# Maybe it's because I am a man but why flint knives?



## Eoghan (Jun 24, 2014)

In Joshua 5 we read that the circumcision of the men was carried out with flint knives. Why? They had copper bronze and iron why not use these knives instead of flint?


----------



## jambo (Jun 24, 2014)

I don't know and nor do I want to think about it either.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 24, 2014)

Flint was a more common material, and it's probably a general designation for stone knives, not a single material; "flints" could also be a common name, even for knives made of lesser material, such as bone; since flints were so anciently used.

And there's no reason to think that kitchen or table cutlery would be fashioned out of materials (iron or copper) more valuable as instruments of war, and other sturdy implements. In a similar manner, wooden plows were also most likely far more accessible in those days to a poor farmer, than a metal implement.

But we would not want to exclude the notion that the use of an "old style" knife was a deliberate (rather than an expedient) choice, hearkening back to the days of Abraham and the implement he most likely used (cf. Ex.4:25). As the altars of Israel were not to be built of iron-worked stones, Dt.27:5, so maybe a "natural" knife was also a theological statement, "not a man-made ritual." Neither should these items procured for a sacred work be the ordinary implements of daily life, nor of warfare or hunting, etc.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 26, 2014)

I have pondered this and wonder if flint knives kept a better edge than metal knives of the day. 

As I understand it the foreskin was drawn through a broad "shield" before it was cut. Maybe I should go back to "Ask Moses" a Jewish website? I also wonder if the healing would be better depending on the cut. Sorry if this is TMI for most folks but I do ponder each chapter in turn and this chapter hinges on the circumcision of the men of that generation.


----------



## Somerset (Jun 26, 2014)

Flint blades can be very sharp and do hold their edge well - rather wish you hadn't asked the question!


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 26, 2014)

Having pondered this for several days I am struck by the time that must have been taken manufacturing these knives by chipping away at flint, only for the "rocks" to be discarded after use. I ponder this and recalling the bronze snake used by Moses which became a snare to Israel. Was Joshua trying to avoid the setting up of what the Roman Catholic church would term "relics" and objects of veneration or worship?

GILL suggests that the text informs us that any man could perform the circumcision. I am unsure as to the truth of this since I would rather place my trust in someone with skill than have a go myself as Gill seems to suggest? The fact that a pile of foreskins were made at one place perhaps suggests a "field hospital" , no?
_
And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel,.... Not that Joshua circumcised them himself, any more than he made the knives himself, but he ordered both to be done, and took care that they were done. And as any that had skill might make the knives, so might any circumcise; circumcision was not restrained to any order of men, not to the priests and Levites, but any might perform it; so that though the number to be circumcised was great, it might soon be finished: and this was done _


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 27, 2014)

Gill is simply wrong. There is no rationale that can be drawn from the text that "any man" had the _authorization_ to perform this work.

The principal actor is actually named: Joshua. No, this does not mean that Joshua personally circumcised the considerable numbers of those who required it. However, the words DO teach that the work was under his _direction._ This has more than passing significance.

The reality was that "not-being-circumcised" was a reality for the many thousands who were born during 40yrs in the wilderness. These were the bulk of the people now prepared to enter the land--which they could not do, so long as they remained "unclean" through uncircumcision. It was a _reproach_ to the people (Jos.5:9), that they had not been circumcised all those years.

Why weren't they? Some assert that it was by neglect, but this is frankly unbelievable. If Moses had insisted upon it, it would have been done. Why didn't he do that? The answer is connected to the fact that for 38yrs, no more Passovers were kept. This may be inferred from the absence of mention of the observance during the wandering, but even more from the fact that the whole nation was under *formal discipline*, and thus *ineligible*. The people (as a whole, though not in every heart) had rejected the Lord (his summons to enter the land), and so the Lord had rejected them (temporarily and typologically). The entirety were "cut off from his people" (i.e. faithful Israel), the language of excommunication as found in the Law.

Of course, there were _unquestionably_ exceptions to the uncircumcision. The priests and Levites *had to be clean*, in order to do their duties. While it is plausible to suppose they might have kept Passover alone, or with dwindling numbers, I think it far more likely that Passover was simply suspended against the people in toto, even while the Levites retained some aspects of ceremonial cleanness for the sake of preserving the Tabernacle and its rites, as God willed it.

*Not being circumcised was an aspect of their corporate punishment*, even as the suspension of Passover marked their rejection of their own deliverance from bondage. No uncircumcised person could eat it anyway, Ex.12:48, and by the time of the entrance most of the congregation was uncircumcised. Having foreskin "cut off" was a token of judgment: better to have a sign of the righteous judgment of God in your flesh, than experience his wrath in the whole self, body and soul. But as the experience of the wilderness-wandering proves, just having the sign without the faith was no protection from being cast away by God for unbelief.


Returning to the matter of authorization. No, not just "anyone" could circumcise. But it must be done under the direction of the covenant-head, in this case Joshua. An irregular circumcision (such as done by Zipporah, Ex.4:25) is not a rule, much less does her action prove that parents (or a father) were the normal agents. The logical actors were the priests and Levites. They retained the circumcision (for the sake of their duties), and no uncircumcised person should circumcise (religiously). By the time of the entrance, many uncircumcised fathers in their late thirties had uncircumcised sons.

The employment of the clean priests and Levites makes sense practically and ritually, and as a religious ceremony (really, an OT sacrament) it belonged to the authorized ministry to control it. In addition, the dispersal of the priests and Levites throughout the settled nation in the Land points to the general availability of such persons for such duties ever afterward. There is no reason to suppose that regular (as opposed to irregular) conduct of the rite of circumcision was ever devolved to the parents.

It's worthy of note that when John the Baptist (whose father was a priest!) is circumcised, Lk.1:59ff, "_*they came*_ to circumcise the child;" and "*they* would have" named him. Who? Someone with the authorization to formally act on behalf of the corporate body.

Similarly Jesus, concerning his circumcision, Lk.2:21, Scripture does not say the parents (or father) do anything. In fact, the notice is distinctly _impersonal_; even "his name is called Jesus," but not that his parents or his father _named him_ "Jesus." Obviously, the parents of both John and Jesus are supplying the name of the child. Clearly, this notice is describing something formal and official.

Likewise, believing Timothy, born of OT-believing mother (and grandmother), 2Tim.1:5; 3:15, was never circumcised by either one as if they should have imitated Zipporah.

These kinds of notices, when we have them, indicate a submissive and receptive attitude, rather than assertiveness. We simply do not have Scriptural record, beyond the age of the patriarchs (and only Abraham's act is explicitly mentioned), of a father circumcising his son.

We should not grant that just "anyone" could perform the rite of circumcision, in Josh.5 or anywhere else.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jun 27, 2014)

Some have said, Flint was known early on prior to the Bronze age. Flint can be used to make sharp parallel blades. The blades also have less pits than other types of stone and are better for surgical use being less prone to infection problems and easier to clean.

I assume flint is also hard "I have set my face like flint toward Jerusalem" Isaiah


----------

