2 At that time, Yahweh said to Joshua, “Make flint knives, and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time.”
3 Joshua made himself flint knives, and circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4 This is the reason Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt, who were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way, after they came out of Egypt.
5 For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness until all the nation, even the men of war who came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they didn’t listen to Yahweh’s voice. Yahweh swore to them that he wouldn’t let them see the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers that he would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
7 Their children, whom he raised up in their place, were circumcised by Joshua, for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them on the way.
8 When they were done circumcising the whole nation, they stayed in their places in the camp until they were healed.
9 Yahweh said to Joshua, “Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” Therefore the name of that place was called Gilgal to this day.
10 The children of Israel encamped in Gilgal. They kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho.
11 They ate unleavened cakes and parched grain of the produce of the land on the next day after the Passover, in the same day.
12 The manna ceased on the next day, after they had eaten of the produce of the land. The children of Israel didn’t have manna any more, but they ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.
13 When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood in front of him with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our enemies?”
14 He said, “No; but I have come now as commander of Yahweh’s army.” Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped, and asked him, “What does my lord say to his servant?”
15 The prince of Yahweh’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals, for the place on which you stand is holy.” Joshua did so.
7 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Reading as
Questions they answer differently
On verse
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Joshua 5:9Now the place where Joshua pitched his camp was called Gilgal, which denotes liberty; for since now they had passed over Jordan, they looked on themselves as freed from the miseries which they had undergone from the Egyptians, and in the wilderness.
Now the place where Joshua pitched his camp was called Gilgal, which denotes liberty; for since now they had passed over Jordan, they looked on themselves as freed from the miseries which they had undergone from the Egyptians, and in the wilderness.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 5.1.11; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Joshua 5:9The disgrace of Egypt is expounded by some as meaning that the want of circumcision rendered them similar to the Egyptians, … Others understand it actively, as meaning that they would no longer be scorned by the Egyptians, as if God had deceived them. This I have no hesitation in rejecting as too far fetched. … I rather understand the meaning to be, that they were freed from an invidious charge, by which they were otherwise overborne. It was disreputable to have shaken off the yoke and revolted from the king under whose government they lived. … They might, therefore, have been regarded as deserters, had not the disgrace been wiped off by the appeal to circumcision, by which the divine election was sealed in their flesh before they went down into Egypt. It was accordingly made plain by the renewal of the ancient covenant that they were not rebels against legitimate authority, nor had rashly gone off at their own hand, but that their liberty was restored by God, who had long ago taken them under his special protection.
The disgrace of Egypt is expounded by some as meaning that the want of circumcision rendered them similar to the Egyptians, … Others understand it actively, as meaning that they would no longer be scorned by the Egyptians, as if God had deceived them. This I have no hesitation in rejecting as too far fetched. … I rather understand the meaning to be, that they were freed from an invidious charge, by which they were otherwise overborne. It was disreputable to have shaken off the yoke and revolted from the king under whose government they lived. … They might, therefore, have been regarded as deserters, had not the disgrace been wiped off by the appeal to circumcision, by which the divine election was sealed in their flesh before they went down into Egypt. It was accordingly made plain by the renewal of the ancient covenant that they were not rebels against legitimate authority, nor had rashly gone off at their own hand, but that their liberty was restored by God, who had long ago taken them under his special protection.
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 5:9; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Joshua 5:4–7Others think that God favourably dispensed with the observance of this ordinance in consideration of the unsettledness of their state, and their frequent removals while they were in the wilderness. It was requisite that children after they were circumcised should rest for some time while they were sore, and stirring them might be dangerous to them; God therefore would have mercy and not sacrifice. This reason is generally acquiesced in, but to me it is not satisfactory, for sometimes they staid a year in a place (Num 9:22), if not much longer … To me it seems to have been a continued token of God's displeasure against them for their unbelief and murmuring. … all that fell under that sentence, and were to fall by it, were forbidden to circumcise their children, by which they were plainly told that, whatever others might, they should never have the benefit of that promise of which circumcision was the seal.
Others think that God favourably dispensed with the observance of this ordinance in consideration of the unsettledness of their state, and their frequent removals while they were in the wilderness. It was requisite that children after they were circumcised should rest for some time while they were sore, and stirring them might be dangerous to them; God therefore would have mercy and not sacrifice. This reason is generally acquiesced in, but to me it is not satisfactory, for sometimes they staid a year in a place (Num 9:22), if not much longer … To me it seems to have been a continued token of God's displeasure against them for their unbelief and murmuring. … all that fell under that sentence, and were to fall by it, were forbidden to circumcise their children, by which they were plainly told that, whatever others might, they should never have the benefit of that promise of which circumcision was the seal.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 5:1–9; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Gill1697–1771BaptistAn Exposition of the Old and New Testament · on Joshua 5:2–7it refers to a former general circumcision; … the circumcision of the Israelites at, about, or quickly after their coming out of Egypt; … from which time it had been neglected; … nor because forbidden the Israelites for their disobedience, murmurings, and rebellion, it not being probable that God should prohibit the observance of a command of his on that account; nor so much through criminal neglect, at least contempt of it, as because of their frequent journeying, and the inconvenience of performing it, being always uncertain, when they had pitched their tents, how long they should stay, and when they should remove, since this depended upon the taking up of the cloud; wherefore, unless they could have been sure of a continuance for a proper time, it was not safe to administer it; and now it was enjoined, partly because they were about to celebrate the passover, which required circumcision in all that partook of it, Exodus 12:43; and partly because they had now entered into the land of Canaan, which was given them in the covenant of circumcision, Genesis 17:8
it refers to a former general circumcision; … the circumcision of the Israelites at, about, or quickly after their coming out of Egypt; … from which time it had been neglected; … nor because forbidden the Israelites for their disobedience, murmurings, and rebellion, it not being probable that God should prohibit the observance of a command of his on that account; nor so much through criminal neglect, at least contempt of it, as because of their frequent journeying, and the inconvenience of performing it, being always uncertain, when they had pitched their tents, how long they should stay, and when they should remove, since this depended upon the taking up of the cloud; wherefore, unless they could have been sure of a continuance for a proper time, it was not safe to administer it; and now it was enjoined, partly because they were about to celebrate the passover, which required circumcision in all that partook of it, Exodus 12:43; and partly because they had now entered into the land of Canaan, which was given them in the covenant of circumcision, Genesis 17:8
John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, on 5:2; 1746–1763; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Baptist pastor in London and a scholar of Hebrew and the rabbis, who wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible.
John Wesley1703–1791MethodistExplanatory Notes upon the Old Testament · on Joshua 5:12The manna ceased - Which God now withheld, to shew that Manna was not an ordinary production of nature, but an extraordinary and special gift of God to supply their necessity. And because God would not be prodigal of his favours, by working miracles where ordinary means were sufficient.
The manna ceased - Which God now withheld, to shew that Manna was not an ordinary production of nature, but an extraordinary and special gift of God to supply their necessity. And because God would not be prodigal of his favours, by working miracles where ordinary means were sufficient.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, on 5:12; Bristol, 1765. The edition
The Anglican priest who began the Methodist movement; his notes on the Bible were written for ordinary readers.
Adam Clarkec. 1760–1832MethodistCommentary on the Holy Bible · on Joshua 5:13–14There stood a man over against him - It has been a very general opinion, both among the ancients and moderns, that the person mentioned here was no other than the Lord Jesus in that form which, in the fullness of time, he was actually to assume for the redemption of man. That the appearance was supernatural is agreed on all hands; and as the name Jehovah is given him, (Jos 6:2), and he received from Joshua Divine adoration, we may presume that no created angel is intended. … But as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come - By this saying Joshua was both encouraged and instructed. As if he had said, "Fear not; Jehovah hath sent from heaven to save thee and thy people from the reproach of them that would swallow thee up. Israel is the Lord's host; and the Lord of hosts is Israel's Captain. Thou thyself shalt only be captain under me, and I am now about to instruct thee relative to thy conduct in this war."
There stood a man over against him - It has been a very general opinion, both among the ancients and moderns, that the person mentioned here was no other than the Lord Jesus in that form which, in the fullness of time, he was actually to assume for the redemption of man. That the appearance was supernatural is agreed on all hands; and as the name Jehovah is given him, (Jos 6:2), and he received from Joshua Divine adoration, we may presume that no created angel is intended. … But as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come - By this saying Joshua was both encouraged and instructed. As if he had said, "Fear not; Jehovah hath sent from heaven to save thee and thy people from the reproach of them that would swallow thee up. Israel is the Lord's host; and the Lord of hosts is Israel's Captain. Thou thyself shalt only be captain under me, and I am now about to instruct thee relative to thy conduct in this war."
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, on 5:13 and 5:14; 1810–1826; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
A Methodist preacher and scholar from Ulster, whose commentary on the whole Bible took him nearly forty years.
Keil and Delitzsch1807–1888 and 1813–1890LutheranBiblical Commentary on the Old Testament · on Joshua 5:13–15The person who had appeared neither belonged to the Israelites nor to their enemies, but was the prince of the army of Jehovah, i.e., of the angels. … the Israelites are never called the host or army of Jehovah (in the singular). "The host of Jehovah" is synonymous with "the host of heaven" (Kg1 22:19), and signifies the angels, as in Psa 148:2 and Psa 103:21. … In any case, however, Joshua regarded him at once as a superior being, i.e., an angel. And he must have recognised him as something more than a created angel of superior rank, that is to say, as the angel of Jehovah who is essentially equal with God, the visible revealer of the invisible God, as soon as he gave him the command to take off his shoes, etc. - a command which would remind him of the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush, and which implied that the person who now appeared was the very person who had revealed himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The person who had appeared neither belonged to the Israelites nor to their enemies, but was the prince of the army of Jehovah, i.e., of the angels. … the Israelites are never called the host or army of Jehovah (in the singular). "The host of Jehovah" is synonymous with "the host of heaven" (Kg1 22:19), and signifies the angels, as in Psa 148:2 and Psa 103:21. … In any case, however, Joshua regarded him at once as a superior being, i.e., an angel. And he must have recognised him as something more than a created angel of superior rank, that is to say, as the angel of Jehovah who is essentially equal with God, the visible revealer of the invisible God, as soon as he gave him the command to take off his shoes, etc. - a command which would remind him of the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush, and which implied that the person who now appeared was the very person who had revealed himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, on 5:13–15; translated by James Martin and others (Edinburgh, 1866–1891); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, two German Lutheran scholars of Hebrew whose commentary on the Old Testament is still read for its learning.
Joshua 5
Joshua 5:2–15, World English Bible
Joshua 5 in the Bible · Told in the Story: Chapter 2, Across the Jordan
What others have written
7 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Joshua 5:9Now the place where Joshua pitched his camp was called Gilgal, which denotes liberty; for since now they had passed over Jordan, they looked on themselves as freed from the miseries which they had undergone from the Egyptians, and in the wilderness.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 5.1.11; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Joshua 5:9The disgrace of Egypt is expounded by some as meaning that the want of circumcision rendered them similar to the Egyptians, … Others understand it actively, as meaning that they would no longer be scorned by the Egyptians, as if God had deceived them. This I have no hesitation in rejecting as too far fetched. … I rather understand the meaning to be, that they were freed from an invidious charge, by which they were otherwise overborne. It was disreputable to have shaken off the yoke and revolted from the king under whose government they lived. … They might, therefore, have been regarded as deserters, had not the disgrace been wiped off by the appeal to circumcision, by which the divine election was sealed in their flesh before they went down into Egypt. It was accordingly made plain by the renewal of the ancient covenant that they were not rebels against legitimate authority, nor had rashly gone off at their own hand, but that their liberty was restored by God, who had long ago taken them under his special protection.
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 5:9; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Joshua 5:4–7Others think that God favourably dispensed with the observance of this ordinance in consideration of the unsettledness of their state, and their frequent removals while they were in the wilderness. It was requisite that children after they were circumcised should rest for some time while they were sore, and stirring them might be dangerous to them; God therefore would have mercy and not sacrifice. This reason is generally acquiesced in, but to me it is not satisfactory, for sometimes they staid a year in a place (Num 9:22), if not much longer … To me it seems to have been a continued token of God's displeasure against them for their unbelief and murmuring. … all that fell under that sentence, and were to fall by it, were forbidden to circumcise their children, by which they were plainly told that, whatever others might, they should never have the benefit of that promise of which circumcision was the seal.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 5:1–9; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Gill1697–1771BaptistAn Exposition of the Old and New Testament · on Joshua 5:2–7it refers to a former general circumcision; … the circumcision of the Israelites at, about, or quickly after their coming out of Egypt; … from which time it had been neglected; … nor because forbidden the Israelites for their disobedience, murmurings, and rebellion, it not being probable that God should prohibit the observance of a command of his on that account; nor so much through criminal neglect, at least contempt of it, as because of their frequent journeying, and the inconvenience of performing it, being always uncertain, when they had pitched their tents, how long they should stay, and when they should remove, since this depended upon the taking up of the cloud; wherefore, unless they could have been sure of a continuance for a proper time, it was not safe to administer it; and now it was enjoined, partly because they were about to celebrate the passover, which required circumcision in all that partook of it, Exodus 12:43; and partly because they had now entered into the land of Canaan, which was given them in the covenant of circumcision, Genesis 17:8
John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, on 5:2; 1746–1763; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Baptist pastor in London and a scholar of Hebrew and the rabbis, who wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible.
John Wesley1703–1791MethodistExplanatory Notes upon the Old Testament · on Joshua 5:12The manna ceased - Which God now withheld, to shew that Manna was not an ordinary production of nature, but an extraordinary and special gift of God to supply their necessity. And because God would not be prodigal of his favours, by working miracles where ordinary means were sufficient.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, on 5:12; Bristol, 1765. The edition
The Anglican priest who began the Methodist movement; his notes on the Bible were written for ordinary readers.
Adam Clarkec. 1760–1832MethodistCommentary on the Holy Bible · on Joshua 5:13–14There stood a man over against him - It has been a very general opinion, both among the ancients and moderns, that the person mentioned here was no other than the Lord Jesus in that form which, in the fullness of time, he was actually to assume for the redemption of man. That the appearance was supernatural is agreed on all hands; and as the name Jehovah is given him, (Jos 6:2), and he received from Joshua Divine adoration, we may presume that no created angel is intended. … But as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come - By this saying Joshua was both encouraged and instructed. As if he had said, "Fear not; Jehovah hath sent from heaven to save thee and thy people from the reproach of them that would swallow thee up. Israel is the Lord's host; and the Lord of hosts is Israel's Captain. Thou thyself shalt only be captain under me, and I am now about to instruct thee relative to thy conduct in this war."
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, on 5:13 and 5:14; 1810–1826; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
A Methodist preacher and scholar from Ulster, whose commentary on the whole Bible took him nearly forty years.
Keil and Delitzsch1807–1888 and 1813–1890LutheranBiblical Commentary on the Old Testament · on Joshua 5:13–15The person who had appeared neither belonged to the Israelites nor to their enemies, but was the prince of the army of Jehovah, i.e., of the angels. … the Israelites are never called the host or army of Jehovah (in the singular). "The host of Jehovah" is synonymous with "the host of heaven" (Kg1 22:19), and signifies the angels, as in Psa 148:2 and Psa 103:21. … In any case, however, Joshua regarded him at once as a superior being, i.e., an angel. And he must have recognised him as something more than a created angel of superior rank, that is to say, as the angel of Jehovah who is essentially equal with God, the visible revealer of the invisible God, as soon as he gave him the command to take off his shoes, etc. - a command which would remind him of the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush, and which implied that the person who now appeared was the very person who had revealed himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, on 5:13–15; translated by James Martin and others (Edinburgh, 1866–1891); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, two German Lutheran scholars of Hebrew whose commentary on the Old Testament is still read for its learning.