Genesis 17:10

This [is] my covenant,.... The token of it, for the promise itself was given before, which is more properly the covenant; circumcision is so called in an improper sense, being only the sign of it:

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Every man-child ... circumcised.

Circumcision is here called the covenant by a usual metonomy, because it is the condition, sign, and seal of the covenant, the pledge of God’ s promise and man’ s duty. And upon the same grounds the cup, i.e. the wine, is called the new testament in Christ’ s blood, ; or, which is all one, Christ’ s blood in the new testament, . It is evident that women as well as men were comprehended in this covenant, from ,4 Joe 2:15,16. Yet circumcision is given only to the males, partly, because it could not, at least not conveniently, be administered to females; partly, because man is the principal cause of the propagation of children, and consequently of the propagation of that original corruption which cleaves to them; partly, to signify that all persons begotten by man should be polluted by sin, though not all conceived by a woman, as Christ was; and partly, because man is the head of the woman, and of the family, upon whom all their concerns are devolved, and from whom the distinction of families and people comes.

Genesis 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.Ver. 10. Every man-child among you.] Infants were circumcised to signify that we had better be flayed, and have our skin quite stripped off, than to have it as a skin-bottle hanging in the smoke of filthy desires, and blown full of unclean motions with the breath of Satan. That wretched renegade that betrayed Rhodes was well served. For his promised wife and portion were presented: but the Turk told him that he would not have a Christian to be his son-in-law, but he must be a Mussulman, that is, a believing Turk, within and without. And therefore he caused his baptized skin, as he called it, to be flayed off, and him to be cast in a bed, strewed with salt, that he might get a new skin, and so he should be his son-in-law. But the wicked wretch ended his life with shame and torment. Spec. Bel. Sac., p. 157.

(10) Shall be circumcised.—It is stated by Herodotus (Book ii. 104) that the Egyptians were circumcised, and that the Syrians in Palestine confessed that they learned this practice from the Egyptians. Origen, however, seems to limit circumcision to the priesthood (Epist. ad Rom., § ii. 13); and the statement of Herodotus is not only very loose, but his date is too far posterior to the time of Abram for us to be able to place implicit confidence in it. If we turn to the evidence of Egyptian monuments and of the mummies, we find proof of the rite having become general in Egypt only in quite recent times. The discussion is, however, merely of archaeological importance; for circumcision was just as appropriate a sign of the covenant if borrowed from institutions already existing as if then used for the first time. It is, moreover, an acknowledged fact that the Bible is always true to the local colouring. Chaldæan influence is predominant in those early portions of Genesis which we owe to Abram, a citizen of Ur of the Chaldees; his life and surroundings subsequently are those of an Arab sheik; while Egyptian influence is strongly marked in the latter part of Genesis, and in the history of the Exodus from that country. In this fact we have a sufficient answer to the theories which would bring down the composition of the Pentateuch to a late period: for the author would certainly have written in accordance with the facts and ideas of his own times. If, however, Abram had seen circumcision in Egypt, when the famine drove him thither, and had learned the significance of the rite, and that the idea of it was connected with moral purity, there was in this even a reason why God should choose it as the outward sign of the sacrament which He was now bestowing upon the patriarch. The fitness of circumcision to be a sign of entering into a covenant, and especially into one to which children were to be admitted, consisted in its being a representation of a new birth by the putting off of the old man, and the dedication of the new man unto holiness. The flesh was cast away that the spirit might grow strong; and the change of name in Abram and Sarai was typical of this change of condition. They had been born again, and so must again be named. And though women could not indeed be admitted directly into the covenant, yet they shared in its privileges by virtue of their consanguinity to the men, who were as sponsors for them; and thus Sarai changes her name equally with her husband.

Verse 10. Every man - child - shall be circumcised.] Those who wish to invalidate the evidence of the Divine origin of the Mosaic law, roundly assert that the Israelites received the rite of circumcision from the Egyptians. Their apostle in this business is Herodotus, who, lib. ii., p. 116, Edit. Steph. 1592, says: "The Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians, are the only nations in the world who have used circumcision απαρχης, from the remotest period; and the Phoenicians and Syrians who inhabit Palestine acknowledge they received this from the Egyptians." Herodotus cannot mean Jews by Phoenicians and Syrians; if he does he is incorrect, for no Jew ever did or ever could acknowledge this, with the history of Abraham in his hand. If Herodotus had written before the days of Abraham, or at least before the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt, and informed us that circumcision had been practised among them απαρχης, from the beginning, there would then exist a possibility that the Israelites while sojourning among them had learned and adopted this rite. But when we know that Herodotus flourished only 484 years before the Christian era, and that Jacob and his family sojourned in Egypt more than 1800 years before Christ, and that all the descendants of Abraham most conscientiously observed circumcision, and do so to this day, then the presumption is that the Egyptians received it from the Israelites, but that it was impossible the latter could have received it from the former, as they had practised it so long before their ancestors had sojourned in Egypt.

10. shall be circumcised] The rite of circumcision, which is here given as the symbol of the covenant with Abraham and his seed, was no new institution. In Abraham’s time it was already a well-known practice. It is adopted as the sign of the covenant, and consecrated to be the abiding pledge and witness of the relationship between the God who revealed Himself to Abraham and the people of which Abraham was the founder. Circumcision is found to have been practised among the peoples of Africa at a very early time. In Egypt records of the practice are said to go back to an age many centuries previous to the time of Abraham. From Egypt it is said to have been transmitted into Phoenicia and Syria (see Herodotus, ii. 114). From the present account it is clear that the Israelites believed the institution to have had its origin in the patriarchal era. We learn from Jeremiah 9:25-26 that it was practised by Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites, as well as by Egyptians and Israelites. The custom is prevalent in very different parts of the world. For instance, it is found in S. Africa and in Madagascar. It very possibly has some connexion with the cuttings and tattooings by which the savage avowed his relationship to the Deity of his tribe, and hoped to secure his favour by wearing his sign. Hence it took rank with the distinctive badges of a tribe or people. Recent investigation has not tended to support the theory that circumcision has any connexion with primitive child sacrifice; nor, again, that it took its origin from hygienic motives. Apparently, it represents the dedication of the manhood of the people to God. In the history of Israel, it has survived as the symbol of the people belonging to Jehovah through His special election. Its significance in Israel is something quite distinct from that in other circumcised peoples. This corporeal sacrament remained to the Israelite, when every other tie of religion or race had been severed. For its renewal (a) in the time of Moses, (b) in the time of Joshua, see Exodus 4:25; Joshua 5:2. In both of these passages the use of a stone, or flint, instrument possibly represents the survival of the rite from an age of remotest antiquity, before the introduction of metal. For circumcision as an honourable badge, the absence of which would be regarded as a reproach in Egypt, see Joshua 5:7-9. The alleged omission of the Philistines to practise this rite (Judges 14:3; 1 Samuel 31:4; 2 Samuel 1:20) may possibly be due to their foreign origin.

10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep — That is, this is the sign or seal of the covenant which it will be your place to observe. Hence Stephen said: “He gave him the covenant of circumcision.” Acts 7:8.