This is explained in the text in two ways. First, negatively (v. 4): none of those who came out of Egypt — males, warriors — were circumcised a second time; because, before the Jordan was crossed, [they were] all destroyed by death; and indeed because [there] was no need to circumcise them, since in Egypt they had all already been circumcised (v. 5). But two [things] are to be noted. The one is: from this [it] is held [that] none of those who were under 40 years [were now] circumcised — because all such had been born outside Egypt; and to these are also to be reckoned those who, though born in Egypt, were carried off [died] before the eighth day from birth. The other [is]: by “males” the whole class of women is excluded, to whom (as is plain [from] Gen. 17) circumcision in no way pertained; and by “warriors” [there] is removed whatever was of the Levitical stock — not because any of the Levites who had been born in Egypt were circumcised a second time, but lest we should think them comprehended in that [penalty] which is added, [namely] the penalty of death. For into the land of promise entered the sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar (as is clearly handed down about him [Aaron] below, in the last chapter); and yet [each] was more than 60 years [old] at the very entry, as [is clear] from his consecration and prefecture, which — begun at the entering of the second year [of the Exodus]—
(col. 510 — right column; printed “517”)
—was made [Exod. 29 & 40; Lev. 8; Num. 3] — is gathered. Secondly, affirmatively (v. 5 & 8), thus indeed: “All who were born in the desert were [now] circumcised” — because they ought to have been circumcised (Gen. 17), and yet were not circumcised; and that because (v. 6) “for 40 years through the desert the sons of Israel went” — namely, until, according to the word of the Lord (Num. 14), the whole nation of warriors who had gone out of Egypt should be consumed by death. And [it] was being consumed because they had not obeyed the voice of the Lord — [about] which [he] therefore swore that he would do [it] to them, that they should not see that land, concerning which the same Lord had sworn to their Fathers that he would give it — namely, the land flowing with milk and honey, and abounding to them. “Their sons” (v. 7) “the Lord raised up in their stead,” and Joshua now circumcised them, because they were still uncircumcised, since — as [was] already said — no one had circumcised them on the way. But in the eighth verse [it] is said [that] “the whole nation [was] circumcised,” where — as above (ch. 3, part last, quaest. 13) — גּוֹי [goi, “nation”] seems to be taken for the Jews; but, as Masius says (fol. 83), because they were still uncircumcised after the manner of the barbarians. And therefore I do not sufficiently grasp what the Latin version of Theodoret means, when [it] says (quaest. 3): “But [the] history teaches us [that] several born in Egypt had not been circumcised — [their] parents perhaps fearing the death of the infants, if they had circumcised them. And so all (to say [it] in a word) remained uncircumcised, except a few: [namely] those who were born in the desert.” But [there] are some [things] here concerning which inquiry is made.
1. Whether all those born in the desert — and at the very time of the Egyptian departure — remained uncircumcised until that iterated circumcision? [It] would seem ridiculous to call this into question, since the text expressly affirms [it] — were it not [that] Calvin, on the contrary, affirms [that] not all remained uncircumcised, but only those who were born after the sedition and the sentence of death pronounced by the Lord (Num. 14). But which is more to be believed — the text, or Calvin? He indeed tries to twist the clear words of the text into his [own] fiction; but — as is plain [from] their opinion and paraphrase already expounded — quite “against Minerva” [i.e. against nature], as is wont to be said. “This cause is to be noted,” he says, “that the sons of Israel wandered through the desert until that whole nation which had refused to follow God should be abolished; from which, in my judgment, [one] may gather [that], as a sign of malediction or rejection, the use of circumcision ceased through all that time.” [It] is well gathered [that] the use of circumcision ceased through all that time — but not [that] it ceased [as] a sign of malediction, and therefore [not] that this cessation began [only] then first. See the [things] said above (q. 3), and Abulensis (q. 48), where this argument of Calvin’s already long ago came up, and [he] rejected [it].
2. Whether all those same [ones] born in the desert were circumcised in this second circumcision? St. Thomas doubts (4, dist. 2, quaest. 2, art. 3, little-question 1, ad 3), because [it] is uncertain whether none of those died in the same desert. If any died, [they] certainly did not reach that circumcision which happened after the crossing of the Jordan, nor received any other before — as is clear from the [things] said (this quaest., proposition 2, and above, quaest. 1, 2, 3). If [they] did not die, the context expressly affirms [that] all who were survivors had now been circumcised, as we have seen.
(col. 511 — left column; printed “518”)
Is the whole difficulty, then, situated in this?
Whether [any] of those born in the desert also died in it?
That [they] did not die [is] proved, first, by St. Thomas (in the cited place) from Psalm 104 [105:37]: “There was not [one] infirm in their tribes.” If [there] was no infirmity among them, then neither [was there] death. Secondly: Joshua narrates in this chapter (v. 6) who died, and names only those who did not obey the word of the Lord; and asserts [that] their sons were substituted by the Lord into their place. But of these sons — if death had carried off any — how would he have raised up those [others] into their place? Thirdly: Rupert (on Joshua, ch. 15) reckons the same not improbable, and confirms [it] from Deut. ch. 29 & 32. These are his words:
“Or perhaps [it] will be permissible to affirm that — among the other marvels of God — this too could marvelously happen: that of the sons who succeeded into the place of the circumcised fathers, no one died through the 40 years of that widest wilderness? For Moses says to them: ‘The Lord led you 40 years through the desert; your garments were not worn out, nor were the shoes of your feet consumed by age’ [Deut. 29:5]. If he deigned to take care of that — that the garments should not be worn out, nor the shoes of their feet consumed by age — how much more is [he] to be believed to have taken care of that, that no one of them should die by an untimely death? Otherwise, how will [that] stand which the same [Moses] says in the Canticle: ‘He led him about, and taught him, and kept him as the pupil of his eye’ [Deut. 32:10]?”
Nevertheless, nothing [in] these [arguments] stands in the way [against the possibility] that death carried off some of them, though perhaps fewer. For that [text] which denies any infirmity in the Israelite tribes is understood of the very time of the Egyptian departure. For in the same verse [it] precedes: “And he led them out with silver and gold”; then follows: “and [there] was not [one] infirm in their tribes.” [As for] the second [argument]: [there] are indeed narrated here all who died [because] they had not obeyed the Lord — but not [these] alone. Then, mention is made of the death of those who perished afterward on account of the murmur of the spies — not of others who died from another cause, natural or violent. And who would think [that] among the others — [deaths] which either preceded that murmur or followed their murmurings — [there] was never one who had been born in the wilderness? Who would believe [that] of those who were 20, 30, or more years [old], the lust of none slipped into the Moabite women? [That] none of them was among those 23 thousand who — the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10 v. 8) — fell? Nor, [even] if death snatched away some of those born [in the desert], is [it] thence gathered [that] into the parents’ place [there was] no substituted offspring. For truly this too happens daily, that children succeed [their] parents, and yet some of these always die off. The third [argument] — [taken] from me — stands entirely. For Rupert indeed only doubts and inquires; but since the former place of Deuteronomy relates the [things] which, beyond and above the common course of things, were granted to them, and yet says nothing about this immortality of those younger [ones] — who would not rather reckon [that] there was none [such]? For if the constant integrity of the shoes and garments is narrated, how [would] the perpetual safety of the men themselves [be] omitted? The latter [place] explains God’s assiduous care over them, and [his] guardianship, but not in such a way, however, that death touched none [of them] — as is clear from similar phrases elsewhere (Prov. 7 v. 2; Ps. 16:8; Sir. 17:18; ch. 29:16; Zech. 2:8).
(col. 512 — right column; printed “519”)
But besides this question about the death of certain [ones], [there] are still two others which make [one] doubt whether all who crossed the Jordan were affected with circumcision. The one:
Whether [there] were then none [so] impious as to have despised this old sacrament?
If [there] were in the desert some so impious that they even worshipped idols through all that time — as seems to be said [in] Amos 5, and as Rupert also noted above (quaestion 3) — what wonder [would it] seem, if — whether of the Israelites, or of the Egyptians going up with [them] — some slipped into that impiety, [so] that after the crossing of the Jordan they also despised and spurned circumcision? Yet I would rather believe [that] none of that kind were [there] then. But [even] if any had been so wicked, [I would believe] that they all were consumed and utterly taken away by various slaughters and destructions in the wilderness itself. For the Lord had willed to purge his people thoroughly, so that [he] might bring [them] into the promised land, and, as it were, [lead them] by the hand into [their] inheritance. For this reason too he had commanded all to be sanctified, as [was] said above. The other question, then, remains:
Whether at least those Levites who had been born in the desert, and on the journey itself, were not circumcised until this time of the second circumcision?
Radak and most of the Rabbis believe [that] as many of the Levites as were born in the desert were also there circumcised — because, namely, [in] Deut. 33 v. 9 [the Levites] are praised for having kept the Lord’s word and covenant. But, first, the other tribes committed nothing against the same word and covenant of the Lord by omitting the circumcision. Secondly: the same reason which brought [it] about that circumcision was then omitted by the other tribes falls entirely upon the Levitical [tribe] too. Thirdly: those Rabbis now contradict themselves. For before (q. 3) we heard [them say] how, unless the North wind blew, they handed down [that] no one was to be circumcised, and again how it [the wind] held itself for the whole 40 years in the cave of Aeolus, and never blew. How, then, do they trifle [in saying] the Levites were [already] circumcised? But that praise of the Levites from Deuteronomy looks to that time in which, in the same desert, the calf [was] worshipped, and a great number of the calf-worshippers [were] cut down by their [the Levites’] hands and swords (Exod. 32). For therefore, in the same ch. 33 of Deuteronomy, before the cited words, these [words] go before (v. 8): “Who (namely Levi) said to his father and his mother: I know you not; and to his brothers: I am ignorant of them” — exactly as, after that slaughter (Exod. 32 v. 29), Moses had already praised them: “You have consecrated your hands today to the Lord, each one in his son and his brother, that a blessing may be given to you.” And Philo asserts the same (bk. 2, On the Monarchy). [It] remains, therefore, [that] which the text says (v. 6 & 7): [that] all to whom the desert and the pilgrimage gave this light [birth] were, after the crossing of the Jordan, circumcised. But in the Latin text [there] are, for the sake of explanation, certain [things] a little otherwise than in the Hebrew — as, “through the circuits of the longest way,” “the widest wilderness.”
(col. 513 — left column; printed “520”)