And the uncircumcised male child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
All Commentaries on Genesis 17:14 Go To Genesis 17
Ambrose of Milan
AD 397
Not without reason or by excessive reaction do many find this passage disturbing, in that the Lord should say, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Indeed, it is not taken lightly that the negligence of the parents could bring punishment upon an eightdayold infant, so much so that his soul would perish, while even in the case of homicide—committed, however, by one who had unintentionally killed a man—the law stipulated to what cities the perpetrator might flee to obtain impunity for the shedding of blood. How is it possible, then, that for the case of homicide the involuntary character of the killing is taken into consideration, while here no account is taken of infancy, in which there could have been no fault whatever, whether of negligence or of purpose—unless perhaps some might think that the parents receive an even graver punishment in the death of their son? But it is regarded as unjust when the crime of a wrongdoer is inflicted on an innocent party or when a person is included in the punishment of another when he is not responsible to the same degree. For this reason some think that the passage is saying that the parent is to be exterminated, that it is his soul that should perish, not that of the baby. But the case is not at all clear, even if this opinion seems to be supported by the comment “because he has violated my covenant.” This then seems to refer to one who is capable of understanding, not to the infant child. Others maintain that the Lord God is threatening the parents, even if silently, with still graver punishments, so that as adults they will have even greater fear when [they see that] not even children are spared. .
