Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Michael Glass (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 26 September 2003 (I inquired with the Coptic Church and was told that circumcision was more a cultural thing with them rather than a religious requirement. I also removed a sentence that was not supported by the link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Introduction

The practice of circumcision has a long history, and is mentioned frequently in the Bible. However, it should be noted that the Bible means different things to different religious groups.

1. For Jews, the Bible consists of the 39 books from Hebrew that are often known as the Old Testament.
2. For Protestant Christians, the Bible consists of these books plus the 27 books of the New Testament.
3. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, the Bible includes several other books known as the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanonical books, the list being slightly different for each group.

As the Bible means different things to different groups, what the Bible says would obviously vary from group to group. It also can make a difference if a person is interpreting the Bible in the light of Jewish or Christian traditions.

For example, when the sons of Jacob told the Shechemites that they could not give their sister in marriage to someone who was uncircumcised (Gen. 34:14-16), it can be seen simply as part of a ruse by the sons of Jacob to circumcise and then massacre the Shechemites (Gen. 34: 25-30). However, the words have also been used as a precedent for insisting on circumcision for a man who wants to marry into a Jewish family.

All who believe that the Scriptures (however defined) are God’s Word would be bound to heed the warning of Jeremiah when he said:

'How can you say, "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.'

Jeremiah 8:8, New Revised Standard Version

Here again, it is a matter of interpretation to say which laws – if any – this warning might apply to.

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). Also, some Jews at this time stopped circumcising their children. Maccabees 2:46 records that the Maccabean zealots forcibly circumcised all the uncircumcised boys they found within the borders of Israel.

The Rabbis also took action to ensure that the practice of circumcision did not die out. 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?

The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in the first century of the common era, a time before the Mishnah was edited.

R. Joshua asserting that along with accepting Jewish beliefs and laws, immersion in a mikveh (ritual bath; predecessor to Christian baptism) was enough for someone to convert to Judaism. In contrast, R. Eliezer makes circumcision a condition for the admission of a proselyte. 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 view is echoed 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" (Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlvi.). "The Sabbath-keepers who are not circumcised are intruders, and deserve punishment," (Midrash Deut. Rabbah i.)

It appears that while the Palestinian Jews accepted the uncircumcised proselytes only as "Proselytes of the Gate", 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 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.

Necessary but not a sacrament

The consensus that became accepted in all segments of the Jewish community was that circumcision was an absolute requirement (barring, of course, medical conditions; Jewish law prohibits parents to have their son circumcised if medical doctors hold that the procedure may unduly threaten the child's health; e.g. hemophillia.)

Unlike Christian baptism, circumcision, however important it may be, is not a sacrament. Circumcision does not give a Jew his religious character as a Jew. An uncircumcised Jew is a full Jew by birth (Talmud Hul. 4b; Avodah Zarah 27a; Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, 264, 1).

A non-Jewish physician may, according to R. Meïr, in the absence of a Jewish expert, perform the ceremony, as may women, slaves, and children (Talmud Avodah Zarah 26b; Menachot 42a; Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, Milah, ii. 1; Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, l.c.).

Circumcision must, whenever possible, take place on the eighth day, even when this falls upon the Sabbath (Shab. xix. 1). Samaritans and the Karaites dissent from this rule; if by reason of the child's debility or sickness the ceremony is postponed, it can not take place on the Sabbath (Talmud Shabbat 137a). It is the duty of the father to have his child circumcised; and if he fails in this, the bet din of the city must see that the rite is performed (Talmud Kid. 29a).

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. At the same time, the Zealots forcibly circumcised the uncircumcised boys within the borders of Israel (l Macc. ii. 46).

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 accepts circumcision as a cultural thing rather than a religious requirement. In 1442, the Ecumenical Council of Florence condemned this practice in the Coptic Church. It said:

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.