedience to the original command of Gen 12:1 stands at the crux of their relationship. Though theologians have long stated that Abram immediately obeyed Yahweh’s call, Abram does not obey the command to “leave his family.” Instead, he took his nephew Lot along the journey (cf. Gen 12:4).8

The parenthetical statement signified by the disjunctive ו in Gen 12:4 indicates Abram’s motivation to disobey Yahweh’s command to “leave his family”.9 The second clause in v. 4 presents the ו + noun construct denoting the disjunction from the previous clause. The narrative continues from the waw consecutive (וַיִּקַּח) in v. 5 indicating a parenthetical commentary on Abraham’s age. From Abram’s perspective, Lot served as the logical heir to the aging, childless Abram. Although the call of Abram does not present the fullness of faithfulness, the relationship presents Yahweh as the one who blesses and Abram as the one blessed.

Yahweh solidifies his promise to Abraham by “cutting” a covenant with him.10 This cutting of the covenant assures the promise of Gen 12:1–3 because of Abram’s obedience to the original call. Covenant language does not occur within the call narrative of Gen 12:1–3. Rather, Yahweh’s words exhibit what he will do for Abram as the result of his election. The assuredness of the promise appears in Gen 15:17–21 in the form of the formal covenant. In contrast to the call of Abram in Gen 12:1–3 where the text presents no obvious reluctance or hesitation from Abram, Gen 15:2–3 characterizes him as impatient and doubtful.

But Abram said, “O Sovereign LORD, what will you give me since I continue to be childless, and my heir is Eliezer of Damascus?” Abram added, “Since you have not given me a descendant, then look, one born in my house will be my heir!”

Yahweh proves the truth of his promise by swearing an oath by himself (Gen 15:9–21). The imagery of passing between the divided animals allows Yahweh to assert, “May what happened to these animals also happen to me if I do not keep my promise.”11 Although the HB states that lying is outside Yahweh’s nature (e.g., Num 23:19), the narrative of Genesis 15 places Abram in a context where he does not yet know the fullness of Yahweh’s theological attributes. At this point, for Abram, Yahweh is like the other deities of ANE religion.12 These gods are tricksters and liars who throw dangerous tantrums.13 In this light, the cutting of the covenant allows Abram to understand Yahweh on his terms in his nature. Thus, Gen 12:1–3 presents the election of Abram while Gen 15:1–21 establishes God’s covenantal promise with Abram.

Abrahamic circumcision served as the “reminder of the covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:11). At its core, the Abrahamic covenant is a promise for descendants and land. Abraham’s seed (זֶרַע) is the raw material needed to form this nation. Circumcision is a visible mark on the organ involved in the act that will produce the fulfilment of this covenant. Though males are the ones who carry this sign in their flesh, sexual intercourse exposes the female to the sign as well.14 The female carries the result of the promise and gives birth to the fulfilment of the promise. Thus, men and women bear a sign of the promise that is visible at certain times and involves the reproductive organs.

The role of circumcision among non-covenant carriers of Abraham’s descendants remains a debated topic among scholars.15 Ishmael undergoes circumcision although he is not the recipient of the Abrahamic promise and is thirteen years old when he receives the rite (Gen 17:25). Additionally, the text does not forthrightly inform the reader of the circumcision status of Esau, though Jacob passed the ritual of circumcision on to his sons (cf. Gen 34:13–17), inferring that both Jacob and Esau likely received the rite according to its fullest observance.16 For Abraham, circumcision looks ahead to future descendants while circumcision for national Israel looks back to the promise of Yahweh to the patriarchs.

The command to circumcise males on the eighth day does not make Abraham, Ishmael, or the men in Abraham’s household ineligible for circumcision as Yahweh commands that these men receive the rite as well.

Abraham took his son Ishmael and every male in his household (whether born in his house or bought with money) and circumcised them on that very same day, just as God had told him to do. Now Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised; his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised. Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised on the very same day. All the men of his household, whether born in his household or bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

(Gen 17:23–27).

Though Ishmael is not the child of promise, he must bear the sign of the promise. When Isaac enters the narrative, Abraham obeys Yahweh’s command to circumcise Isaac on the eighth day (Gen 17:12, 19; Gen 21:4), making Isaac the first to receive Abrahamic circumcision according to the fullest standard of the covenantal command.

Genesis 34 presents circumcision as an identifying mark for those who belong to the Abrahamic heritage. Claudia Camp discusses the issue from a source-critical perspective.

Dinah’s story seems to inscribe the riddle of identity, with its heart in priestly discourse. It was the priests for whom circumcision had such an important and multidimensional symbolic value: a sign of fertility, kinship, descent and maleness, it defined the turf of identity. But it must also have been priests who perceived that it was not a sufficient identity marker, for Israel or for themselves. Any man, after all, could be circumcised. Circumcision was, then, a powerful but insufficient symbol, requiring reinforcement from other cultural forms.

(Camp 2000, p. 301)

The text presents circumcision as a practice observed by the Hebrew community and a requirement for those who desire to join that community.17 The phrase אִם תִּהְיוּ כָמֹנוּ לְהִמֹּל לָכֶם כָּל־זָכָר (Gen 34:15) demonstrates the reality that circumcision had transitioned from a mark of the covenant to a mark of a people-group within three generations. The word כָמֹנוּ places circumcision as the way in which an outsider becomes part of the covenantal community. Additionally, the explanatory use of the niphal infinitive construct לְהִמֹּל demonstrates that the act of circumcision is how they would become like the sons of Jacob (Beckman 2007, p. 195).

This short exploration of the institution of circumcision presents the theological contrast between Egyptian circumcision and Abrahamic circumcision. Yahweh institutes circumcision as the sign of the covenantal promise to make Abraham the father of nations. Throughout subsequent generations, circumcision morphs into the identifier of Yahweh’s people. 18 By removing the entire foreskin from the penis, both the bearer of the sign (i.e., the male) and the recipient of the sign’s promise (i.e., the female) experience the sign within the procreative act. The adoption of Egyptian circumcision perverts the theological significance of Abrahamic circumcision.

3. The Exodus as Identity Formation

Debate abounds concerning the date and circumstances of Israel’s formation as a sovereign nation. Aaron Sherwood argues that the mixed multitude of Exod 12:38 defines national Israel by its worship instead of its genealogy (Sherwood 2012, p. 14). However, Kevin Burrell argues, “The ethnic self can be imagined only in contrast to an ethnic other”, implying that the identify of national Israel must exist in contrast with other national entities (Burrell 2020, p. 104). Shimon Bakon and Benjamin Goodnick argue that Israel’s national status begins as early as Jacob as the text presents him in juxtaposition to Laban and Esau (i.e., Edom). For Bakon, Jacob’s settlement in Goshen, while a temporary settlement, allowed his family to “continue its traditional way of life”, implying that the nationalistic identity of Israel begins with its namesake (Bakon 2000, p. 42). Goodnick argues, “The travels of Jacob with his family and followers portray the original transformation and development into a distinct people” (Goodnick 1999, p. 192).

Reflecting the perspective of more recent critical scholarship, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith argues that national Israel begins as early as the twelfth or eleventh centuries BCE based on a combination of archaeological evidence with the biblical record (Bloch-Smith 2003, pp. 401–25). For Bloch-Smith, there is no Israel if there is no archaeological evidence to support the claims of the biblical text.19 Nathan Dwight Frank places the crux of the issue on the term “nation” rather than on the term “Israel”. Frank notes, based on the work of E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., that the title of “Israel” can refer to a patriarch, a geographical territory, and an idealized community depending on its context (Frank 2015, p. 325; Mullen 1993, p. 57). “Nation” and “national” on the other hand reflect a modern phenomenon that requires more than kinship and culture as essential elements (Frank 2015, p. 319). Additionally, the terms “nation” and “ethnicity”, though closely related in some senses, are not synonymous.20 In this light, Israel may at times fit the categories of “proto-nationalism” and “precocious nationalism” depending on its temporal context (Frank 2015, p. 320).

If kinship and culture do not define a “nation”, defining “national Israel” must encompass specific criteria that are not unique to its own identity. The HB does not offer much aid in this endeavor despite its strong desire to ascribe the status of “nation” to Israel at an early point (Frank 2015, p. 317). Though scholars present an array of arguments regarding the exact time when Israel became a nation, most scholars tend to ignore two defining features of a nation: (1) a governing law and (2) the possession of land.

Using the Mosaic law as a defining feature of Israel as a nation is not without its challenges. At the forefront is the definition and understanding of the term תּוֹרָה.21 On the surface, the term denotes teaching.

Specifically law refers to any set of regulations; e.g., Ex 12 contains the law in regard to observing the Passover. Some other specific laws include those for the various offerings (Lev 7:37), for leprosy (Lev 14:57) and for jealousy (Num 5:29). In this light law is often considered to consist of statutes, ordinances, precepts, commandments, and testimonies. The meaning of the word gains further perspective in the light of Deut. According to Deut 1:5 Moses sets about to explain the law; law here would encompass the moral law, both in its apodictic and casuistic formulation, and the ceremonial law. The genius of Deut is that it interprets the external law in the light of its desired effect on man’s inner attitudes. In addition, the book of Deut itself shows that the law has a broad meaning to encompass history, regulations and their interpretation, and exhortations. It is not merely the listing of casuistic statements as is the case in Hammurabi’s code. Later the word extended to include the first five books of the Bible in all their variety.

(Hartley 1980)

Deuteronomy 6:6–9 states that the Israelites were to teach the תּוֹרָה to their children, emphasizing its didactic purpose. On the other hand, the תּוֹרָה also served as a legal code for the Israelites in religious and civic contexts.

Julius Wellhausen introduced the “Documentary Hypothesis” in his book Prolegomena zur geschichte Israels.22 Given the resurgence of the Documentary Hypothesis in recent years, it is necessary to address the issue as it pertains to the תּוֹרָה and national identity. Wellhausen notes the legal requirements of the Pentateuch.

The knowledge of God, which Hosea (chapter iv.) regards as the contents of the torah, has yet a closer connection with jurisprudence than with theology; but as its practical issue is that God requires of man righteousness, and faithfulness, and good-will, it is fundamentally and essentially morality, though morality at that time addressed its demands less to the conscience than to society. A ritual tradition naturally developed itself even before the exile (2 Kings xvii. 27, 28). But only those rites were included in the Torah which the priests had to teach others, not those which they discharged themselves; even in Leviticus this distinction may be traced; the instructions characterized as toroth being chiefly those as to animals which might or might not be eaten, as to clean and unclean states, as to leprosy and its marks (cf. Deut xxiv. 8). So it was in Israel, to which the testimony applies which we have cited: and so it was in Judah also.

(Wellhausen 1899, pp. 395–96)

Wellhausen observes that the תּוֹרָה, because it is from God, is essentially moral, and this morality concerns benevolent care, justice, and loyalty. As such, for Wellhausen, the תּוֹרָה is not in its entirety theological. Wellhausen ascribes the law as jurisprudence rather than religious dogma (Wellhausen 1899, p. 395). Following Wellhausen to some degree, David Carr suggests that the Pentateuch became legally binding during Josiah’s reform.23

Both Wellhausen and Carr assume a redacted approach to the Pentateuch. While such approaches may lead to a discovery of the final composition of the Pentateuch, it does not address the depiction of the final scene within the exodus narrative which attributes the authority of the תּוֹרָה to the narrative of Deut 5:1. To that end, the perspective of Brevard Childs deserves attention. Childs championed the view that the final form of the text is the form that one should study. Childs does not promote his method as another critical approach to the text. Instead, Childs argues that this approach serves as a hermeneutic for reading scripture in which one looks for the canonical context and shape.24

From the narrator’s perspective, the children of Israel possessed a legally binding code prior to and required for their entry into Canaan. The giving of the law before Israel’s entry into Canaan implies that they were no longer subject to other laws. The exodus and the subsequent journey to the promised land necessitated a legal framework. The תּוֹרָה provided this framework, establishing the foundations of a nation by defining the people’s relationship with Yahweh and with one another.

The legal provisions of the תּוֹרָה structured Israel’s governance and provided a framework for resolving disputes. This legal system promoted fairness and justice, enabling the stability of the nation. Furthermore, the תּוֹרָה addressed the role of its leaders, stating that they too were subject to the legal constraints in the law. In this manner, the law developed a sense of collective purpose by committing to a shared set of values and beliefs.

The physical territory occupied by a nation plays a fundamental role in defining the identity of a nation. It serves as the backdrop on which to write a nation’s history, culture, and collective memory. Goodblatt observes, “The concept of a nation can and should be distinguished from that of a state” (Goodblatt 2006, p. 26). Thus, the sum of ethnic parts tends to define a nation; however, this view makes national identity a fluid concept.

Land serves as the setting for collective memories and historical narratives. Within national borders, landmarks and monuments have become tangible links to the past. While natural landmarks define national identity, the narratives of the exodus and conquest present manufactured landmarks as memorials.25 Joshua 4:1–9 gives an example of constructed landmarks serving as a reminder of the crossing of the Jordan.

When the entire nation was on the other side, the LORD told Joshua, “Select for yourselves twelve men from the people, one per tribe. Instruct them, ‘Pick up twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests stand firmly, and carry them over with you and put them in the place where you camp tonight’”. Joshua summoned the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one per tribe. Joshua told them, “Go in front of the ark of the LORD your God to the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to put a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the Israelite tribes. The stones will be a reminder to you. When your children ask someday, ‘Why are these stones important to you?’ tell them how the water of the Jordan stopped flowing before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the water of the Jordan stopped flowing. These stones will be a lasting memorial for the Israelites”. The Israelites did just as Joshua commanded. They picked up twelve stones, according to the number of the Israelite tribes, from the middle of the Jordan as the LORD had instructed Joshua. They carried them over with them to the camp and put them there. Joshua also set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan in the very place where the priests carrying the ark of the covenant stood. They remain there to this very day.

These stones served as a permanent memorial to prompt Israel’s memory of the crossing of the Jordan through intergenerational teaching (Dozeman 2015, p. 292). This story passes from generation to generation by means of the landmark’s heritage rather than the psychological memory of the event.

The delineation of borders defines territorial integrity and places limitations on its governing power. Upon entry into the promised land, Yahweh delineates borders to the new generation of Israelites.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses: “Give these instructions to the Israelites, and tell them: ‘When you enter Canaan, the land that has been assigned to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan with its borders, your southern border will extend from the wilderness of Zin along the Edomite border, and your southern border will run eastward to the extremity of the Salt Sea, and then the border will turn from the south to the Scorpion Ascent, continue to Zin, and then its direction will be from the south to Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and pass over to Azmon. There the border will turn from Azmon to the Stream of Egypt, and then its direction is to the sea. And for a western border you will have the Great Sea. This will be your western border. And this will be your northern border: From the Great Sea you will draw a line to Mount Hor; from Mount Hor you will draw a line to Lebo Hamath, and the direction of the border will be to Zedad. The border will continue to Ziphron, and its direction will be to Hazar Enan. This will be your northern border. For your eastern border you will draw a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. The border will run down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain, and the border will descend and reach the eastern side of the Sea of Kinnereth. Then the border will continue down the Jordan River and its direction will be to the Salt Sea. This will be your land by its borders that surround it”.

(Num 34:1–12)

Genesis 15:18–21 gives another account of the borders of the promised land.

That day the LORD made a covenant with Abram: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River—the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites”.

While the borders of Gen 15:18–21 and the borders of Num 34:1–12 do not correspond entirely, Weinfeld helpfully notes that both are idealistic systems (Weinfeld 1993, p. 55). Wazana’s interpretation is convincing: “The differences in form and context reveal that these are two separate genres that convey two different conceptions of the promised land, but not two different territorial units” (Wazana 2003, pp. 63–64). The fluidity of borders in the ancient world does not negate the realty that nations understood territorial limits.26

Through the exodus, Yahweh takes people with no formal law and no formal land to a setting in which both law and land define and unify the group. The exodus is not merely a journey from one physical place to another but is a transitional period by which the Hebrews become “national Israel”. Clearly, the Hebrews had some form of law (i.e., Egyptian legal codes) and land (i.e., Goshen) while in Egyptian captivity; however, the exodus demonstrates the shedding of Egyptian identity and its replacement with a unique identity given from Yahweh.

4. The Need to Recircumcise in Joshua 5:2–9

Prior to the exodus, the Israelites were territorially nomadic. During their Egyptian captivity and the exodus wanderings, the Israelites were culturally Egyptian. At the end of the exodus, Yahweh gave the Israelites land, ceasing their nomadic nature and a law defining their cultural distinctiveness. Admittedly, scholars have long recognized that much of the law places restrictions on Canaanite rituals.27 However, viewing Israel as anti-Egypt demands a different hermeneutic in which law and land do not make Israel anti-Canaan but remove Egyptianized-identifiable features.

Dietary and clothing restrictions in the law of Moses depict an anti-Egyptian agenda. This hermeneutic suggests that Israel’s time in the wilderness was transformative rather than formative ex nihilo. Thus, the shedding of a former Egyptian identity proves crucial to the development of Israel as a sovereign nation.

Taking this approach, the Israelites shed their Egyptian mores in four primary stages. The first occurs in their craving for Egyptian food. Though their cravings clouded their memories of enslavement, Yahweh provided quail and manna (Exod 16:13–15). The provision of food in the form of meat (i.e., quail) and bread (i.e., manna) rather than pots of meat (i.e., beef) and bread (i.e., barley or wheat loaves) removes the more of food as culturally identifying. The second occurs when Moses destroyed the gold taken in the Egyptian plunder (Exod 3:22; cf. Deut 15:13) that formed the golden calf then used the remainder of the ornaments (עדי) to construct the tabernacle and its contents. In doing so, Moses destroys the more of cultural luxury and nationally defining symbols. The third is the giving of the law. While scholars debate the presence of a formal written law in Egypt, the consensus is that all Egyptians at the least observed the law of Ma’at.28 Israel’s possession of a formal, written document that defines behavior among the group sheds the legal or at the least the moral mores of Egypt. Finally, a mass circumcision must occur before the second generation can enter the promised land. The circumcision of Josh 5:2–9 is a recircumcision narrative in which Abrahamic circumcision—a necessary component of the Abrahamic covenant—replaces Egyptian circumcision. The formation of Israelite identity in the Hexateuch follows a chiastic structure.

• (A) The promise of land (Gen 15)
•   (B) The institution of Abrahamic circumcision (Gen 17)
•     (C) Israel’s (Jacob’s) descendants (Gen 30:1–24; 35:15)
•       (D) Israel in Egypt (Gen–Exod 12)
•     (C) Israel’s descendants of the second generation (Josh 5:4)
•   (B) Circumcision of the second generation (Josh 5:2–9)
• (A) The obtaining of land (Josh 5:10–12)

Circumcision was common in the ANE. In addition to the Egyptians, the Midianites and the Phoenicians also observed the rite.29 Thus, Israel’s practice of circumcision does not forthrightly place them in terms of “otherness”. The physical act of surgery cannot serve as Israel’s defining feature. However, the theological basis on which Abrahamic circumcision rests places circumcision as a meaningful identifier for Israel’s national identity. If a previous Egyptian form of circumcision is synonymous with the “disgrace of Egypt” in Josh 5:9, there must be a theological issue with the Egyptianized form that does not uphold the dogmatic implications of circumcision for Israel.30

Sasson notes the purpose of Egyptian circumcision.

In Egypt, however, texts, sculptures, and mummies seem to support the conclusion that babies never underwent the operation; it was reserved for either a period of prenuptial ceremonies or, more likely, for initiation into the state of manhood. Still remaining to be decided is the question of whether circumcision among the Egyptians was voluntary or universally imposed; whether it was adopted by the common populace or reserved for a high caste which included the pharaoh, his priests, his courtiers, and his immediate servants.

(Sasson 1966, p. 474).

Abrahamic circumcision differs from Egyptian circumcision in occasion, method, and meaning. The occasion of Abrahamic circumcision is the eighth day of a male child’s life. There are no connections of circumcision in an Israelite context as a passage into adulthood or a prerequisite for prenuptial events. Further, the method by which one undergoes Egyptian circumcision exhibits a precise surgical procedure. The recircumcision of Josh 5:2–9 employed flint knives to remove the entire foreskin, emphasizing the archaic history of the practice and the specificity of its method (Sasson 1966, p. 475). Whereas Egyptian circumcision denoted maturity, authority, and divinity in some cases, Abrahamic circumcision offered no implications for the establishment of authority or divinity. For example, the guardian deities Sia and Hu result from Re’s self-induced circumcision (Hart 1986, p. 201). Khnumhotpe, ruler of Beni-Hassan during the XII Dynasty, boasted that his father “governed at a time when he had not yet lost prepuce” (Urk. VII:34).31

The Abrahamic covenant promises two items necessary to form a nation—people and land. These people originated through Abraham’s seed (זֶרַע) to which the sign of circumcision served as a reminder that Yahweh would fulfill the promise through Abraham’s seed.32 Joshua 5:2–9 stands as an intriguing passage within the conquest narrative—a moment seemingly disconnected from the military campaign narratives that ensues shortly thereafter. Circumcision was not merely a physical act but a symbol of commitment to God’s covenant promises, a sign of separation from other nations, and a means of ensuring continuity of the covenant lineage.

The circumcision of the second-generation Israelite males in Josh 5:2–9 presents the renewal of the Abrahamic covenant with God. The act emphasizes Israel’s dependence on divine favor and protection as they embark on the conquest. It symbolizes their obedience to God’s commandments by emphasizing that success is contingent on their faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant. While it seems unusual to read of a serious surgery to those of fighting age in the context of a military conquest, the recircumcision narrative expresses deep theological significance. The recircumcision of the second generation provided the way in which this new generation recommitted themselves to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

5. Conclusions

The replacement of Egyptian circumcision with Abrahamic circumcision at Gilgal presents the final stage of shedding Egyptian mores. Before the conquest and settlement in Canaan can occur, the Israelites must reinstate the original covenant for land (Gen 15:18) and descendants (Gen 15:4–5). The need to circumcise “again” (שֵׁנִית) implies the use of a non-Abrahamic form of circumcision during the exodus. The use of לֹא as an objective denial of fact in v. 5 (לֹא־מָלוּ) does not signify a total absence of circumcision. Rather, it reflects the author’s view that Egyptian circumcision is not a form of proper circumcision. To become “national Israel”, Israel needed the components of a nation: people, law, and land.