A cut too far? Circumcision

[kallipolis]

A rather explosive discussion on Hot Topics on the matter of Circumcision has prompted a JUB member to invite me to offer a few words on why Christians have rejected the circumcision tradition of their Jewish elder cousins.

The origins of infant circumcision within Israel are traceable to Abraham as a sign of The Covenant between God, and those who serve his will. This is a complete story for another day. Fast forward to the time immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

How free are Christians to dispense with precepts and laws that once boasted biblical and, therefore, divine warrant?

For purposes of brevity I propose to limit the focus of my offering to Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Galatians is likely to be one of the earliest, if not the very first of Paul's letters and, perhaps the very earliest text in the New Testament. Written sometime around 50 AD Galatians affords us a window onto Christianity's emergence from its Jewish root.

A photograph of the Egyptian relief (above) illustrating the circumcision of two adolescent boys in the Sixth Dynasty tomb of the royal architect Ankh-ma-hor at Saqqara and below a modern graphic representation of the relief.​

Galatians specifically addresses both the issue of circumcision and the Abraham story (Genesis 17) upon which the divine command to circumcise is based. In this Letter, we see one of the founding fathers of Christianity struggling to reinterpret sacred scripture in the light of his new-found faith in The Christ.

In Galatians, we find Paul vehemently defending his gospel and his right as an apostle to preach this gospel among the Gentiles against accusations to the contrary advanced by opponents who were advocating "a different gospel."

The content of the Letter seems to imply that this other gospel entailed faithful adherence to the Mosaic Law (3:10), including circumcision (5:2-4; 6:12-13), as well as the observance of the Sabbath and the Jewish feast days (4:8-11).

Beginning with Galatians 3:26, Paul makes extensive use of familial language, recognising his Gentile converts as "children of God" (3:26; 4:6-7), "children of Abraham" (3:7) "children of the promise" and "children of freedom" (3:7). By bringing together the Abraham story and Law-free theology in this manner Paul effectively radicalises the familial metaphors so deeply embedded in the Jewish tradition to embrace the Gentiles, who were never formerly considered family members. A status that was considered the sole preserve of the circumcised elect of Israel was, according to Paul's reading of the Abraham story, granted to uncircumcised Gentiles.

Paul's tactic was to separate what his opponents' gospel no doubt held together, Abraham's faith (Gen 15:6) and his Law-observance (Gen 17:10-11). Arguing that God's promises were to Abraham's seed ( Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 24:7), a singular form that he interpreted as referring to Christ (Gal 3:16), Paul could assert that it was through faith in the seed of Abraham, not through Law-observance expressed via circumcision, that Gentiles were made the children of Abraham. Not only was this a highly innovative interpretation, it must also have been read as offensive and polemical to the Law-observant.

Paul's creative reworking of the Abrahamic traditions serves to remind us that even the members of the earliest communities of the Christian faith understood that scripture does not have the final word on faith practice. Authority lies not solely with scripture; but with the community and its living tradition.
​

Once again, we see that, contrary to some more conservative views of the immutability of Church doctrine, beliefs and practice do undergo development and redefinition.


Even sacred scripture can be reinterpreted in the light of the lived experience of the communities of faith.

So, why do Christians no longer practice circumcision? Paul answers that question by suggesting that the death and resurrection of Christ has brought about a "new creation" (Gal 6:15; cf. 2 Cor 5:17). Hence, a new covenant has been wrought in Christ's blood and it supplants the old covenant mediated to Moses via angelic messengers. While the first covenant was sealed in the flesh via circumcision, the new covenant was written in the Spirit, and those who adhere to the first are enslaved to the flesh, as opposed to the new covenant which brings freedom and liberation.



An icon depicting Paul of Tarsus preaching in Athens

Do we seek our redemption by wearing "badges" of allegiance(circumcision), or trying to fulfil legalistic obligations?

Paul advises us that once we go down that path, we are forced to surrender our adult responsibility, and revert to an infantile mentality (cf. Gal 3:25).

Paul equates this legalistic mentality with a form of slavery (5:1). Moreover, relying upon infantile point-scoring and uncritical law-keeping robs the death and resurrection of Christ of its salvific significance. Who needs Christ, if one can earn God's favour by one's own efforts?

For Paul of Tarsus circumcision is a response to scripture's invitation to advertise ones submission to The Covenant, rather than an act of free will that leads the faithful person into a quid pro quo relationship, whereby God, and the faithful person relate to one another as loving partners devoted to serving one another's needs.

A mutilated penis is hardly evidence of our love for our lover. end

I extend my best wishes to our Jewish cousins for a happy, and festive Hanukkah.


















​

 

[Serenx55]

Nice ending.
Anyways circumcision is an anthropologically understood custom. Jewish common law is around for the concept of protecting and sustaining the people. They however are as such relatively useless in todays world because of the changing times.
Christian Europe's rejection of circumcision came not because of Paul, but do to an early schism which separated Christian groups.

To address your ending. I have only this to say, circumcision is to mutilation as removing tonsils is to major surgery. The reality is that while it is a custom who's roots are no longer needed to be satisfied. Circumcision for the most part is still cleanly and by most preferred. Now physiologically I will tell you right now there are other reasons than AID's prevention and dick cheese to why I believe it is still useful. However you need only be out on a hot day doing labor to see why the Jews circumcise.

 

[kallipolis]

Nice ending.
Anyways circumcision is an anthropologically understood custom. Jewish common law is around for the concept of protecting and sustaining the people. They however are as such relatively useless in todays world because of the changing times.
Christian Europe's rejection of circumcision came not because of Paul, but do to an early schism which separated Christian groups.

To address your ending. I have only this to say, circumcision is to mutilation as removing tonsils is to major surgery. The reality is that while it is a custom who's roots are no longer needed to be satisfied. Circumcision for the most part is still cleanly and by most preferred. Now physiologically I will tell you right now there are other reasons than AID's prevention and dick cheese to why I believe it is still useful. However you need only be out on a hot day doing labor to see why the Jews circumcise.

Christianity's rejection of circumcision was as a result of Paul's rejection of such practice. Nothing to do with divisions that arose within Christianity arising from The Reformation.

Cleaning ones penis as part of our daily hygiene regime should not expose us, or our partners to unacceptable smells and tastes. Even the uncircumcised person knows how to shower. And shower well.

Your personal opinion on circumcision is duly noted, and not shared by me.

 

[Serenx55]

Christianity's rejection of circumcision was as a result of Paul's rejection of such practice. Nothing to do with divisions that arose within Christianity arising from The Reformation.

Cleaning ones penis as part of our daily hygiene regime should not expose us, or our partners to unacceptable smells and tastes. Even the uncircumcised person knows how to shower. And shower well.

Your personal opinion on circumcision is duly noted, and not shared by me.

Not the reformation my dear. The Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christian groups around the 2nd century were relatively similar, however they informally schismed and became distant groups. This historically ended any old testament Jewish practices within the major Christian groups.

 

[kallipolis]

Not the reformation my dear. The Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christian groups around the 2nd century were relatively similar, however they informally schismed and became distant groups. This historically ended any old testament Jewish practices within the major Christian groups.

To avoid confusion let me make it crystal clear:


Paul of Tarsus effectively ended circumcision among Christians during the first century.

The Jewish Insurrection followed by the defeat, and dispersal of the Jewish nation, by the Romans in AD70 brought an end to the period of the second temple. Judaism's central authority had been destroyed.

At the beginning of the second century a complete separation between Christians, and Jews ensured that Paul's vision of Christianity had taken root, and this resulted in the end of the practice of circumcision among Christians.

The Reformation of the 15th and 16th centuries had no bearing on the well established Christian practice of rejecting circumcision.

Furthermore all my sexual partners who visit my home share a shower with me before entering the bedroom. Most of my sexual partners are uncircumcised, and have been as scrupulously clean as those who are circumcised.

 

[Serenx55]

Let me be crystal clear, you're talking to a history major who studied religious and European history and anthropology for 4 years. I know my history thank you very much!
Btw where the hell are getting the reformation from my post? Obviously you're misinterpreting my schism comment. There are many schisms in the history of Christianity. 1 In 1053 when the East( Byzantine) and Western( Roman) split and then another famous one is the protestant reformation. However there were many early schisms in early christianity history between groups of Christians who's views differed from each other. Including Jewish Christians who kept both new and old laws. However by the 2nd and 3rd century they were ostracized from existence and when this happened effectively speaking circumcision in Christians was stopped completely.

Also good for you. I swear uncut guy's are always starting threads where they feel like calling cut guy's as mutilated. It's almost down right Freudian Penis envy.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, a cut cock has literally had it's foreskin chopped off of it. That's kind the definition of mutilation.

That's kinda hard to argue about. Now, whether that turns you on or off, either way is your own issue.

I prefer them natural, but that’s not a deal killer. Frankly if you’re with uncut guys with filthy cocks that says more about your choice of guy than it does about anything else.

 

[Serenx55]

You see thats a broad term and a slippery slope. If the surgical removal of a piece of the body is classified as mutilation then you could call all accessory and unnecessary procedures as mutilation. So tonsil,adenoid, wisdom tooth, and plastic surgery removal can also be called mutilation.
The reality is that this topic is asinine which is basically almost always voiced by uncircumcised men. I will tell you the truth there is no different, in new physiology research ( When I was in Ms-4) it's been proven that the feeling is now a non-point. The detected feeling has been proven to be very little in difference.
Personally I have no favoring, to me it doesn't matter. However honestly if you need to belittle me and say that my penis is mutilated then you're in all honesty asking passive aggressively for a fight.
How would you feel if I associated a lack of circumcision with dick-cheese? It's simply not kind.

 

[TX-Beau]

Right, and you're not coming across as completely hyper (excuse the pun) sensitive about anything at all.

Come on, you wouldn't be getting the response your getting without your attitude.

 

[bankside]

There is no christian consensus on the matter of circumcision, and regardless of whether that should come to pass, a child is entitled to the integrity of his person until such time as he voluntarily decides otherwise, either as an act of faith or for other reasons, using the adult judgement he has been encouraged to develop.

 

[rareboy]

Let me be crystal clear, you're talking to a history major who studied religious and European history and anthropology for 4 years. I know my history thank you very much!
Btw where the hell are getting the reformation from my post? Obviously you're misinterpreting my schism comment. There are many schisms in the history of Christianity. 1 In 1053 when the East( Byzantine) and Western( Roman) split and then another famous one is the protestant reformation. However there were many early schisms in early christianity history between groups of Christians who's views differed from each other. Including Jewish Christians who kept both new and old laws. However by the 2nd and 3rd century they were ostracized from existence and when this happened effectively speaking circumcision in Christians was stopped completely.

Also good for you. I swear uncut guy's are always starting threads where they feel like calling cut guy's as mutilated. It's almost down right Freudian Penis envy.

Was this before or after you completed your medical residency 3 1/2 years ago?

 

[Corny]

You see thats a broad term and a slippery slope. If the surgical removal of a piece of the body is classified as mutilation then you could call all accessory and unnecessary procedures as mutilation. So tonsil,adenoid, wisdom tooth, and plastic surgery removal can also be called mutilation.

um what?

no ... because nobody just goes ahead and removes his child's tonsils or adenoid.

also nobody removes the wisdom teeth when they fit into the jaw. those are surgeries that are performed when there is a need for them. people COULD live without the surgery, yes. but they would have problems. as guys with phimosis can survive but would have disadvantages. no parent let's somebody cut out the tonsils just because the child COULD have problems with them some day.
and by the time that someone gets his wisdom teeth, he is old enough to decide about the surgery on his own - unlike kids that get their prepuce chopped off just after they were born.