The Bible on Circumcision - Page 2

[anj_rn]

The requirement for circumcision in the Old Testament was to set apart the Jews (it was not something you could hide). In order to convert to Judaism men had to be circumcised. My sister & her husband will circumcise their sons because for them.

During the time of the OT, followers of Christ converted to Judaism, then followed His teachings. All of the changes in the New Testament (no circumcision, no keeping kosher, etc) are about removing the barriers of a path to Christianity for the Gentiles.

There was a big push in the 50s to circumcise for hygiene (please keep in mind this was also a time that women were encouraged to regularly douche with Lysol). That thought has persisted even though more research has shown that it is not true.

[AFWife]

Wouldn't cleanliness have come into play THEN? I mean, the access to clean water wasn't as good as it is now...So having one less place for dirt to accumulate might have played a role.

There's no way to prove this, of course...it was just an observation.



Anyway, I'm also in the "to set apart" group. Jews were also told not to shave or get tattoos because that was something the pagans did, right?

[Smokering]

Circumcision in and of itself wasn't that distinctive, though - plenty of tribes/nations/people groups did it. Perhaps it was the method in which it was done (on the eighth day, etc) which made it distinctive?

I've heard that keeping the Sabbath would have actually been a much more noticeable, distinctive feature of Judaism back then than circumcision.

[Juvysen]

I've been curious about this...

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Circumcision in and of itself wasn't that distinctive, though - plenty of tribes/nations/people groups did it. Perhaps it was the method in which it was done (on the eighth day, etc) which made it distinctive?

I've heard that keeping the Sabbath would have actually been a much more noticeable, distinctive feature of Judaism back then than circumcision.

My sense from the story was not so much that it was meant to be distinctive to others, but more distinctive to oneself. THat it is an externalization of an internal commitment. Abraham was going to sacrifice his son, which is a huge thing, his posterity, a piece of his living flesh. A bit of skin is much less, but still a bit of living flesh, a bit of oneself that bleeds.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

THat it is an externalization of an internal commitment.

How does an 8 day old baby make an internal commitment...or how can an adult make an internal commitment for them?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

How does an 8 day old baby make an internal commitment...or how can an adult make an internal commitment for them?

I was commenting on a particular story. However, in other OT situations I would say the adult externalizes his commitment to God through his children, as well as through himself. People did not have our modern feelings about individuality - one existed as part of the group as much or more than one existed as an individual.

[lovebeingamomma]

Responding to the above posts not the OP: All males were required to do it, when the covenant was made EVERY male no matter what age was circumcised, circumcising your son wasn't declaring the commitment of the parent, it was simply fulfilling the covenant for the baby according to the law, because it was assumed that the male baby would grow up Jewish, and they almost all did, it was a very shameful thing to be excommunicated from the Jewish community. I think God made this law that it be done on the 8th day, because I'm sure it would be a lot more painful if done at an age where the child understood the covenant. Correct me if I'm wrong but from my reading of the Old Testament this was my conclusion, I'm Christian and not Jewish.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma

Responding to the above posts not the OP: All males were required to do it, when the covenant was made EVERY male no matter what age was circumcised, circumcising your son wasn't declaring the commitment of the parent, it was simply fulfilling the covenant for the baby according to the law, because it was assumed that the male baby would grow up Jewish, and they almost all did, it was a very shameful thing to be excommunicated from the Jewish community. I think God made this law that it be done on the 8th day, because I'm sure it would be a lot more painful if done at an age where the child understood the covenant. Correct me if I'm wrong but from my reading of the Old Testament this was my conclusion, I'm Christian and not Jewish.

My understanding is that anyone who became a Jew was to be circumcised, including adults. Being a Jew was a matter of being part of a particular covenant with God. The covenant itself was invisible, being a promise or a relationship - it was internal. The symbol of the covenant was circumcision, which was external. But the promise or relationship did not apply only to those who were adults - God also had that same relationship with babies who were born Jewish. Being undeveloped, the baby doesn't have a concept of his own place in this relationship, anymore than he has a concept that he is a member of a family. But he is included within God's love, just as he is included within a family. So the baby is circumcised not because it spares him the trauma of having it done later, but because he is in fact part of the covenant. Even if he grows up and decides to abandon God, it is nothing different than what we see happen over and over again throughout the OT - but they still can't "un-Hebrew" themselves.

I'm not sure why they waited eight days, unless it was to make sure the baby was strong enough. I also don't know what the status of a baby that died before that was - maybe someone else knows?

[Smokering]

Isn't there some clotting factor... thing... that makes circing on the eighth day safer? I read that somewhere. I definitely wouldn't say it was less painful - current research indicates newborns feel pain more intensely than older people, not less.

I also don't know what the status of a baby that died before that was - maybe someone else knows?

Would it be relevant? If the command was to circ on the eighth day, a baby who died on the seventh would have fulfilled all the laws required of him at that age (or technically, required of his father, but you know what I mean). Surely he would have just the same status as an uncircumcised Jewish girl - he wasn't meant to be circumcised at that point, so there'd be no issue?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Isn't there some clotting factor... thing... that makes circing on the eighth day safer? I read that somewhere. I definitely wouldn't say it was less painful - current research indicates newborns feel pain more intensely than older people, not less.


Would it be relevant? If the command was to circ on the eighth day, a baby who died on the seventh would have fulfilled all the laws required of him at that age (or technically, required of his father, but you know what I mean). Surely he would have just the same status as an uncircumcised Jewish girl - he wasn't meant to be circumcised at that point, so there'd be no issue?

As far as I can see from what I have found on the net, an uncircumcised baby is still Jewish. Though it seems that babies that die very early are not treated quite the same way as older babies or adults, but that is even after they are circumcised.

[Smokering]

Oh yeah, definitely still Jewish - if the mother's Jewish the baby is. If the baby wasn't circumcised when he should be, that would mean the father hadn't fulfilled his mitzvot, but it would have no effect on the baby's status in any way. Although I'd be interested to hear if he'd be expected to agree to circ later, like a new convert to Judaism?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Oh yeah, definitely still Jewish - if the mother's Jewish the baby is. If the baby wasn't circumcised when he should be, that would mean the father hadn't fulfilled his mitzvot, but it would have no effect on the baby's status in any way. Although I'd be interested to hear if he'd be expected to agree to circ later, like a new convert to Judaism?

I think so. Actually, one of the resources I found said that if an uncircumcised Jewish man died, he could be circumcised before burial.

But in any case, I'm not sure that there is a clear conception in Judaism about what happens after death, including to a Jew vs a non-Jew. I have heard a variety of Jewish interpretations on the topic, and in some cases, it seem that there isn't much of an idea of an afterlife anyway. As far as the OT writers, I'm not sure what the Jewish POV(s) on that were then, and it covers a pretty broad time period.

[ThomasL]

Here is my take. I don't believe God ever commanded circumcision or any other thing associated with sacrifice. If God wanted circumcision boys would have been born that way. If there was any kind of circumcision that God wanted it would have been circumcision of the heart. I believe this was one of the things Jesus taught. He taught God was interested in love and mercy and not sacrifice. It is not that the coming of Jesus changed the rules but rather enlightment to greater understanding of the nature of God.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by ThomasL 

Here is my take. I don't believe God ever commanded circumcision or any other thing associated with sacrifice. If God wanted circumcision boys would have been born that way. If there was any kind of circumcision that God wanted it would have been circumcision of the heart. I believe this was one of the things Jesus taught. He taught God was interested in love and mercy and not sacrifice. It is not that the coming of Jesus changed the rules but rather enlightment to greater understanding of the nature of God.

So you only accept the NT writings?

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

In the KJV of the Bible there are versus in The New Testament that clearly state circ is no longer required like in The Old Testament. Some things that where the law in the Old Testament changed with the laws in the New Testament and circ is one of those.

Which ever way the man is when God calls him to be saved he should stay that way. It just dosnt matter either way as long as you keep the commandments of God.

I Corinthians 7 v18-20
V18, Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. (If he is saved when not circed then he shouldnt become circed)
V19, Cicrumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (Either way is fine as long as you follow God)
V20, Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. (However you are when you are called to serve God then stay that way)



Romans 2 v26
V26, Therefore if the uncircumcision kepth the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcsion be counted for circumcision?


Here is says plainly that it dosnt matter as long as you believe in Jesus.

Galatians 5 v6-15
V6, For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
V15, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncricumcision, but a new creature.

Christ is in all no matter what their state of being or nationality.

Colossians 3 v11V11, Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by ThomasL 

Here is my take. I don't believe God ever commanded circumcision or any other thing associated with sacrifice. If God wanted circumcision boys would have been born that way. If there was any kind of circumcision that God wanted it would have been circumcision of the heart. I believe this was one of the things Jesus taught. He taught God was interested in love and mercy and not sacrifice. It is not that the coming of Jesus changed the rules but rather enlightment to greater understanding of the nature of God.

So you only accept the NT writings?

I would just say they are more closer to the highests truths. I was raised Catholic but I don't believe any religion really has all the answers. I believe more in the path of inner awareness and personal communion with God instead of the concept of "and so says the lord". A lot of people in recent times have been in the presence of God whether through deep meditation or a near death experience and universally what they learned was God was not interested in theology or religion but was only interested in people loving others. It is my belief this is how it has always been and that neither circumcision or any kind of sacrifice was ever required. A god of unconditional love does not require anything. Circumcision in my opinion came from men.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by ThomasL 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by ThomasL 

Here is my take. I don't believe God ever commanded circumcision or any other thing associated with sacrifice. If God wanted circumcision boys would have been born that way. If there was any kind of circumcision that God wanted it would have been circumcision of the heart. I believe this was one of the things Jesus taught. He taught God was interested in love and mercy and not sacrifice. It is not that the coming of Jesus changed the rules but rather enlightment to greater understanding of the nature of God.

So you only accept the NT writings?

I would just say they are more closer to the highests truths. I was raised Catholic but I don't believe any religion really has all the answers. I believe more in the path of inner awareness and personal communion with God instead of the concept of "and so says the lord". A lot of people in recent times have been in the presence of God whether through deep meditation or a near death experience and universally what they learned was God was not interested in theology or religion but was only interested in people loving others. It is my belief this is how it has always been and that neither circumcision or any kind of sacrifice was ever required. A god of unconditional love does not require anything. Circumcision in my opinion came from men.

I agree with the part about God not being interested in theology or religion.  However, in the NT Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and so did the disciples, even unto death.  Maybe you are referring to a different kind of sacrifice.  Also, I find loving others to be a sacrifice.  The sacrifice of self, which is what the Lord asked of us...you know, deny your soul-life... 

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Originally Posted by ThomasL 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by ThomasL 

Here is my take. I don't believe God ever commanded circumcision or any other thing associated with sacrifice. If God wanted circumcision boys would have been born that way. If there was any kind of circumcision that God wanted it would have been circumcision of the heart. I believe this was one of the things Jesus taught. He taught God was interested in love and mercy and not sacrifice. It is not that the coming of Jesus changed the rules but rather enlightment to greater understanding of the nature of God.

So you only accept the NT writings?

I would just say they are more closer to the highests truths. I was raised Catholic but I don't believe any religion really has all the answers. I believe more in the path of inner awareness and personal communion with God instead of the concept of "and so says the lord". A lot of people in recent times have been in the presence of God whether through deep meditation or a near death experience and universally what they learned was God was not interested in theology or religion but was only interested in people loving others. It is my belief this is how it has always been and that neither circumcision or any kind of sacrifice was ever required. A god of unconditional love does not require anything. Circumcision in my opinion came from men.

I agree with the part about God not being interested in theology or religion.  However, in the NT Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and so did the disciples, even unto death.  Maybe you are referring to a different kind of sacrifice.  Also, I find loving others to be a sacrifice.  The sacrifice of self, which is what the Lord asked of us...you know, deny your soul-life... 

I believe what has been written can be interpretted in different ways or have metaphoric meanings. For those disciples and Jesus the sacrifices they made was at their own free will and was probably something they chose before coming to earth. As for Jesus the greatest sacrifice was not his death because if anything it released him from the physical world but it was his choosing to leave the perfect world and come to earth knowing he would be hated and suffer a violent death was his ultimate sacrifice. He was one of many masters to do this and it was done out of love knowing it would bring upliftment.