Genesis 17:14

Nothing done unwittingly is declared punishable by the law, since the law makes allowance even for one who claims to have committed unintentional homicide. Why then is the eight-day-old infant who is uncircumcised menaced as though subject to the penalty of death? Some say that this is to be applied, by way of interpretation, to the parents. They, it is thought, should be punished as having made light of the precept of the law. But others think that by the use of hyperbole, the text expresses anger with respect to the infant child, as much as it appears to do, in order that the inevitable punishment might be brought upon those who have reached the use of reason and who have broken the law.

See the Lord's wisdom in knowing how inobservant future generations are likely to be, and so, as though putting a bit in their mouths, he gave them this sign of circumcision, curbing their unrestrained urges in case they should mingle with other peoples. You see, he was aware of their lustful tendencies in not practicing restraint, even though it had been drummed into them countless times to refrain from their irrational impulses. Consequently he gave them a perpetual reminder with this sign of circumcision, as though fastening them with a chain. He set limits and rules to prevent them overstepping the mark instead of staying within their own people and having no association with those other peoples but rather keeping the patriarch's line uncontaminated. In this way even the fulfillment of the promises could be achieved for their benefit. It is like a man of self-control and good sense having a disobedient child; he puts limits and rules on him not to show his face outside the front door or to be seen by passersby. In fact, he oftentimes ties him up by the feet so as to succeed in this way in getting the better of his extreme indiscipline. Well, in just the same way the loving Lord also placed this sign of circumcision in their flesh, like shackles on their feet, so that with this reminder at home they might have no further need of instruction from others.

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 eight-day-old 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.