CIRCUMCISION
IN THE BIBLE
Circumcision
is said in the Bible to be the sign of making a covenant with God to be his
people and for him to be your God. The
Old Testament God commanded that baby boys be circumcised so that they could be
part of the covenant God had made with his people
Jews
carry out circumcisions to put children in the covenant. Christians claim that this law has been done
away for non-Jews and so they don’t bother with circumcisions. The New Testament is alleged to support
Christianity in this.
CIRCUMCISION
IS CHILD-ABUSE
The
following does not condemn circumcision done in hospital for medical reasons
like when the foreskin is too tight but circumcision that is done to baby boys
for religious and cultural reasons especially when the hospital is not
involved.
Circumcision
diminishes sexual pleasure in most males and it has been proven to be a cruel
practice. There is much evidence of
children being bodily and mentally harmed by it. Many only manage to get it done when they are
of age which means they can have a bad experience that will haunt them
forever. Many want the law to stop Jews
and Muslims from doing it to their children.
One thing is for certain, nobody has the right in the name of religion or culture to remove a part of a child’s body for that should be the child’s own choice when he or she grows up. The body does not belong to the parents but they are to look after the child and let him grow up to be his own person. This is another case in which religion and the Bible are shown to be trouble.
Some say circumcision is not a violation of the rights of the baby for parents are allowed to choose a religion for the child and what vaccinations to give him. Enrolling a child in a religion is manipulating and vowing to condition the child - its wrong. Vaccinations are an essential. Circumcision isn't. Nobody dies from the inconvenience of a foreskin.
Some men say they got circumcised as adults and wished it had been done to them when they were babies. But not every man wishes that was the case. We cannot permit parents to have religious circumcision administered to their babies just because a few men wish it had been done to them. Most men would rather make their own decision.
Circumcision is sometimes worse when done in adulthood but that doesn't mean babies should be circumcised. If the extra physical pain that comes on adults is an issue then all babies should be circumcised! Better a bit of pain than being taken advantage of! The pain is irrelevant.
God authorised the Jewish rabbis and laymen to perform circumcisions on babies. It would be less disturbing if he had forbade them and required that only doctors perform it! The Jews did not circumcise their baby boys for any other reason than to keep a religious law. They did not do it for their welfare but for their religion. To cut a piece off a child for something like that is simply to assault the child. As bad as circumcising a child for hygiene is, at least it is not as much of an assault as is religiously motivated circumcision.
The
risk of infection is great for circumcision leaves a big wound in one of the
most unhygienic parts of the body. When
the child dirties its nappy there will be many times when the excrement comes
in contact with the wound and a blood infection could easily result. Circumcision has murdered many babies and
broken many parents’ hearts. Again,
God’s rules are put above human life. To
say the Bible is the word of God even if you think it has abolished
circumcision as Christians think is still approving of this fanaticism and it
is sick and criminal. Put the memory of
the children first and in its name spit on that vile book.
Because
of God anybody at all could take the knife and cut off a child’s foreskin and
he did not decree that the knife should be washed and sterilised by boiling
first. Many children got infected from
the blood of other children that was not wiped off the knife and from wiped
knives which were still crawling with dangerous germs for they were not
sterilised. The practice was dangerous
and a serious form of child-abuse.
No
wonder paedophilia is rampant in Roman Catholicism when it pores over a savage
book as the word of God.
To
masturbate on a baby would be less evil than circumcising it. I am saying this not to upset but to make
people see how shocking and seriously wrong circumcision is and how it is more
abhorrent as that sexual abuse. I want
to make people mad at God and the Bible.
Jesus Christ approved of the Jewish faith in so far as it stuck to the
Bible meaning he approved of his circumcision as a Jew which initiated him into
that faith. He approved of circumcision
so he backed up all the evil associated with the practice too.
Circumcision shows the importance of getting rid of religion. All religion started off sweet and nice and then when it got a grip it was able to show its true face.
CIRCUMCISION DONE AWAY?
The
New Testament appears to assert that circumcision has been done away. Anybody who is sure that it does needs to
take a closer look. The evidence that
the New Testament regarded the Law of Moses as still valid would only mean that
if it said, “Don’t circumcise”, it would only mean that circumcision will be
miraculously taken care of at the resurrection when it will magically be done
to the dead as they arise from their graves.
When the New Testament condemns circumcision it only
condemns the physical act without the spiritual side being taken into
account. It stresses that circumcision
is worthless unless you intend to circumcise your heart and keep God’s
Law. Romans 2:25 says that circumcision
is good and right if you can keep the Law of Moses. But once you break the Law you break the
contract signified by your circumcision and it is no longer any good. Your circumcision is now uncircumcision. He is speaking of circumcision when used as a
contract to keep God’s Law without breaking any of it. But if you believe that you are bound to keep
the Law but don’t and that Jesus atones for your mistakes so that you will
still be right with God and you get circumcised your circumcision will be a
sign of your peace with God or pact or covenant and not a vow to do the
impossible.
1
Corinthians 7:18 is the only verse that says one must not be circumcised but it
says it in the context of a list of things not to bother doing including
marrying or fighting for your freedom if you are a slave for the focus must be
entirely on the return of the Lord Jesus which is so near duties have to be
neglected for the main duty is to be ready to greet him.
Philippians
3 condemns evil men who mutilate the flesh by circumcising and says that
Christians are the circumcision of God though they put no trust in the marks of
the flesh. Circumcision done for an evil
reason would be a mutilation for it is not authorised. And Christians trust in grace and not in
marks or baptismal water even if these give grace. It is God that gives the grace and not the
sign.
In
Acts 16:3, Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the Jews in that area. They would not have anything to do with an
uncircumcised man. Some say that when
Paul did it for that reason it proves that he did not believe in doing it for
the reasons given by the Law for it.
Luke does not say it was the only reason by the reason why he chose to
do it in that place. And if Paul did for
an unspiritual reason, Acts does not say that he was
right to. Paul was a sinner and sinners
do things for bad reasons. But Paul may
not have been deceiving the Jews at all for he might have given Timothy the
circumcision for a holy reason and Acts would be unlikely to mention the
episode if it thought that Paul did wrong.
Paul could not give circumcision if he didn’t believe in it because then
he would have been found out and in big trouble.
In
1 Corinthians 7:18,19, Paul says that the person who was uncircumcised when he
converted to God should stay that way for circumcision is immaterial and
keeping God’s commandments is what is important. But this appears in chapter 7 where Paul told
the people to stay whatever way they were for Jesus was coming soon so soon
that distractions such as getting married or circumcision had to be forgotten
about. It was more important for them to
worry about their hearts. The Law does
not mean that when it commands circumcision that people are to be circumcised
no matter what but only when it will bring them to God for that is what it is
for. It is like when Jesus allegedly
commanded baptism he could not have wanted all people baptised indiscriminately
where they were right or not. Paul is
just saying that there is no time for circumcision not that it is forbidden for
he circumcises Timothy and recognised that it might have been done for medical
reasons.
In
Colossians 2:11, the prophet declares that because of the circumcision of
Christ all are spiritually circumcised by having the evil urges of the flesh
cut away. Does this mean that
circumcision is wrong because it is now superfluous? Not necessarily. And it does not say it is unnecessary. Jesus was baptised in the Spirit for us and
that does not mean that we don’t need to be and with circumcision it could be
the same.
Colossians 2 has the prophet telling
the people that they were dead because they were sinners AND HAD NOT BEEN
CIRCUMCISED. Circumcision is necessary
for being right with God.
In
Romans 4, Paul says that Abraham was forgiven and called righteous by God
before he was circumcised. Paul is not
using this as an example that circumcision was bad but to prove that a right
relationship with God cannot be earned.
Abraham was not circumcised to become righteous but circumcised because
he was righteous and it was a promise that he would stay that way. Babies were circumcised because they were
born into a covenant that regarded them as righteous already.
In
Acts 15, heretics were saying that only those Jews or Gentiles who were
physically circumcised could be saved.
Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them.
They held that God harboured great understanding towards holy people who
could not get circumcised for they said that repentance was necessary for entry
into the
Some
Pharisees who were Christians said that for Gentiles to be saved it was
necessary for them to be circumcised and to promise to keep the entire Law of
Moses. The Church got together to
consider this problem and condemned this view saying that salvation was by the
grace of Jesus not by obeying the Law which couldn’t be obeyed anyway. You were meant to try and obey the Law but if
you failed Jesus had paid for the sins so strict obedience by you wasn’t
necessary for salvation.
The
apostles sent a letter to the Gentiles reminding them that they were plagued by
heretics and that they would give them no greater burden than four rules. Christians say that since circumcision was
not one of these that this proves that it is not for Gentiles. Wrong.
The rules were given for some reason.
The only moral one in it is against fornication. The apostles would not have simply told them
that it was sinful without mentioning the other sins without some reason. Their hands were tied. They imply that the Gentiles would not be
able to cope if any more rules were given.
The chapter proves nothing about anything being done away. Acts 15 does not say that the Gentiles have
just four rules to worry about forever.
It must have been temporary.
It is known that the Christian Church at
Romans 4 just says that the uncircumcised can be right with
God like Abraham was before he was circumcised.
It does not say that it is right or lawful to refuse to be circumcised.
There
is no Bible authority for saying that God wants circumcision no more. What could we expect when God in Genesis 17
says that circumcision is to be observed forever and ever and that even
non-Hebrews who are living under Hebrews must get it done. The Law decreed that male babies must be
circumcised on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3).
Abraham
was told by God that all his descendants must be circumcised (Genesis
17:6). Not some of them or all to a
certain date but just all. This shows
that it is a law forever.
The
Old Testament never says that circumcision means you have to keep the whole Law
of God perfectly forever for the Law made prescriptions for how to get pardoned
if you failed so it is not a promise to do that. And neither does it say that circumcision has
anything to do with intending to keep the Law of God to any level. It just says that circumcision is a symbol of
the covenant with Abraham and his descendants which was a purely earthly pact
and had nothing to do with the Law. The
Law had not been given yet. Genesis
17:14 says that any person who does not get circumcised that person breaks the
covenant so instead of a person entering the covenant by means of the rite a
person must get the rite done because he has already entered it. Women were not circumcised and they were held
to be in the covenant. Notably, Abraham
even circumcised the slaves he bought from other races (Genesis 17:27) – this
was not necessary at all even if they were made to practice Abe’s brand of
religion so it indicates that God wanted Gentiles circumcised. When Genesis decreed that the rite was not
for promising absolute obedience to the Law, the Christians who Paul and Co
opposed for teaching that it was were opposed for teaching a perversion of the
rite and not just because they were pro-circumcision.
Even if circumcision was not intended for non-Jews or was optional for them it would not show that they were not obligated to live under the Law of Moses.
GALATIANS
In
Galatians 5:11, Paul says that he no longer preaches circumcision like some
accuse him of doing and is being persecuted for it.
That
is because the most urgent and important message he has is the message of the
death and resurrection of Jesus. He
could not digress from that central theme in his belief that Jesus could come
back anytime. Jesus or the angels could
do the circumcising himself or themselves.
In
Galatians 2:3, Paul mentions that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised by
the Jewish Christians. This does not
refute the doctrine that true Christians practice circumcision for he is only
reporting something not making a judgment.
Titus might not have been compelled to be circumcised but he could have
been asked to.
Paul
tells the Galatians (5:2) that if they receive circumcision that Jesus will be
no good to them.
He
said that Jesus will not be their saviour then because they would be falling
from grace (v4). They would be ceasing
to believe that grace was needed for salvation and would be claiming to be
self-sufficient. They would be receiving
this from the heretics who denied grace making circumcision a declaration that
there was no grace. This does not refute
the doctrine that the Bible never abrogated the circumcision law. It forbids heretical circumcision. It forbids circumcision that is the
expressing of a desire to do what God has condemned. The Galatians were not ready for Christian
circumcision because Paul had to teach them some basic stuff.
In
Galatians 5:1-3, Paul declares that the Galatians must not get circumcised for
that will bind them to follow the whole Law which they cannot do. Paul did not believe in people promising to
do what they could not do unlike the modern Catholic Church which says they
should. Paul did explicitly agree with
circumcision when it was not done in this hypocritical way (Acts
Galatians
5:6 says that circumcision or uncircumcision does not
count for anything to those who have been saved from the burden of the Law for
only faith working though love does.
Circumcision
in itself does not matter. The physical
act does not matter. What matters is the
reason it is done for. Giving somebody a
sweet does not matter but the love this sharing represents does and that does
not mean that you are morally free not to share. The verse does not eliminate circumcision
done for the proper reason to signify a willingness to live a life of love and
faith. Some say that Paul’s doctrine that circumcision didn’t
matter was for people who had no Israelite blood only (Galatians 6:15). (It is good that they realise that the
practice of circumcision was not ended for the Jews.) To say that is to say that the Law is not for
the Gentiles - a view that must be regarded as untenable for Paul said the
Gentiles needed Jesus to obey the Law in their place because the Law judged
them to be immoral meaning it had authority over them. If the Law is infallible then it follows that
all people who are not Jews should follow it and be circumcised for God is
unlikely to make a difference. The Law
commands the circumcision of non-Jews (Exodus
A MORAL LAW?
The
Law did not like anything dirty and foreskins were dirty which shows that
circumcision was probably commanded for the sake of cleanliness. Dirt was associated with disease for
CIRCUMCISION
AND BAPTISM
It
is stupid to say that circumcision was the first sacrament of the Torah that
has been replaced by sacramental baptism in water. Nothing in the Bible indicates that it
confers power from God in a magical way.
Paul
vehemently opposed circumcision when it was intended as a vow to keep the
entire Law of Moses without the grace of Jesus Christ. He approved of it as a sign of the covenant
of grace. For the Jew, it was a sign of
the duty to keep the whole Law and do the impossible. For Paul, you were bound to keep the Law of
Moses but if you failed you didn’t lose salvation for Jesus did good works and
offered his life to make up for your shortcomings. For the Jews, keeping the Law was bondage and
for the Christian it was a joy. Paul
rejected circumcision when done for the wrong reasons as worthless. How Roman Catholics can accept the baptisms
performed by Protestants whose ideas of baptism differ from the Catholic is a
mystery. Paul made it clear that
circumcisions performed with the wrong understanding are worthless so it
follows that the same must be true of baptisms.
CONCLUSION
There
is nothing in the Bible to say that circumcision is abolished and that non-Jews
don’t need it.
WORKS CONSULTED
Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley,
Christ
and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press,
Christ’s
Literal Reign on Earth From David’s Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of
the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early
Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth,
Penguin,
Essentials,
David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder &
Stoughton,
Eunuchs
for the
God’s
Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
California, 1992
Hard
Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity
Press,
Jesus
the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch,
Kennedy’s
Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Martin
Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of
Moral
Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ,
Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co,
Not
Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio
Replies Vol 2, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Sabbath
Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth Publications,
Secrets
of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux
Brothers,
Set
My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill
& Son Ltd,
Storehouse
Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
The
Christian and War, JB Norris, The
Christadelphian,
The
Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro
The
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
The
Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford,
The
Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian,
The
Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ,
Alba House,
The
The
Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press,
The
Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible
The
Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
The
World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue
6
Theodore
Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer,
Those
Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield,
Vicars
of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books,
War
and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union,
War
and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press,
When
Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor
Books,
Which
Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
THE
WEB
The
Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?
www.ark_of_salvation.orgJewish_law.htm
The
Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by
Is
Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
This
Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out
of town but accepted it. It argues that
Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law
of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of
it. But strangely it argues then that
Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law.
1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah
7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the
law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God
even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to
be treated as three units. What they are
is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot
be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only
temporary and states that clearly. You
can’t change what love is. The law
plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate
in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster
hatred.
Christians,
assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral
and Ceremonial law. The Christians make
the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while
the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and
civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial
law. They simply have to hold that it is
right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of
God.
A
case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a
legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was
is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he
meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the
Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law
backs this dismissal up.
Then
the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s
nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be
changed. In other words, God can forbid
you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then
he could change that law. But that does
not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable
is designed to bring about the best. So
if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at
other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws
are permanent. They are permanent but if
other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the
background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground
again. Not one of the laws in the Torah
are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about
paying money to charity instead of the temple.
God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your
house at night with impunity. Now is
that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept
the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but
which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary
and it is against the nature of a good God.
Geisler is wrong.
The
Law claims to be right. In other words,
we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would
consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law
(Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
At
least Geisler would admit that stoning people to
death is not necessarily incompatible with God.
He would say that if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have
the mindset that we would do it if he asked.
We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.