Circumcision Information and Resource Pages. December 2002.
Australian teacher, husband and father
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages. December 2002.
Australian teacher, husband and father
Note:
Circumcision is as controversial today as it was in New Testament times. Then, as now, it could tear marriages and families apart. Fortunately, insights we can gain from the Bible about circumcision can guide ustoday.
Circumcision cuts off the foreskin, the sexually sensitive sleeve of tissue that normally covers andprotects the head of the penis.
No. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion traces the origin of per'iah (the baring of the glans) to the time of Hadrian (A.D.132-135):
The New Testament predates this development (see 1 Corinthians 7:18). Medical circumcisions developed from the later, more radical rite, so today's infant circumcisions are more severe than circumcisions in the Bible.
No. The Bible says that God pronounced creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it.(1 Corinthians 12:18).
According to Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and his slaves as an everlasting covenant in their flesh. Those who were not circumcised were to be 'cut off' from their people (Genesis 17:10-14). Note the connection between circumcision and slavery. It is alluded to in the New Testament.
Abraham, his descendants and those who were bought with their money (Genesis 17:12-13). Also, all the males of a household were to be circumcised if one of them wanted to join in the Passover celebrations (Exodus 12:43-49).
However, there is a puzzle. Laws commanding circumcision are said to come through Moses (e.g. Leviticus 12), but the Children of Israel abandoned circumcision during Moses' leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). Exodus 4: 24-26 tells us that Moses had not circumcised his own son.
This suggests several scribal traditions. In the first, Moses did not practise circumcision, and the custom was abandoned under his leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). In the second his wife is made to conform to the practice (Exodus 4: 24-26). Finally, in the third tradition, he is given the command to circumcise from the LORD himself.
Circumcision applied to the slaves of Jews. Apart from that, circumcision never applied to people outside the Jewish faith. The first covenant was not with other nations. All other people were described as uncircumcised, even those who practised circumcision (Jeremiah 9:25-26). Circumcision never applied to Christians (Acts 15:5-11). The Apostle Peter, who was circumcised, said:
No. Christians were freed from the Law, including circumcision (Acts 15:1-20). It was described as an almost unbearable yoke on the neck (Acts 15: 10). The yoke, of course, was a sign of slavery and Christians were told not to become entangled with 'a yoke of bondage' (Galatians 5:1-2).
The Law as we read it contains things that appall us, such as forcing a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or rejecting people born out of wedlock and their descendants (Deuteronomy 23:2). However, almost all of us read the Law in translation, which inevitably changes and distorts the text. Even fewer read it with a background of the checks, balances and insights of the Jewish oral and legal tradition. This has contributed to atrocities such as when Christians used Exodus 22:18 to justify the slaughter of 'witches' or other verses to justify slavery and the slave trade (e.g., Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46 and Deuteronomy 20:10-15).
Christians must be wary. Many of these laws, including the food laws, were repudiated in the New Testament (Acts 10:1-33). Jesus himself criticized the scribes and their traditions. (e.g., Matthew 15: 1-9, also Isaiah 29 :13). Jeremiah's assessment of the Law must also be pondered.
We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us,when in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
There has always been a nasty underside to circumcision. Whether it was Greek authorities killing Jews for circumcising their infant boys (1 Maccabees 1: 60-62), Jewish zealots forcibly circumcising uncircumcised Jewish boys (1 Maccabees 2: 46) or Muslim zealots forcibly circumcising Christian men, women and children in Ambon, Indonesia (Sydney Morning Herald January 27, 2001, page 25), there has always been a powerful undercurrent of violence and sexualabuse associated with circumcision.
The Bible tells us about circumcision as it is. Stories such as the circumcision and slaughter of the Shechemites (Genesis 34) or the 100 foreskin dowry (1 Samuel 18: 25-27) carry an implicit warning that was made explicit by the Apostle Paul when he said:
Jesus was also wrapped in swaddling clothes and put in a manger (Luke 2: 7). This doesn't mean we have to wrap babies tightly in cloth and put them in animal feeding troughs or circumcise them. Jesus also had a crown of thorns forced onto his head and was crucified. (John 19). We don't do that to our children,either.
It is better to take to heart what Jesus taught about circumcision and circumcisers.
Jesus spoke about circumcision in the Temple in Jerusalem (John 7:14).
Or, from a modern version:
Jesus contrasted circumcision (cutting off foreskins) with his own healing, which made a man 'whole and complete.' Jesus' conclusion, not to judge by appearances, also hit the mark, for his critics rejected those who were not circumcised.
That is what you will read in most modern English translations. However, the Greek expression for making a man completely well could also be translated as making him completely whole. This meaning, with its powerful contrast with circumcision, came over easily in the King James Version. The Jerusalem Bible got this meaning across with 'making a man whole and complete'. Moffatt did it slightly differently:
A note in the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles claims that the Rabbis argued that circumcision heals
the penis so they were doing a little healing while Jesus was doing a big healing. The great Jewish sage, MosesMaimondes, rejected this line of argument:
The Guide of the Perplexed, Part III, ch. 49)
Moses Maimondes would have seen and understood the contrast that Jesus made between circumcising a man and making a man completely whole.
Some were saying that Christians must follow the Law of Moses and be circumcised. Peter replied:
The early church followed Peter, and all were welcome, circumcised or not. The early church rejected the ideas that Christians had to be circumcisedand follow the Law of Moses.
Genesis 17:14 says that an uncircumcised man shall be 'cut off from his people' but Paul taught that those who accept circumcision are obliged to keep the whole law, and those who want to be justified by the law have cut themselves off from Christ (Galatians 5: 2-4).
Paul confirmed that circumcision was nothing (Galatians 6:15) and Christ was all and in all (Colossians 3:11). Jeremiah had already taught that circumcision in other nations was uncircumcision (Jeremiah 9: 25-26).
Paul advised people to accept their lot in life and not seek circumcision or uncircumcision, or slavery or freedom (1 Corinthians 7:17-24).
Paul condemned people he described as false believers (Galatians 2:4). These people were pressuring Christians to become circumcised. Paul was so incensed by this that he said:
Paul taught that Jesus accepts people as they are and does not ask them to become circumcised or uncircumcised to become Christian (Galatians 5: 6). Paul said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved...' (Acts 16: 31).
That is how most translations read Romans 3: 1-2. However, it is not the only reading. Young's Literal Translation (1898) says:
At that time, the Jews were called 'the circumcision'. It could simply have been another way of referring to Jews. Paul's words explain themselves best in context. In the verse immediately before the one quoted above, Paul said that true circumcision was spiritual, not literal (Romans 2: 29). As for the profit or advantage of 'the circumcision', this came from the oracles of God that Jews were entrusted with.
Paul turned against circumcision. At first he gave in to pressure to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16: 1-4). (Timothy's mother was Jewish, so Timothy was Jewish by Jewish law.) However, Paul absolutely refused to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3) and opposed those false believers with fury. He wished they would castrate themselves, accusing them of wanting to make 'a good showing in the flesh' and 'glorying in the flesh' (Galatians 6: 12-15, RSV). In Philippians he warned believers to beware those who mutilate the flesh (Philippians 3: 2). Finally, in Titus he says that 'those of the circumcision' (from Crete) were 'upsetting' or 'ruining' whole families and were in it for the money (Titus 1: 10-12). What he had found out about circumcisers changed his mind.
Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches never adopted circumcision. Circumcision was condemned in 
The Ecumenical Council of Florence on 4 February 1442. One exception was the Coptic Church in Egypt, and the Council condemned this practice amongst them. Routine infant circumcision never took off in Europe but circumcision enthusiasts promoted it in English-speaking countries from the late Victorian era. As a result, some Christians have been misled into believing that Christianity recommends circumcision. This is simply not true.
No. The Bible never makes such a claim. Jewish authorities hesitate to circumcise a baby if two previous sons had died from circumcision. Even today, circumcisions lead to haemorrhages, infections and sometimes even death.
The Apostle Peter said that circumcision and the Jewish law were an unbearable burden. He was a married man and he lived before aseptic surgery, blood transfusions and antibiotics. Did he or someone close to him lose a child to circumcision? We don't know. What we know is that the first church council supported Peter, and not the circumcision enthusiasts. (Acts 15:10)
In 2001, a young Kansas woman was convinced that God wanted her to have her son circumcised. Her husband was adamant that his son would remain intact and took legal action to protect the baby. The marriage fell apart in a blaze of publicity. (Wichita Eagle, 13 & 24 July 2001)
The couple's pastor had tried to get the father to agree to circumcision.
One wonders what the Apostle Paul would have said to this pastor! He described those pushing circumcision as:
Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.
Some believe in circumcision because of what they have been told. Christians should consider Paul's words:
If Christians take this to heart they will have strength to resist the circumcision enthusiasts. As someone said to a knife-happy doctor, God knows best how to make little boys.
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.
© CIRP.org 1996-2025 | Filetree | Please visit our sponsor and host: IntactiWiki.