circumcision is
Unchristian
Wait – didn’t God
ordain circumcision?
Why would He ordain
a ritual that removes
good functions?
Circumcision has never been a Christian practice.
Since the council in Acts 15, Christians have virtually never practiced circumcision. They have taught that it was ended by Christ’s work, just like blood sacrifices and other rituals were.
Across the centuries, and in all Christian denominations, this has held true.
Old Testament circumcision was not the same procedure as modern circumcision.
The Old Testament’s milah wasn’t even the same procedure that is practiced in the USA today.
23 Rubin, N. (2003). “Brit Milah: A Study of Change in Custom.” In E. W. Mark (Ed.), The Covenant of Circumcision (pp. 87–97). UPNE.
The modern cut removes many times more tissue and multiple functions.
How did the modern cut begin? Well, ancient Jews often reversed their milah circumcisions to fit in socially.
Of course, this offended the rabbis. So “circumcision had its scope extended by the rabbis”
around A.D. 130 to prevent its reversal. A brutal second step was added: peri’ah.
Evidence in support of this change abounds.
23 Rubin, N. (2003). “Brit Milah: A Study of Change in Custom.” In E. W. Mark (Ed.), The Covenant of Circumcision (pp. 87–97). UPNE.
As the Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes: “In order to prevent the obliteration of the ‘seal of the covenant’ on the flesh… the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xlvi.), instituted the ‘peri’ah’ (the laying bare of the glans).”
Jewish circumcision previously did not expose the glans (head).
27 Despite this, Greek art and jokes at Jews’ expense – as well as the motivation of Jews to “de-circumcise” – are easy to explain. Intact adult men sometimes have a slightly-exposed glans even when flaccid, but Greek custom and sense of modesty demanded no public exposure at all. So even intact Greeks would use a kynodesme for modesty’s sake. The original Jewish cut resulted in a more-exposed glans as an adult. In Greek gymnasiums and baths, this would be unacceptable. See, e.g., Zanker, Paul (1995). The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. (pp. 28–30). University of California Press.
This “laying bare of the glans,” which involves the removal of much more tissue, was a later addition.
The Old Testament’s milah wasn’t even the same procedure that is practiced in the USA today.
23 Rubin, N. (2003). “Brit Milah: A Study of Change in Custom.” In E. W. Mark (Ed.), The Covenant of Circumcision (pp. 87–97). UPNE.
The modern cut removes many times more tissue and multiple functions.
How did the modern cut begin? Well, ancient Jews often reversed their milah circumcisions to fit in socially.
Of course, this offended the rabbis. So “circumcision had its scope extended by the rabbis”
around A.D. 130 to prevent its reversal. A brutal second step was added: peri’ah.
Evidence in support of
this change abounds.
23 Rubin, N. (2003). “Brit Milah: A Study of Change in Custom.” In E. W. Mark (Ed.), The Covenant of Circumcision (pp. 87–97). UPNE.
As the Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes: “In order to prevent the obliteration of the ‘seal of the covenant’ on the flesh… the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xlvi.), instituted the ‘peri’ah’
(the laying bare of the glans).”
Jewish circumcision previously did not expose the glans (head).
27 Despite this, Greek art and jokes at Jews’ expense – as well as the motivation of Jews to “de-circumcise” – are easy to explain. Intact adult men sometimes have a slightly-exposed glans even when flaccid, but Greek custom and sense of modesty demanded no public exposure at all. So even intact Greeks would use a kynodesme for modesty’s sake. The original Jewish cut resulted in a more-exposed glans as an adult. In Greek gymnasiums and baths, this would be unacceptable. See, e.g., Zanker, Paul (1995). The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. (pp. 28–30). University of California Press.
This “laying bare of the glans,” which involves the removal of much more tissue, was a later addition. Old Testament circumcision doesn’t have a place among God’s people today. But modern circumcision never had a place.
This difference between Old Testament circumcision and modern circumcision is not widely discussed outside of Jewish scholarship. But some Christians in the past have mentioned it. Martin Luther, for example, knew about the difference:
“In addition to cutting off the foreskin of a male child, the Jews force the skin back… and tear it open with sharp fingernails
as one reads in their books.”
Thus they cause extraordinary pain to the child, without and against the command of God…
“Such an addendum is their own invention… and is in contradiction to God’s command… Deuteronomy 4 and 12: ‘You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it.’ With [this] supplement they ruin their circumcision.”
29 We certainly do not condone Luther’s words in this particular book, but this passage shows he knew about the drastic difference between ancient circumcision and modern. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al., vol. 47 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 152.
Modern circumcision was never condoned by God for any people group at any time. It was an extension that the Pharisees instituted after the time of the New Testament. It was an extreme, man-made measure designed to eliminate the possibility of reversal. As a consequence, it also removed multiple functions. It radically altered God’s design.
I will praise thee,
for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made.”
Psalm 139:14 (KJV)