Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:08, 20 September 2003

The practice of circumcision has a long history, and is mentioned frequently in the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible

According to the Hebrew Bible, circumcision was enjoined upon the biblical patriarch Abraham, his descendants and their slaves as "a token of the covenant" concluded with him by God for all generations.

The penalty of non-observance was karet, excision from the people (Gen. 17:10-14, 21:4; Lev. 12:3). Non-Israelites had to undergo circumcision before they could be allowed to take part in the feast of Passover (Ex. 12:48), or marry into a Jewish family (Gen. 34:14-16).

It was "a reproach" for an Israelite to be uncircumcised (Josh. 5:9.) The name arelim (uncircumcised) became an opprobrious term, denoting the Philistines and other non-Israelites (I Sam. 14:6, 31:4; II Sam. i. 20) and used synonymously with tame (unclean) for heathen (Isa. 52:1). The word 'arel' (uncircumcised) is also employed for "unclean" (Lev. 26:41, "their uncircumcised hearts"; compare Jer. 9:25; Ezek. xliv. 7, 9); it is even applied to the first three years' fruit of a tree, which is forbidden (Lev. 19:23).

However, the Israelites born in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt apparently abandoned the practice of circumcision. As recorded in Josh. 5:2-9, "all the people that came out" of Egypt were circumcised, but those "born in the wilderness" were not. If so, the apparent abandonment of circumcision happened under the leadership of Moses. In any case, we are told that Joshua, before the celebration of the Passover, had them circumcised at Gilgal.

Deut. 10:16 says, "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart," thus giving the rite a spiritual meaning; circumcision as a physical act being enjoined nowhere in the whole book. Jer. 9:25, 26 says that circumcised and uncircumcised will be punished alike by the Lord; for "all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart." Interestingly, non-Jewish tribes that practiced circumcision were described as being "circumcised in uncircumcision."

The Bible contains several violent stories in which circumcision occurs. There is the circumcision and massacre of the Shechemites (Genesis 34:1-35:5), the hundred foreskin dowry (1 Samuel 18:25-27) and the story of the LORD threatening to kill Moses, and being placated by Zipporah's circumcision of their son (Exodus 4: 24-26). It is also notable that the mass circumcision at Gilgal (Joshua 5:2-9) was followed by the massacre of men, women, children and animals at Jericho (Joshua 6:20-21). Only the prostitute who sheltered the Israelite spies, and her family , were spared, according to Joshua 6:22.

In Judaism

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism is not identicial to the religious practices described in the Hebrew Bible. Judaism teaches that the Bible was transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition, known as the oral law. Jewish practices and beliefs, thus, are based on reading the Bible through the perspective of the oral law; see the entries on the Mishnah, Talmud and rabbinic literature.

According to Jewish law, ritual circumcision of male children is a commandment from God that Jews are obligated to follow; Jews do not believe that non-Jews are obligated to follow this commandment. Many Christians have the same understanding of this issue (i.e., that it is a law intended for Jews, but not for Christians).

In rabbinic literature

During the Babylonian exile the Sabbath and circumcision became the characteristic symbols of Judaism. This seems to be the underlying idea of Isa. lvi. 4: "The eunuchs that keep my Sabbath" still "hold fast by my covenant," though not having "the sign of the covenant" (Gen. xvii. 11.) upon their flesh.

Contact with Greek polytheistic culture, especially at the games of the arena, made this distinction obnoxious to Jewish-Hellenists seeking to assimilate into Greek culture. The consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; , Tosef.; Talmud tractes Shabbat xv. 9; Yevamot 72a, b; Yerushalmi Peah i. 16b; Yevamot viii. 9a).

In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant" on the flesh, as circumcision was henceforth called, the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba, instituted the "peri'ah" (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6).

To be born circumcised was regarded as the privilege of the most saintly of people, from Adam, "who was made in the image of God," and Moses to Zerubbabel (see Midrash Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, p. 153; and Talmud, Sotah 12a).

Uncircumcision being considered a blemish, circumcision was to remove it, and to render Abraham and his descendants "perfect" (Talmud Ned. 31b; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlvi.)

Rabbinic literature holds that one who removes his circumcision has no portion in the world to come (Mishnah Ab. iii. 17; Midrash Sifre, Num. xv. 31; Talmud Sanhedrin 99).

According to the Midrash Pirke R. El. xxix., it was Shem who circumcised Abraham and Ishmael on the Day of Atonement; and the blood of the covenant then shed is ever before God on that day to serve as an atoning power. According to the same midrash, Pharaoh prevented the Hebrew slaves from performing the rite, but when the Passover time came and brought them deliverance, they underwent circumcision, and mingled the blood of the paschal lamb with that of the Abrahamic covenant, wherefore (Ezek. xvi. 6) God repeats the words: "In thy blood live!"

Necessary or not?

Circumcision Necessary or Not?

The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times; R. Joshua asserting that the bath, or baptismal rite, rendered a person a full proselyte without circumcision, as Israel, when receiving the Law, required no initiation other than the purificative bath; while R. Eliezer makes circumcision a condition for the admission ofa proselyte, and declares the baptismal rite to be of no consequence (Yeb. 46a). A similar controversy between the Shammaites and the Hillelites is given (Shab. 137a) regarding a proselyte born circumcised: the former demanding the spilling of a drop of blood of the covenant; the latter declaring it to be unnecessary. The rigorous Shammaite view, voiced in the Book of Jubilees (l.c.), prevailed in the time of King John Hyrcanus, who forced the Abrahamic rite upon the Idumeans, and in that of King Aristobulus, who made the Itureans undergo circumcision (Josephus, "Ant." xiii. 9, § 1; 11, § 3). According to Esth. viii. 17, LXX., the Persians who, from fear of the Jews after Haman's defeat, "became Jews," were circumcised.

The rigorous view is echoed also in the Midrash: "If thy sons accept My Godhead I shall be their God and bring them into the land; but if they do not observe My covenant in regard either to circumcision or to the Sabbath, they shall not enter the land of promise" (Gen. R. xlvi., with reference to Gen. xvii. 8-9). "The Sabbath-keepers who are not circumcised are intruders, and deserve punishment," (; Deut. R. i. and Ma'ase Torah, ed. Schönblum; see also Hippolytus," Refutatio, Omnium Hæresium," ix. 21).

It appears, however, that while the Palestinian Jews accepted the uncircumcised proselytes only as "Proselytes of the Gate"("Gore Toshab," Yeb. 47b; see Proselytes), non-Palestinian Judaism did not make such a distinction until the Roman wars, when the more rigorous view became prevalent everywhere. Thus Flavius Clemens, a nephew of the emperors Titus and Domitian, when with his wife Domitilla he embraced the Jewish faith, underwent circumcision, for which he suffered the penalty of death (see Grätz, "Gesch." iv. 403 et seq., 702).

It was chiefly this rigorous feature of Jewish proselytism which provoked the hostile measures of the emperor Hadrian. And, furthermore, it was the discussion of this same question among the Jews—whether the seal of circumcision, (see Shab. 137b; Ex. R. xix.; Targ. Cant. iii. 8; Hermas, "Similitudines," viii. 6, ix. 16; II Clemens to the Corinthians, vii. 6, viii. 6; Grace at Meals; for heathen parallels of the expression "seal" see Anrich, "Das Antike Mysterienwesen," pp. 123-124, and Reizenstein, l.c. pp. 7-8), might not find its substitute in "the seal of baptism"—which led Paul to urge the latter in opposition to the former (Rom. ii. 25 et seq., iv. 11, and elsewhere), just as he was led to adopt the antinomistic or antinational view, which had its exponents in Alexandria (see Philo, "De Migratione Abrahami," xvi.;ed. Mangey, i. 450).

While in Biblical times the mother (perhaps generally) performed the operation, it was in later times performed by a surgeon, or , also called by the specific name "mohel" (; see Josephus, "Ant." xx. 2, § 4; B. B. 21a; Shab. 130b, 133b, 135, 156a) or "gozer" (). In the Codex Justinianus (i. 9, 10) physicians were prohibited from performing the operation on Roman citizens who had become converts to Judaism.

In the Apocrypha

In the Apocrypha, circumcision was seen as the mark of Jewish loyalty. Jews hewing to observance of Jewish law defied the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46). Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.

The Book of Jubilees (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus, has the following: "Whosoever is uncircumcised belongs to 'the sons of Belial,' to 'the children of doom and eternal perdition'; for all the angels of the Presence and of the Glorification have been so from the day of their creation, and God's anger will be kindled against the children of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the earth"

In Christianity

The leaders of the Christian Church at Council of Jerusalem rejected circumcision as a required practice for Christians (Acts 15). The Apostle Paul, who was responsible for one man's circumcision (Acts 16:1-3) turned against the practice and condemned those who promoted the custom to Gentile Christians. In a late letter he warned Christians to beware the mutilation, saying that Christians were the true circumcision because they worshipped in the Spirit of God. (Philippians 3:2).

Coptic Christianity teaches that circumcision is a requirement. They hold that God required circumcision of His people, and Coptic Christians consider themselves His people.