It's been a while since I posted! But I've been thinking about the commandment of circumcision lately, and how it does or doesn't fit into the life of a believer.
I did some research to find out how the majority of the Christian church responds to circumcision, and I found this. I think this sums mainstream Christianity's view on circumcision pretty well. I also think there are some flaws in this thinking. I'll try to keep this short.
Circumcision in the Tanakh
Circumcision is first mentioned in Genesis 17. God presents circumcision as a sign of the covenant with Abraham. It's interesting to look at the narrative, and Tim Hegg believes it tells us about the purpose for circumcision. Two chapters earlier, in Genesis 15:4-7, God first makes promises to Abram:
"Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness."
Genesis 16 tells the story of Abram sleeping with Hagar in an attempt to have a child. Instead of waiting for God's providence, he and Sarai decided to try things their own way.
Then comes Genesis 17, which contains the commandment of circumcision.
"Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." ~Genesis 17:9-14
The circumcision is now a sign of the covenant. Circumcision involves cutting away of the flesh, and I think this is symbolic of the fact that we cannot rely on our own flesh, as Abram and Sarai tried to. They cut away a part of themselves and waited for God's work, not their own. This can also point to our Messiah - he wasn't born from human methods, but born to a virgin. Only God's power brought him into human form.
We see a lot of circumcision in the Tanakh (Old Testament). There are commands that refer to men and slaves in the community being circumcised, there are periods of history when the Jewish people stop the ritual of circumcision.
There is also a spiritual kind of circumcision spoken of in Leviticus 26:40-42, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4.
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done-- burn with no one to quench it." ~Jer. 4:4
I think God makes it clear throughout the Tanakh that he desires one's heart and dedication, not meaningless rituals. (Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:4-5, 11:13; 1 Samuel 16:7; Psalm 51:16-17; Micah 6:8; Hosea 6:6) Often, however, dedication is shown by obedience. Circumcision was one of these commands, and dedication to God could be shown through carrying out this command. We too are heirs of Abraham, as it says in Galatians 3:29.
The Apostolic Scriptures
This is where stuff gets sticky. Many Christians claim Paul preached against circumcision. I believe the majority of the time Paul uses the phrase "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" he is referring to "Jews" and "non-Jews", and many times the ritual of circumcision is actually a ritual of conversion.
'Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."' ~Acts 15:1
This is what sets off the Jerusalem council. I believe the "circumcision" refers to the ritual of conversion.
"Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" ~Acts 15:10
Is Paul referring to the Paul of Moses? If so, he's saying God gave the Israelites a burden, a yoke that no one could handle. Pretty cruel. Yet contrast this with Deuteronomy 30:10-14:
“For this command which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond your reach. It isn’t in the sky, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ Likewise, it isn’t beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will cross the sea for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ On the contrary, the word is very close to you - in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you can do it!”
From the mouth of God.
Instead, I think Paul (and Jesus in Luke 11:46) is talking about the oral law that had come up around the Torah. Instead of merely God's commands, rabbis and sages had added on extra manmade laws to make sure no one broke a Torah command. Why would Paul and Jesus call the law a burden or a yoke when the writers of Psalms 19 and 119 loved the law and wanted to bury it in their hearts?
You can also see that in the very next chapter, Paul has Timothy circumcised. This is a bold move for someone who says in Galatians 5:2, "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."
Why would a simple command make Christ useless to us? No, it was the fact that these men wanted to be officially recognized as Jews. They were doing this for men, not God.
This theory is supported by 1 Corinthians 7:18-19:
"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts."
If Paul was talking merely about the cutting away of the foreskin, then how could a man who was circumcised become uncircumcised? In this verse, and arguably in many others, he is talking about the ritual of conversion, which was called circumcision. I guess you could call it slang of the day.
I believe Paul still considered the Tanakh and all of its commands as valid (Romans 3:31, 7:12), which would lead him to believe that circumcision was still a command.
Fortunately, God realizes we are humans, we still sin, and he offers grace and salvation through his Son. Praise Him!
3 comments:
Christians (except for some Orthodox and Coptic churches) didn't circumcise for the best part of two millennia, and yet because of some seriously bad *medical* opinions in the late 19th century, some Christians are looking for reasons to do it today.
90% of Christians worldwide do *not* circumcise. In the most Christian countries in the world (places like Mexico, Poland, Brazil, Spain, Italy), the practice is almost unknown.
As mentioned in your first link, the Catholic church has been opposed for centuries:
"The Holy Roman Church" ... commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation."
From a Papal Bull in 1445, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952:
"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way." Pope Pius XII in 1952
As that link also points out, the form of circumcision undergone by Christ was nothing like a modern day circumcision anyway. He would have looked more like an intact man than like someone who has had a typical American circumcision. The most common form of circumcision today was only introduced by rabbis (not Christians) over a century after the Crucifixion to stop Jewish men from pretending to be gentile.
That's interesting. This is one of the points about which I disagree with mainstream Christianity. I think circumcision should be carried out as a sign of obedience and dedication to God. We are a part of that same covenant.
I'm sure circumcision was different, but in the Tanakh, it was still enough to put men out of commission for a few days, as we see in Genesis 34. I'm not sure about Jesus' time, that would be interesting to find out. I still think it's worth carrying the command out, because even if wasn't exactly what Moses did, God looks at the heart, and I believe he would see our desire to please him by obeying him (John 14:15).
Christians who want to circumcise (most commonly because they are circumcised themselves for reasons that have nothing to do with religion) are fond of pointing to Paul's circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3).
A contrary case can be made when he didn't circumcise Titus (Gal 2:2). This suggests Paul did NOT regard circumcision as an eternal commandment to all God's people, but something to be done tactially, according to whom he wanted to convert.
"Becoming uncircumcised", either surgically or non-surgically, was possible in Paul's day, and practised by Jews who wanted to compete against Greeks in the gymnasium (= place of nakedness) where an exposed glans was considered obscene (and perhaps to be accepted by Greeks at public baths).
@Emily Ward: Men may certainly circumcise themselves if they think that will please God (or scourge or crucify themselves, as they do in the Philippines), but doing it to babies who may grow up to have their own opinion in the matter is something else.
Post a Comment