Is circumcision necessary for Christian faith today?
 |
| Brit Milah (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
I. Old Testament
A. The Rite The earliest reference to circumcision is found at Gen. 17:10–14 where God is said to have commanded Abraham to circumcise (Heb. mālal) himself and all other males of his household, including his slaves. According to the account, circumcision is one of the ways God (re)establishes his covenant with Abraham.
Though at that time Abraham was ninety-nine years old and his son Ishmael was thirteen (vv. 24–25), God stipulated that from then on all males were to be circumcised on the eighth day following their birth (5:12; cf. Lev. 12:3), possibly because by that day the mother’s impurity was no longer contagious (W. H. Gispen, Leviticus. COT [1950], p. 196). The Jews kept the law, performing the rite on the eighth day even when it fell on the Sabbath (cf. John 7:22–23; see also Phil. 3:5).
Usually the father performed the act, but if necessary the mother was permitted to do it (Zipporah circumcised Moses’ eldest son, Exod. 4:25–26, Heb. mûlôṯ). In later Jewish practice an official, the mohel, was charged with this function. In New Testament times the infant also received his name on the day of circumcision (John, Luke 1:59; Jesus, 2:21).
B. Religious Significance Israel was not the only nation practicing circumcision in the ancient Near East. In fact, the Egyptians, Midianites, Ammonites, Edomites (till ca. second century B.C.), Moabites, and Phoenicians considered it a common custom (cf. Jer. 9:26); the Arabs to this day still practice circumcision. Notable exceptions were the Assyrians and the Babylonians in the east, and the Philistines in the west (“uncircumcised,” e.g., Judg. 14:3; 15:18).
For the Israelites circumcision was not merely a surgical procedure. It was above all a symbol of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Among other nations circumcision might have been a part of various initiation ceremonies, but to the Hebrew nation it symbolized the physical and spiritual continuity of the Israelite generations.
B. Religious Significance Israel was not the only nation practicing circumcision in the ancient Near East. In fact, the Egyptians, Midianites, Ammonites, Edomites (till ca. second century B.C.), Moabites, and Phoenicians considered it a common custom (cf. Jer. 9:26); the Arabs to this day still practice circumcision. Notable exceptions were the Assyrians and the Babylonians in the east, and the Philistines in the west (“uncircumcised,” e.g., Judg. 14:3; 15:18).
For the Israelites circumcision was not merely a surgical procedure. It was above all a symbol of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Among other nations circumcision might have been a part of various initiation ceremonies, but to the Hebrew nation it symbolized the physical and spiritual continuity of the Israelite generations.
Through circumcision a person became a member of Israel’s community and received the right to participate in public worship. The privilege of circumcision was also extended to any strangers among the Israelites; see Exod. 12:48; Num. 9:14. Josh. 5:2–9 expressly states that upon entering the promised land the Israelites were called again to be circumcised, because while they had been wandering through the wilderness, they had neglected the covenant. Until the rite was accomplished it would be impossible for God to apply his covenant to their children.
Other Old Testament passages also link the physical act of circumcision to its spiritual meaning. When Israel renewed the covenant with God at the end of the wilderness wanderings, Moses summoned his fellow Jews to be circumcised in the “foreskin of [their] heart[s]” (Deut. 10:16), i.e., to love God and to bring their willfulness to an end. Later the major prophets echoed this summons: Jeremiah before Judah’s deportation to Babylon (Jer. 4:4) and Ezekiel while criticizing the Israelites for admitting to the temple foreigners “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” (Ezek. 44:7). Clearly, he who was circumcised was expected to respond sincerely to the terms of the covenant.
During the Maccabean period, many Israelite women preferred death to violating the covenant when King Antiochus ordered that their sons should remain uncircumcised (1 Macc. 1:60–64).
II. New Testament
In the New Testament the term “circumcision” (Gk. peritomḗ) is used in three senses. (1) When the Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile Christians be circumcised to demonstrate their submissiveness to the law of Moses (Acts 15:2), the matter was referred to the Apostolic Council (5:5); it was decided that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised (vv. 28–29). Paul permitted the circumcision of Timothy, whose father was not Jewish, out of respect for the Jews Timothy would be teaching among (Acts 16:3), but he remained adamantly opposed to the circumcision of Titus, a converted Gentile (Gal. 2:1ff.). In his letter to the Galatians Paul states that his ministry, unlike Peter’s, was to people who were uncircumcised (vv. 7–8). Accordingly his advice to the Galatians was to disregard circumcision (5:2; cf. 6:15).
(2) In another context the apostle reiterated the spiritual dimension of circumcision (Rom. 2:28–29). Physical laceration was valuable, he said, only as long as it was accompanied by obedience to the entire law of Moses; failure to practice all aspects of the law annuled the value of circumcision (v. 25). Paul justified his stance by pointing out that Abraham had faith and obeyed God before he was circumcised; his faith was not dependent on circumcision (4:1–12).
(3) Viewing circumcision as a sign of the old covenant, Paul stressed baptism as a new ritual sign, a “circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11–12). This was Paul’s final recorded answer to the Jews who emphasized only the physical procedure of circumcision.
Myers, A. C. (1987). In The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (p. 218). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Other Old Testament passages also link the physical act of circumcision to its spiritual meaning. When Israel renewed the covenant with God at the end of the wilderness wanderings, Moses summoned his fellow Jews to be circumcised in the “foreskin of [their] heart[s]” (Deut. 10:16), i.e., to love God and to bring their willfulness to an end. Later the major prophets echoed this summons: Jeremiah before Judah’s deportation to Babylon (Jer. 4:4) and Ezekiel while criticizing the Israelites for admitting to the temple foreigners “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” (Ezek. 44:7). Clearly, he who was circumcised was expected to respond sincerely to the terms of the covenant.
During the Maccabean period, many Israelite women preferred death to violating the covenant when King Antiochus ordered that their sons should remain uncircumcised (1 Macc. 1:60–64).
II. New Testament
In the New Testament the term “circumcision” (Gk. peritomḗ) is used in three senses. (1) When the Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile Christians be circumcised to demonstrate their submissiveness to the law of Moses (Acts 15:2), the matter was referred to the Apostolic Council (5:5); it was decided that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised (vv. 28–29). Paul permitted the circumcision of Timothy, whose father was not Jewish, out of respect for the Jews Timothy would be teaching among (Acts 16:3), but he remained adamantly opposed to the circumcision of Titus, a converted Gentile (Gal. 2:1ff.). In his letter to the Galatians Paul states that his ministry, unlike Peter’s, was to people who were uncircumcised (vv. 7–8). Accordingly his advice to the Galatians was to disregard circumcision (5:2; cf. 6:15).
(2) In another context the apostle reiterated the spiritual dimension of circumcision (Rom. 2:28–29). Physical laceration was valuable, he said, only as long as it was accompanied by obedience to the entire law of Moses; failure to practice all aspects of the law annuled the value of circumcision (v. 25). Paul justified his stance by pointing out that Abraham had faith and obeyed God before he was circumcised; his faith was not dependent on circumcision (4:1–12).
(3) Viewing circumcision as a sign of the old covenant, Paul stressed baptism as a new ritual sign, a “circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11–12). This was Paul’s final recorded answer to the Jews who emphasized only the physical procedure of circumcision.
Myers, A. C. (1987). In The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (p. 218). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
