CIRCUMCISION (SANTAMARIA)

The Jews (Israelites) were not circumcised in Egypt for several interrelated theological, historical, and practical reasons, as suggested in Scripture and interpreted by Jewish and Christian traditions. Here's a scholarly explanation:

---

The question of whether Jewish priests (Levites or Aaronic) were circumcised while in Egypt is an important one, particularly because of Joshua 5:5, which states:

"All the people who came out of Egypt were circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not been circumcised." (Joshua 5:5, NIV)

This suggests that those who came out of Egypt, including Moses, Aaron, and the priests, were circumcised. Let’s break this down into historical, textual, and theological evidence:

---

1. Scriptural Evidence that Priests Were Circumcised in Egypt

a. Moses was circumcised (or obligated to circumcise)

• Exodus 4:24–26 records the incident where God sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Zipporah then circumcised the child and averted judgment.

• This passage implies that circumcision was still expected and enforced by God, even in the period following Egyptian slavery.

• Moses’ failure to circumcise his own son seems to be an exception, not the rule, and may reflect the influence of his Midianite marriage rather than Israelite custom.

b. Aaron and the Levitical Line

• No passage in the Old Testament ever indicates that Aaron or the Levitical priests were uncircumcised.

• In fact, participation in the Passover was strictly limited to the circumcised only (Exodus 12:48):

  “No uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”

• Aaron and the priests participated in the original Passover in Egypt (Exodus 12), which confirms that they had to be circumcised to partake.

Thus, logically:

• Only circumcised males could partake of the Passover (Ex. 12:48)

• Aaron and Moses partook of the Passover

• → Therefore, Aaron and Moses were circumcised

---

2. Priestly Line Continued Without Disruption

• Levitical and Aaronic duties, once instituted in the wilderness (Exodus–Leviticus), assumed a pure lineage and obedience to covenantal signs.

• Since God chose Aaron and his sons for the priesthood, they would not have been allowed to serve while in an uncircumcised state.

• Ezekiel 44:7 (later, during exile) criticizes priests who allowed the uncircumcised in heart and flesh into God's sanctuary—implying that both external and internal circumcision were expected.

---

3. Historical Interpretation

a. Jewish Tradition

• Rabbinic sources (e.g., Midrash Rabbah, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael) affirm that circumcision was practiced among faithful Israelites in Egypt, though it declined or ceased for others.

• Some traditions say tribes like Levi remained more faithful during Egyptian bondage (cf. Exodus 32:26), suggesting the Levites may have preserved circumcision more strictly.

b. Theological Logic

• The sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:10–14) was circumcision, and failure to circumcise meant cutting off from the covenant community.

• For Israel's deliverance to be based on God's covenant with Abraham (Exodus 2:24–25), there had to remain at least a core of circumcised Israelites, especially among the leaders.

---

Conclusion:

Yes, the Jewish priests in Egypt were circumcised, and this is provable through:

1. Scriptural deduction: Passover participants had to be circumcised (Ex. 12:48), and Aaron and Moses participated.

2. Priestly qualifications: Aaron could not have served as high priest if he were uncircumcised.

3. Covenantal continuity: God honored His covenant with Abraham, implying at least partial continuity of the covenant sign.

4. Historical Jewish tradition: The tribe of Levi was more faithful than others during Egypt and likely maintained circumcision.

Would you like sources from Jewish commentators or early church fathers as well?

1. Biblical Reference:

In Joshua 5:2–9, we are explicitly told that the generation born in the wilderness had not been circumcised. The reason is given:

“All the people who came out of Egypt had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness on the way after they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.” (Joshua 5:5, ESV)

So, two facts are clear:

• The original Israelites who entered Egypt were circumcised.

• Their descendants stopped circumcising either during slavery or in the wilderness.

---

2. During Egyptian Bondage:

There is no direct biblical record of Israel practicing circumcision while in Egypt. Several theories explain why:

a. Oppression and Cultural Suppression:

Egyptian slavery may have made religious practices like circumcision difficult or dangerous. As foreign slaves, Israelites likely had little freedom to perform rituals. Egyptians also practiced their own form of circumcision, typically partial and at puberty—not infancy—so Israelite circumcision may have been seen as foreign or threatening.

b. Spiritual Decline in Egypt:

Ezekiel 20:5–8 strongly suggests that the Israelites fell into idolatry while in Egypt:

“...they rebelled against Me and would not listen to Me. They did not cast away the idols of Egypt.”

This spiritual compromise may have led to the neglect of the covenant sign (circumcision), since it symbolized faithfulness to God's covenant with Abraham.

---

3. In the Wilderness:

Even after the Exodus, circumcision was not resumed during the 40 years in the wilderness. This seems to be an act of divine judgment or consequence:

a. Sign of Covenant Withheld:

God may have withheld the covenant sign from the disobedient generation that would not enter the Promised Land (cf. Numbers 14). The delay in circumcision parallels the delay in entering the land. Only after the wilderness generation died off did Joshua resume circumcision at Gilgal.

b. Re-covenanting at Gilgal:

Joshua 5 presents the circumcision at Gilgal as a national renewal of the covenant, once the new generation was poised to inherit the land. God says:

“Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” (Joshua 5:9)

This implies that lack of circumcision had left them under spiritual reproach, which was only removed once they re-obeyed.

---

4. Theological Symbolism:

In a deeper sense, circumcision symbolized separation, obedience, and identity with God's covenant. Neglecting it during Egyptian bondage and the wilderness symbolizes:

• Israel's loss of identity under oppression

• God's displeasure with their unbelief

• The need for renewed obedience in the new land

---

Summary:

The Jews were not circumcised in Egypt likely due to a combination of:

• Oppression and loss of religious freedom

• Spiritual compromise and idolatry

• God’s judgment during the wilderness period

• A divine plan to renew the covenant only upon entering Canaan

This neglect was reversed in Joshua 5, when circumcision resumed as a public recommitment to God's covenant with Abraham.

Would you like the Jewish rabbinic view or early Christian interpretations (e.g., in the Church Fathers) as well? 

It is very likely that some Jews (Israelites) in Egypt were not circumcised at the time of the first Passover, and therefore did not participate in the meal.

Why?

Because Exodus 12:43–48 explicitly forbids any uncircumcised person from eating the Passover:

Exodus 12:48 –
“No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.”

This law applied not only to foreigners or servants, but to Israelites themselves. Participation in the Passover required circumcision as a covenant sign.

---

Historical Context:

During the centuries in Egypt, the Israelites fell into neglect of circumcision, especially during their slavery.

Joshua 5:5 –
“Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness... them they had not circumcised.”

This suggests that only a segment of Israel maintained the practice, and likely only those who obeyed God's command were circumcised before the first Passover in order to participate.

---

Therefore:

✅ Some Israelites were circumcised before the first Passover and ate it.
🚫 Some were not circumcised and were therefore excluded from the meal.

There is no mention of mass punishment for uncircumcised Israelites at that moment — only that they could not participate in the covenant meal.

---

Conclusion:

• There were likely Israelites in Egypt who were not circumcised at the time of the first Passover.

• They would have been excluded from eating the lamb, according to God's command in Exodus 12:48.

• Only those who obeyed and were circumcised took part in that foundational covenant meal.

The uncircumcised Israelites were not automatically killed by the angel of death unless they disobeyed God’s specific command to apply the blood of the lamb.

---

Let’s break it down carefully:

🔑 Exodus 12:12–13 – What prevented death?

“When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you…”

God's judgment passed over houses marked with blood, regardless of who was inside — circumcised or not. The protection was based on obedience to the instruction to kill a lamb and apply its blood to the doorposts.

---

🔍 So what if an Israelite was uncircumcised?

• If an uncircumcised Israelite lived in a house where the blood of the lamb was applied, then that house was passed over.

• Circumcision was a requirement to eat the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48), but not explicitly a requirement for deliverance from the plague.

• The judgment came to the firstborn in homes without the blood, not to individuals based on personal circumcision status.

---

🧾 Summary:

Condition	Consequence
Blood applied to the doorpost	Death angel passes over the house
No blood on the doorpost	The firstborn in that house dies
An uncircumcised person in a protected house	Likely spared, but excluded from eating the lamb
Uncircumcised, disobedient, and did not apply blood	Firstborn likely perished

---

Final Thought:

God's instructions were very clear. Those who believed and obeyed applied the blood, and their households were protected. The issue at Passover was not primarily circumcision, but faith shown through obedience (Hebrews 11:28).

Hebrews 11:28 – “Through faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.”

So, while circumcision determined who could eat the lamb, it was the blood on the doorposts that saved the firstborn — and this was the dividing line between life and death that night in Egypt.