Difference between revisions of "Circumcision"

<p> is from the Latin, <em> circumcidere, </em> "to cut all around," because the Jews, in circumcising their children, cut off after this manner the skin which covers the prepuce. God enjoined Abraham to use circumcision, as a sign of his covenant. In obedience to this order, Abraham, at ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised: also his son Ishmael, and all the males of his property, &nbsp;Genesis 17:10 . God repeated the precept of circumcision to Moses: he ordered that all who were to partake of the paschal sacrifice should receive circumcision; and that this rite should be performed on children, on the eighth day after their birth. </p> <p> The [[Jews]] have always been very exact in observing this ceremony, and it appears that they did not neglect it when in Egypt. But Moses, while in [[Midian]] with [[Jethro]] his father-in-law, did not circumcise his two sons born in that country; and during the journey of the [[Israelites]] in the wilderness, their children were not circumcised. [[Circumcision]] was practised among the Arabians, Saracens, and Ishmaelites. These people, as well as the Israelites, sprung from Abraham. Circumcision was introduced with the law of Moses among the [[Samaritans]] and Cutheans. The Idumeans, though descended from Abraham and Isaac, were not circumcised till subdued by John Hircanus. Those who assert that the Phenicians were circumcised, mean, probably, the Samaritans; for we know, from other authority, that the Phenicians did not observe this ceremony. As to the Egyptians, circumcision never was of general and indispensable obligation on the whole nation; certain priests only, and particular professions, were obliged to it. Circumcision is likewise the ceremony of initiation into the Mohammedan religion. There is, indeed, no law in the [[Koran]] which enjoins it, and they have the precept only in tradition. They say that [[Mohammed]] commanded it out of respect to Abraham, the head of his race. They have no fixed day for the performance of this rite, and generally wait till the child is five or six years of age. </p> <p> CIRCUMCISION, <em> [[Covenant]] of. </em> That the covenant with Abraham, of which circumcision was made the sign and seal, &nbsp; [[Genesis]] 17:7-14 , was the general covenant of grace, and not wholly, or even chiefly, a political and national covenant, may be satisfactorily established. The first engagement in it was, that God would "greatly bless" Abraham; which promise, although it comprehended temporal blessings, referred, as we learn from St. Paul, more fully to the blessing of his justification by the imputation of his faith for righteousness, with all the spiritual advantages consequent upon the relation which was thus established between him and God, in time and eternity. The second promise in the covenant was, that he should be "the father of many nations;" which we are also taught by St. Paul to interpret more with reference to his spiritual seed, the followers of that faith whereof cometh justification, than to his natural descendants. "That the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to that which is by the law, but to that also which is by <em> the faith, </em> of Abraham, who is the father of <em> us all," </em> —of all believing [[Gentiles]] as well as Jews. The third stipulation in God's covenant with the patriarch, was the gift to Abraham and to his seed of "the land of Canaan," in which the temporal promise was manifestly but the type of the higher promise of a heavenly inheritance. Hence St. Paul says, "By <em> faith </em> he sojourned in the land of promise, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise;" but this "faith" did not respect the fulfilment of the temporal promise; for St. Paul adds, "they looked for a city which had foundations, whose builder and maker is God," &nbsp; Hebrews 11:19 . The next promise was, that God would always be "a God to Abraham and to his seed after him," a promise which is connected with the highest spiritual blessings, such as the remission of sins, and the sanctification of our nature, as well as with a visible church state. It is even used to express the felicitous state of the church in heaven, &nbsp;Revelation 21:3 . The final engagement in the Abrahamic covenant was, that in Abraham's "seed, all nations of the earth should be blessed;" and this blessing, we are expressly taught by St. Paul, was nothing less than the justification of all nations, that is, of all believers in all nations, by faith in Christ: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the [[Heathen]] by faith, preached before the [[Gospel]] to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham;" they receive the same blessing, justification, by the same means, faith, &nbsp;Galatians 3:8-9 . This covenant with Abraham, therefore, although it respected a natural seed, Isaac, from whom a numerous progeny was to spring; and an earthly inheritance provided for this issue, the land of Canaan; and a special covenant relation with the descendants of Isaac, through the line of Jacob, to whom [[Jehovah]] was to be "a God," visibly and specially, and they a visible and "peculiar people;" yet was, under all these temporal, earthly, and external advantages, but a higher and spiritual grace embodying itself under these circumstances, as types of a dispensation of salvation and eternal life, to all who should follow the faith of Abraham, whose justification before God was the pattern of the justification of every man, whether Jew or Gentile, in all ages. Now, of this covenant, in its spiritual as well as in its temporal provisions, circumcision was most certainly the sacrament, that is, the "sign" and the "seal;" for St. Paul thus explains the case: "And he received the SIGN of circumcision, a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." And as this rite was enjoined upon Abraham's posterity, so that every "uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin was not circumcised on the eighth day," was to be "cut off from his people, by the special judgment of God, and that because "he had broken God's <em> covenant," </em> &nbsp; Genesis 17:14; it therefore follows that this rite was a constant publication of God's covenant of grace among the descendants of Abraham, and its repetition a continual confirmation of that covenant, on the part of God, to all practising it in that faith of which it was the ostensible expression. </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> As the covenant of grace made with Abraham was bound up with temporal promises and privileges, so circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant in both its parts,—its spiritual and its temporal, its superior and inferior provisions. The spiritual promises of the covenant continued unrestricted to all the descendants of Abraham, whether by Isaac or by Ishmael; and still lower down, to the descendants of [[Esau]] as well as to those of Jacob. Circumcision was practised among them all by virtue of its divine institution at first; and was extended to their foreign servants, and to proselytes, as well as to their children; and wherever the sign of the covenant of grace was by divine appointment, there it was a <em> seal </em> of that covenant, to all who believingly used it; for we read of no restriction of its spiritual blessings, that is, its saving engagements, to one line of descent from Abraham only. But over the <em> temporal </em> branch of the covenant, and the <em> external </em> religious privileges arising out of it, God exercised a rightful sovereignty, and expressly restricted them first to the line of Isaac, and then to that of Jacob, with whose descendants he entered into special covenant by the ministry of Moses. The temporal blessings and external privileges comprised under general expressions in the covenant with Abraham, were explained and enlarged under that of Moses, while the spiritual blessings remained unrestricted as before. This was probably the reason why circumcision was re-enacted under the law of Moses. It was a confirmation of the temporal blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, now, by a covenant of peculiarity, made over to them, while it was still recognized as a consuetudinary rite which had descended to them from their fathers, and as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, made with Abraham and with all his descendants without exception. This double reference of circumcision, both to the authority of Moses and to that of the patriarchs, is found in the words of our Lord, &nbsp; John 7:22 : "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;" or, as it is better translated by Campbell, "Moses instituted circumcision among you, (not that it is from Moses, but from the patriarchs,) and ye circumcise on the Sabbath. If on the [[Sabbath]] a child receive circumcision, that the <em> law of Moses </em> may not be violated," &c. </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> From these observations, the controversy in the [[Apostolic]] churches respecting circumcision will derive much elucidation. The covenant with Abraham prescribed circumcision as an act of faith in its promises, and as a pledge to perform its conditions on the part of his descendants. But the object on which this faith rested, was "the Seed of Abraham," in whom the nations of the earth were to be blessed: which Seed, says St. Paul, "is Christ,"—Christ as promised, not yet come. When the Christ had come, so as fully to enter upon his redeeming offices, he could no longer be the object of faith, as still to come; and this leading promise of the covenant being accomplished, the sign and seal of it vanished away. Nor could circumcision be continued in <em> this view </em> by any, without an implied denial that Jesus was the Christ, the expected Seed of Abraham. Circumcision also as an institution of Moses, who continued it as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant both in its spiritual and temporal provisions, but with respect to the latter made it also a sign and seal of the restriction of its temporal blessings and peculiar religious privileges to the descendants of Israel, was terminated by the entrance of our Lord upon his office of Mediator, in which office all nations were to be blessed in him. The [[Mosaic]] edition of the covenant not only guaranteed the land of Canaan, but the peculiarity of the Israelites, as the people and visible church of God to the exclusion of others, except by proselytism. But when our Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached to "all nations," and opened the gates of the "common salvation" to all, whether Gentiles or Jews, circumcision, as the sign of a covenant of peculiarity and religious distinction, was also done away. It had not only no reason remaining, but the continuance of the rite involved the recognition of exclusive privileges which had been terminated by Christ. This will explain the views of the [[Apostle]] Paul on this great question. He declares that in Christ there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; that neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but "faith that worketh by love;" faith in the Seed of Abraham already come and already engaged in his mediatorial and redeeming work; faith, by virtue of which the Gentiles came into the church of Christ on the same terms as the Jews themselves, and were justified and saved. The doctrine of the non-necessity of circumcision, he applies to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, although he specially resists the attempts of the [[Judaizers]] to impose this rite upon the [[Gentile]] converts; in which he was supported by the decision of the [[Holy]] Spirit when the appeal upon this question was made to the "Apostles and elders at Jerusalem," from the church at Antioch. At the same time it is clear that he takes two different views of the practice of circumcision, as it was continued among many of the first Christians. The first is that strong one which is expressed in &nbsp; Galatians 5:2-4 , "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is made of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." The second is that milder view which he himself must have had when he circumcised Timothy to render him more acceptable to the Jews; and which also appears to have led him to abstain from all allusion to this practice when writing his epistle to the believing Hebrews, although many, perhaps most of them, continue to circumcise their children, as did the [[Jewish]] [[Christians]] for a long time afterward. These different views of circumcision, held by the same person, may be explained by considering the different principles on which circumcision might be practiced after it had become an obsolete ordinance. </p> <p> <strong> (1.) </strong> It might be taken in the simple view of its first institution, as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant; and then it was to be condemned as involving a denial that Abraham's Seed, the Christ, had already come, since, upon his coming, every old covenant gave place to the new covenant introduced by him. </p> <p> <strong> (2.) </strong> It might be practiced and enjoined as the sign and seal of the Mosaic covenant, which was still the Abrahamic covenant with its spiritual blessings, but with restriction of its temporal promises and special ecclesiastical privileges to the line of Jacob, with a law of observances which was obligatory upon all entering that covenant by circumcision. In that case it involved, in like manner, the notion of the continuance of an old covenant, after the establishment of the new; for thus St. Paul states the case in &nbsp; Galatians 3:19 : "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed should come." After that therefore it had no effect:—it had waxed old, and had vanished away. </p> <p> <strong> (3.) </strong> Again: circumcision might imply an obligation to observe all the ceremonial usages and the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, along with a general belief in the mission of Christ, as necessary to justification before God. This appears to have been the view of those among the [[Galatian]] Christians who submitted to circumcision, and of the Jewish teachers who enjoined it upon them; for St. Paul in that epistle constantly joins circumcision with legal observances, and as involving an obligation to do "the whole law," in order to justification.—"I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law; whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," &nbsp; Galatians 2:16 . To all persons therefore practising circumcision in this view it was obvious, that "Christ was become of none effect," the very principle of justification by faith alone in him was renounced even while his divine mission was still admitted. </p> <p> <strong> (4.) </strong> But there are two grounds on which circumcision may be conceived to have been innocently, though not wisely, practiced, among the [[Christian]] Jews. The first was that of preserving an ancient national distinction on which they valued themselves; and were a converted Jew in the present day disposed to perform that rite upon his children for this purpose only, renouncing in the act all consideration of it as a sign and seal of the old covenants, or as obliging to ceremonial acts in order to justification, no one would censure him with severity. It appears clear that it was under some such view that St. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess; he did it because of "the Jews which were in those quarters," that is, because of their national prejudices, "for they knew that his father was a Greek." The second was a lingering notion, that, even in the Christian church, the Jews who believed would still retain some degree of eminence, some superior relation to God; a notion which, however unfounded, was not one which demanded direct rebuke, when it did not proudly refuse spiritual communion with the converted Gentiles, but was held by men who "rejoiced that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life." These considerations may account for the silence of St. Paul on the subject of circumcision in his [[Epistle]] to the Hebrews. Some of them continued to practise that rite, but they were probably believers of the class just mentioned; for had he thought that the rite was continued among them on any principle which affected the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, he would no doubt have been equally prompt and fearless in pointing out that apostasy from Christ which was implied in it, as when he wrote to the Galatians. </p> <p> Not only might circumcision be practised with views so opposite that one might be wholly innocent, although an infirmity of prejudice; the other such as would involve a rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ; but some other Jewish observances also stood in the same circumstances. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, a part of his writings from which we obtain the most information on these questions, grounds his "doubts" whether the members of that church were not seeking to be "justified by the law" upon their observing "days, and months, and times, and years." Had he done more than "doubt," he would have expressed himself more positively. He saw their danger on this point; he saw that they were taking steps to this fatal result, by such an observance of these "days," &c, as had a strong leaning and dangerous approach to that dependence upon them for justification, which would destroy their faith in Christ's solely sufficient sacrifice; but his very doubting, not of the fact of their being addicted to these observances, but of the <em> animus </em> with which they regarded them, supposes it possible, however dangerous this Jewish conformity might be, that they might be observed for reasons which would still consist with their entire reliance upon the merits of Christ for salvation. Even he himself, strongly as he resisted the imposition of this conformity to Jewish customs upon the converts to [[Christianity]] as a matter of necessity, yet in practice must have conformed to many of them, when no sacrifice of principle was understood; for in order to gain the Jews, he became "as a Jew." See [[Abraham]] , and See [[Baptism]] . </p>

<p> The origin of circumcision and its practice by the Jews and other peoples may be studied in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> and <i> Encyclopaedia of [[Religion]] and Ethics </i> . This article is concerned with the difficulties caused in the Apostolic Church by the desire of the [[Judaizing]] party to enforce the rite upon the Gentile Christians. The crisis thus brought about is described in Acts 15 and &nbsp;Galatians 2:1-10. </p> <p> As the work of the Church extended, the problem of the reception of Gentile converts presented itself for solution. Should such converts be compelled to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law or not? The answer to this question led to great difference of opinion and threatened to cause serious division in the Church. It must be remembered that the first Christians were Jews, born and brought up in the Law and taught to observe it. To them such rites as circumcision were almost second nature. To abrogate the Law of Moses was to them inconceivable. The idea of the passing away of the Law had not yet penetrated their understanding. The headquarters of those who held these opinions were at Jerusalem, where the [[Temple]] services and the whole atmosphere served to strengthen them in this belief. The very name of the party-‘They that were of the circumcision’ (&nbsp;Acts 11:2)-shows how closely they were attached to the observance of this rite. On the other hand, we can trace the gradual growth in the Church of the opposite view: the baptism of the [[Ethiopian]] eunuch ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ) by Philip; the admission of [[Cornelius]] and his friends by St. Peter; the mission of certain evangelists to the Gentiles at Antioch; and finally the work of St. Paul and St. Barnabas, who turned to the Gentiles and freely admitted them into the fellowship of the Church. </p> <p> It was obvious that the question must be settled. The Judaizing party were quite definite in their teaching. ‘Certain men which came down from [[Judaea]] taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’ (&nbsp;Acts 15:1). This was a position which it was impossible for St. Paul and St. [[Barnabas]] to admit. It was destructive of their work and of the catholicity of the Church. No wonder that ‘there was no small dissension and disputation.’ An appeal was made to the mother church at Jerusalem; and, among others, St. Paul and St. Barnabas went up. St. Paul’s own statement is, ‘I went up by revelation’ (&nbsp;Galatians 2:2). He also tells us that Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, accompanied him. They were well received by the church at Jerusalem, but certain of the Pharisees, who were believers, laid it down ‘that it was necessary to circumcise them’ (&nbsp;Acts 15:5), and thus the issue was joined. </p> <p> The question was so important that it could not be settled at once. There must be an interval for consideration. How this interval was spent we are told in Galatians 2. The Judaizing party found that an uncircumcised Gentile-Titus-had been brought into their midst, and they immediately demanded his circumcision. With this demand St. Paul was not inclined to comply. The principle for which he was contending was at stake. On the other hand, circumcision to him was nothing, and there was the question whether he should yield as a matter of charity. The course which he took has always been a matter of undecided controversy, but the opinion of the majority of authorities is that Titus was not circumcised.*[Note: For the contrary view see R. B. Rackham on Acts 15 (Oxford Com., 1901); and on the vexed chronological and other questions cf. artt. Acts of the [[Apostles]] and Galatians, Epistle to.] </p> <p> After this episode St. Paul had an opportunity of discussing his gospel privately with those of repute, viz. James, Cephas, and John. They were evidently moved by the account of his work among the Gentiles, and recognized the hand of God in it, and they were influenced by the fervour and spirit of the Apostle. They gave to him and St. Barnabas ‘the right hand of fellowship.’ They recognized that their sphere was among the Gentiles, as that of the other apostles was among the Jews. The result of the conference was a compromise: Gentiles were not to be circumcised, but they were to abstain from certain practices which were offensive to their Jewish brethren. </p> <p> The teaching of St. Paul on circumcision may be further illustrated from his Epistles. In &nbsp;Romans 2:25-29 he shows that circumcision was an outward sign of being one of the chosen people, but that it was of no value unless accompanied by obedience, of which it was the symbol. The uncircumcised keeper of the Law was better than the circumcised breaker of it. The true Jew is he who is circumcised in heart, <i> i.e. </i> he who keeps God’s Law and walks in His ways. In ch. 4 he discusses the case of Abraham, and asks whether the [[Divine]] blessing was conferred upon him because he was the head of the chosen race and the first person of that race who was circumcised. He shows that the promise came before circumcision, and therefore not in consequence of it. Circumcision followed as the token or sign of the promise, so that he might be the father of all believers whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised. </p> <p> In the Epistle to the Philippians, St. Paul utters grave warnings against those who insist on circumcision. He speaks of the rite, when thus insisted on, not as circumcision but as ‘concision’ (κατατομή, &nbsp;Philippians 3:2).*[Note: The paronomasia of κατατομή and περιτομή used by St. Paul here is one of several instances in which he employs that figure of speech: e.g. μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 3:11).] The circumcision which the Judaizers wished to enforce was to Christians a mere mutilation such as was practised by the idolatrous heathen. The verb κατατέμνειν is used in the Septuagintof incisions forbidden by the Mosaic Law: <i> e.g. </i> κατετέμνοντο κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν (&nbsp;1 Kings 18:28; cf. &nbsp;Leviticus 21:5). In contrast to this, Christians have the true circumcision (&nbsp;Philippians 3:3), not of the flesh but of the heart, purified in Christ from all sin and wickedness. This contrast between circumcision of the flesh and of the spirit occurs in other passages of the [[Pauline]] Epistles, <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Colossians 2:11, &nbsp;Ephesians 2:11. No doubt the Apostle had certain OT passages in mind which use circumcision as a metaphor for purity, <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Leviticus 26:41, &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16, &nbsp;Ezekiel 44:7. </p> <p> Literature.-articles on ‘Circumcision’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> , <i> Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics </i> , <i> Dict. of Christ and the [[Gospels]] </i> , and <i> Jewish Encyclopedia </i> , with Literature there cited; the relevant Commentaries, esp. Sanday-Headlam, <i> Romans 5 </i> ( <i> International Critical [[Commentary]] </i> , 1902); also E. v. Dobschütz, <i> Christian Life in the Primitive Church </i> , Eng. translation, 1904; K. Lake, <i> The Earlier [[Epistles]] of St. Paul </i> , 1911; E. B. Redlich, <i> St. Paul and his Companions </i> , 1913; H. Weinel, <i> St. Paul </i> , Eng. translation, 1906; C. v. Weizsäcker, <i> Apostolic Age </i> , i. 2 [1897], ii. [1895]. </p> <p> Morley Stevenson. </p>

<p> The cutting off all round of the foreskin (the projecting skin in the male member, the emblem of corruption, &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16; &nbsp;Jeremiah 4:4) of males, appointed by God as token of His covenant with Abraham and his seed (&nbsp;Genesis 17:10-14). The usage prevailed, according to [[Herodotus]] (2:104, section 36-37), among the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Syrians. But his statement may refer only to the [[Egyptian]] priests, and those initiated in the mysteries. The Jews alone of the inhabitants of the [[Syrian]] region were circumcised. So, circumcision kept them distinct from uncircumcised [[Canaanite]] pagan around. If the rite existed before Abraham it was then first sanctioned as a token of God's covenant with Abraham and his seed, and particular directions given by God as to the time of its being performed, the eighth day, even though it were a sabbath (&nbsp;John 7:22-23), and the persons to be circumcised, every male, every slave, and (at the Exodus it was added) every male foreigner before he could partake of the [[Passover]] (&nbsp;Genesis 17:12-13; &nbsp;Exodus 12:48). </p> <p> So, the rainbow existed before the flood, but in &nbsp;Genesis 9:13-17 first was made token of the covenant. The testimony of the Egyptian sculptures, mummies, and hieroglyphics, is very doubtful as to the pre-Abrahamic antiquity of circumcision. (See note Genesis 17, Speaker's Commentary.) The Hamite races of Palestine, akin to the Egyptians, as (&nbsp;Judges 14:3) the [[Philistines]] and [[Canaanites]] (the Hivites, Genesis 34), were certainly not circumcised. The Egyptian priests probably adopted the rite when [[Joseph]] was their governor and married to the daughter of the priest of On. The Israelites by the rite, which was associated with the idea of purity, were marked as a whole "kingdom of priests" (&nbsp;Exodus 19:6; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 7:6-7). In &nbsp;Jeremiah 9:25, "I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised: Egypt, and Judah, and Edom," two classes seem distinguished: [[Israel]] circumcised in flesh, but uncircumcised in heart; and the Gentile nations uncircumcised both in flesh and heart. </p> <p> [[Hyrcanus]] first compelled the [[Edomites]] to be circumcised (Josephus, Ant. 13:9, section 1; compare &nbsp;Ezekiel 31:18). Its significance is, the cutting the outside flesh of the organ of generation denotes corruption as inherent in us from birth, and transmitted by our parents, and symbolizes our severance from nature's defilement to a state of consecrated fellowship with God. Jehovah consecrated the nation to Himself; and whatsoever male was not circumcised on the eighth day was liable to be "cut off." Moses had neglected to circumcise his son, owing to Zipporah's repugnance to it, as a rite not generally adopted in the East, even by the descendants of Abraham and Keturah, the Midianites. Therefore he was attacked by some sudden seizure in the resting place for the night, which he and his wife were divinely admonished arose from the neglect. She took a sharp stone or flint (compare margin &nbsp;Joshua 5:2; &nbsp;Joshua 5:8), the implement sanctioned by patriarchal usage as more sacred than metal (as was the Egyptian usage also in preparing mummies), and cut off her son's foreskin, and cast it at Moses' feet, saying, "a bloody husband art thou to me," i.e., by this blood of my child I have recovered thee as my husband, and sealed our union again (&nbsp;Exodus 4:25). </p> <p> The name was given at circumcision, as at baptism (&nbsp;Luke 1:59; &nbsp;Luke 2:21). The painfulness of Old [[Testament]] initiatory rite, as compared with the New Testament sacrament of baptism, marks strongly the contrast between the stern covenant of the law and the loving gospel. Jesus' submission to it betokened His undertaking to fulfill the law in all its requirements, and to suffer its penalty incurred by us. "Oh wherefore bring ye here this holy Child? Such rite befits the sinful, not the clean; Why should this tender [[Infant]] undefiled Be thus espoused in blood, while we have been So gently into covenant beguiled? No keen edged knife our bleeding foreheads scored With the sharp cross of our betrothed Lord: But we belike in quiet wonder smiled. While on our brow the priest, with finger cold, Traced with the hallowed drops the saving sign; While Thou, unsparing of [[Thy]] tears, the old And sterner ritual on [[Thyself]] didst take: [[Meet]] opening for a life like Thine, [[Changing]] the blood to water for our sake." - Whytehead. </p> <p> "Uncircumcised" is used of the lips (&nbsp;Exodus 6:12; &nbsp;Exodus 6:20), the ears (&nbsp;Jeremiah 4:4; &nbsp;Jeremiah 6:10), the heart (&nbsp;Leviticus 26:41; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16; &nbsp;Acts 7:51), in the sense closed by the foreskin of inborn fleshliness; impure, rebellious (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 30:6; &nbsp;Isaiah 52:1). Even the fruit of the Canaanites' trees was called "uncircumcised," i.e. unclean (&nbsp;Leviticus 19:23). Christians "are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body (not merely the foreskins, as in literal circumcision) of the sins of the flesh (i.e. the whole old fleshly nature with its sins) by the circumcision of Christ" (&nbsp;Colossians 2:11; &nbsp;Romans 2:28-29). </p> <p> The reason of the omission of circumcision in the wilderness (&nbsp;Joshua 5:5-6) was, while suffering the penalty of their unbelief the Israelites were practically discovenanted by God, and so were excluded from the sign of the covenant. "The reproach of Egypt" was the taunt of the [[Egyptians]] that God brought them into the wilderness to slay them (&nbsp;Numbers 14:13-16; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 9:23-28); which reproach lay on them so long as they were in danger of being "cut off" in the wilderness as uncircumcised, but was rolled off the younger generation by their circumcision at Gilgal. Paul warned Christians who regarded circumcision as still possessing spiritual virtue, that thereby they made themselves "debtors to do the whole law," and "Christ should profit them nothing" (&nbsp;Galatians 5:2-3; &nbsp;Galatians 5:12). He calls its practisers "the concision," in contrast to the true circumcision (&nbsp;Philippians 3:2-3), a mere flesh cutting. </p> <p> So he resisted the demand that Titus should be circumcised; for, being a Greek, Titus did not fall under the rule of expediency that Jewish born Christians should be circumcised, as Timothy was (Acts 15; &nbsp;Acts 16:1; &nbsp;Acts 16:3; &nbsp;Galatians 2:3-5). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, as social ordinances (no longer religiously significant) in the case of Jews, while the Jewish polity and temple stood. After their overthrow the Jewish usages necessarily ceased. To insist on them for Gentile converts would have been to make them essential to Christianity. To violate them in the case of Jews would have been inconsistent with the charity which in matters indifferent becomes all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:22; Romans 14). The [[Arabians]] circumcised in the 13th year, after Ishmael's example (&nbsp;Genesis 17:25). The Muslims and the Abyssinian Christians practice it still. </p>

<p> Circumcision was a minor surgical operation carried out on baby boys to remove the foreskin from the penis. It was practised among various ancient Near Eastern peoples and had certain health benefits, but for the Israelites it had, in addition, a special religious significance. </p> <p> '''Meaning of circumcision''' </p> <p> The first person God commanded to be circumcised was Abraham. God had made a covenant with Abraham to be his God, to give him a multitude of descendants who would be his special people, and to give those people [[Canaan]] as their homeland. Circumcision was the sign of that covenant (&nbsp;Genesis 17:1-11; see [[Covenant]] ). </p> <p> As a permanent mark in the body, circumcision symbolized the permanency of God’s covenant with his people. Because of its significance for personal cleanliness, it symbolized also the purity that the covenant demanded of them. God required that Abraham, his household, and all his descendants throughout future generations be circumcised if they were to be his people according to the covenant (&nbsp;Genesis 17:9-13; &nbsp;Acts 7:8). </p> <p> Abraham believed God’s promises and acted upon his commands. His circumcision sealed his faith and demonstrated his obedience (&nbsp;Romans 4:11). The covenant had originated in God’s grace, but the Israelites had to respond with faithful obedience if they were to enjoy the covenant’s blessing. If a man was not circumcised, he and his household were cut off from the covenant (&nbsp;Genesis 17:14). </p> <p> Circumcision was usually carried out when the child was eight days old (&nbsp;Genesis 17:12; &nbsp;Leviticus 12:3; &nbsp;Luke 1:59; &nbsp;Luke 2:21; &nbsp;Philippians 3:5). But during Israel’s years in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan, the people failed to circumcise their new-born children. They neglected the first requirement of the covenant. Therefore, before they could take possession of the land promised to them in the covenant, they had to circumcise all who had been born during the previous forty years (&nbsp;Joshua 5:2-9). </p> <p> '''Jewish misunderstandings''' </p> <p> If circumcision was a sign of cleanness, uncircumcision was a sign of uncleanness (&nbsp;Exodus 6:12; &nbsp;Leviticus 26:41; &nbsp;Isaiah 52:1). Israelites prided themselves that, because they were circumcised, they were God’s people. They called themselves ‘the circumcised’ (or ‘the circumcision’; &nbsp;Galatians 2:7-8; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:11; &nbsp;Colossians 4:11), and despised the Gentiles as ‘the uncircumcised’ (&nbsp;1 Samuel 14:6; &nbsp;1 Samuel 17:26; &nbsp;1 Samuel 31:4; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:11). </p> <p> In their self-satisfaction the Israelites forgot that circumcision was also intended to be a sign of obedience (&nbsp;Genesis 17:10). Therefore, circumcised Israelites who were disobedient to God were no better in God’s sight than uncircumcised Gentiles. Though physically circumcised, spiritually they were uncircumcised, that is, unclean in God’s sight (&nbsp;Jeremiah 9:25-26; &nbsp;Acts 7:51; &nbsp;Romans 2:25; cf. &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 30:6). In fact, the uncircumcised who obeyed God was more acceptable to God than the circumcised who disobeyed him (&nbsp;Romans 2:26-27). </p> <p> Israelites believed also that the only people who were God’s people were those who kept the law of Moses. Since the law commanded circumcision, they believed that a person had to be circumcised to be saved (&nbsp;Leviticus 12:3; &nbsp;John 7:23; &nbsp;Acts 15:1; &nbsp;Acts 15:5; &nbsp;Acts 21:21; see [[Law]] ). </p> <p> But circumcision had never been a requirement for salvation. The law of Moses set out regulations for those who had already become God’s people as a result of the covenant he had made with Abraham. The law was not a means of salvation, and neither was circumcision. Abraham was saved by faith, and that occurred before the law was given and at a time when he was still uncircumcised. He received circumcision later, as an outward sign of the inward faith that he already had (&nbsp;Romans 4:1-2; &nbsp;Romans 4:10-11; &nbsp;Galatians 3:17-18). </p> <p> Abraham may be the physical father of the Israelites, but more importantly he is the spiritual father of all who are saved by faith, whether or not they are Israelites and whether or not they are circumcised (&nbsp;Romans 4:11-12). The true Israelites, the true people of God, are not those who have received circumcision, but those who have received inward cleansing from sin (&nbsp;Romans 2:28-29; &nbsp;Galatians 6:15). </p> <p> '''No longer necessary''' </p> <p> Circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, and that covenant reached its fulfilment in Jesus Christ. Through him, the one descendant of Abraham to whom all the promises pointed, people of all nations can receive the blessings of God’s salvation (&nbsp;Genesis 12:1-3; &nbsp;Luke 1:54-55; &nbsp;Luke 1:72-73; &nbsp;Romans 4:16-17; &nbsp;Galatians 3:6-9; &nbsp;Galatians 3:16; &nbsp;Galatians 3:29). Now that Christ has come, the legal requirements of the former covenant no longer apply (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:15; &nbsp;Colossians 2:14-15). More than that, if people try to win God’s favour by keeping those legal requirements, they cannot be saved (&nbsp;Galatians 5:2-4). People are saved only through faith in Christ, regardless of whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised (&nbsp;Romans 3:30; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:19; &nbsp;Galatians 5:6). </p> <p> For Christian, ‘circumcision’ is spiritual, not physical. It is the cleansing from sin and uncleanness that comes through Jesus Christ (&nbsp;Colossians 2:11-12). Those so cleansed are the true people of God, the true ‘circumcision’ (&nbsp;Philippians 3:3; cf. &nbsp;Romans 2:28-29). </p>

<p> Removal of the foreskin or prepuce of the male genital organ, whether for religious reasons or as a purely hygienic measure. Circumcision was practiced in the ancient Near East by the western Semites, including the Ammonites, Moabites, Hebrews, and Edomites. The procedure was rejected by the east Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia, the Canaanites, and the Shechemites. </p> <p> <i> The Old Testament </i> . The special meaning of circumcision for the people of Israel is found in &nbsp;Genesis 17 and occurs within the context of God's renewed covenant promise to Abraham, following the initial contractual relationship (&nbsp; Genesis 15 ). On the second occasion, God again promised lands and offspring to the still childless patriarch, and gave him the sign of circumcision, which was to be imposed upon Abraham and his descendants as a token of covenant membership (&nbsp;Genesis 17:10 ). For the Israelites circumcision was a religious rite and was intended to mark the beginning of covenant solidarity for Abraham's descendants rather than describing the historical origins of the procedure. </p> <p> While Abraham and his household were circumcised forthwith, the Lord's command required that hereafter male infants were to be circumcised on the eighth day of life. This in itself was distinctively different from contemporary pagan practices, which seem to have associated the rite either with puberty or with approaching marriage. </p> <p> From the beginning sharp knives made from chipped flints were used for the resection, since flint maintained a superior edge. For this reason the retention of flint instruments for purposes of circumcision endured for centuries after the beginning of the Iron Age (ca. 1200 b.c.). Traditionally the head of the household administered the rite in Israel, but on special occasions a woman might officiate (&nbsp;Exodus 4:24-26 ). </p> <p> In the Mosaic law, a spiritual interpretation was imposed upon the procedure when the Israelites were instructed to circumcise their hearts (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16 ). This demand required them to recognize that, in addition to bearing the physical mark of covenant membership, they were also under obligation to manifest specific spiritual qualities of commitment and obedience to the Lord's will. Jeremiah (4:4) made precisely the same demands upon his contemporaries because of their evil deeds, which were the very opposite of what God required. For him, circumcision entailed consecration to the Lord and to the high moral ideals of the covenant, of which holiness was representative (&nbsp;Leviticus 11:44 ). A true covenant member would be motivated by love of God (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 6:5 ) and one's neighbor (&nbsp;Leviticus 19:18 ). </p> <p> <i> The New Testament </i> . When Greek paganism threatened to swamp [[Judaism]] some two centuries before Christ was born, circumcision became a distinctive indication of Jewish fidelity to the covenant. Thus John the [[Baptist]] was circumcised (&nbsp;Luke 1:59 ), as were both Jesus (&nbsp;Luke 2:21 ) and Saul of [[Tarsus]] (&nbsp;Philippians 3:5 ), on the eighth day of life, making them accredited members of the covenant people. But Jesus was already casting doubt on the preeminence of the rite when he stated that his healings made people completely whole (&nbsp;John 7:22-23 ). [[Stephen]] reinforced this by accusing contemporary Judaism of the very tendencies that Jeremiah had condemned (&nbsp;Acts 7:51 ). Although in the period of the primitive church the believers maintained Jewish religious traditions, problems began to arise when the gospel was preached among Gentiles. Christians who had come from a Jewish background felt that Gentiles should become Jews through circumcision before being able to experience Christ's saving work. </p> <p> This attitude rested partly upon the contemporary notion that circumcision was a necessary part of salvation, as well as being its effective guarantee. Others repudiated this view of salvation by works, particularly when uncircumcised Gentiles received God's outpouring of the Holy Spirit (&nbsp;Acts 10:44-48 ). They saw that the prophecies of Ezekiel, in which the Lord promised a clean heart and an indwelling of his Holy Spirit (36:25-27), and the dramatic proclamation of Joel that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (2:28; cf. &nbsp;Acts 2:17 ), were now being fulfilled. The spiritual significance of circumcision had been achieved by divine grace without the performance of the physical rite, thus making the latter obsolete. </p> <p> Not all Jews rejoiced at their badge of pride and privilege being set aside (&nbsp;Philippians 3:4-6 ), and consequently a group of Pharisaic Jews known as the "circumcision party" proclaimed at [[Antioch]] (&nbsp;Acts 15:1-5 ) the necessity of circumcision for salvation. Peter opposed these Judaizers, affirming the saving efficacy of faith in Christ alone (&nbsp;Acts 15:8-11 ), and denying the necessity of circumcision for the Gentiles. </p> <p> To resolve the issue Paul and Barnabas consulted with the elders in Jerusalem, where it was agreed that Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised (&nbsp;Acts 15:13-21 ). Paul was indifferent to the Judaizers' vaunted claims of "circumcision spirituality, " and although he circumcised the partly Jewish Timothy (&nbsp;Acts 16:3 ) to facilitate his mission, he opposed circumcision for the Gentile Titus (&nbsp;Galatians 2:3 ). In Galatia, Paul resisted strenuously the Judaizers' doctrine of righteousness by works, which he stigmatized as a "different gospel" (&nbsp;Galatians 1:6-7 ), and reviled the proponents as "dogs" and "evil workers." </p> <p> This controversy was to follow Paul throughout his ministry. To counter the Judaizers' position he conceded that, while circumcision was of great value for the old covenant, it carried no significance for the "covenants of promise" (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:12 ). What was fundamentally important in God's sight was being a "new creation" (&nbsp;Galatians 6:15 ) and keeping God's commandments (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:19 ), apart from which circumcision or uncircumcision are meaningless, and allowing faith to work through love (&nbsp;Galatians 5:6 ). Paul taught resolutely that, in the new covenant, salvation came by grace and faith, not works (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:8 ). For the believer, circumcision or the lack of it was a matter of total indifference. What really counted was the faith and obedience that have always characterized covenants between God and humankind. </p> <p> R. K. Harrison </p> <p> <i> See also </i> Judaizers </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . D. Jacobson, <i> The Social Background of the Old Testament </i> ; R. Patai, <i> Sex and Family in the Bible </i> ; R. de Vaux, <i> [[Ancient]] Israel: Its Life and Institutions </i> . </p>

<p> <strong> CIRCUMCISION </strong> . This rite is not of [[Israelite]] origin; there are some good grounds for the belief that it came to the Israelites from the Egyptians. The fact of a flint being used for its performance (&nbsp; Joshua 5:2-3 ) witnesses to the immense antiquity of the rite. Its original meaning and object are hidden in obscurity, though the theory that it was regarded as a necessary preliminary to marriage has much to commend it. Among the Israelites it became the sign of the Covenant People; whoever was uncircumcised could not partake of the hopes of the nation, nor could such join in the worship of Jahweh; he could not be reckoned an Israelite (&nbsp; Genesis 17:14 ). Not only was every Israelite required to undergo circumcision, but even every slave acquired by the Israelites from foreign lands had likewise to be circumcised (&nbsp; Genesis 17:12-13 ); according to &nbsp; Exodus 12:48-49 even a stranger sojourning in the midst of Israel had to submit to the rite, at all events if he wished to join in the celebration of the Passover. Originally male children were not circumcised in Israel (cf. &nbsp; Joshua 5:5-9 ), but boys had to undergo it on arriving at the age of puberty; but in later days the Law commanded that every male child should be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (&nbsp; Leviticus 12:3 ). </p> <p> In the OT there are two accounts as to the occasion on which circumcision was first practised by the Israelites; according to &nbsp;Genesis 17:10-14 the command was given to Abraham to observe the rite as a sign of the covenant between God and him, as representing the nation that was to be; while according to &nbsp; Exodus 4:25-26 its origin is connected with Moses. It was the former that, in later days, was always looked upon as its real origin; and thus the rite acquired a purely religious character, and it has been one of the distinguishing marks of Judaism ever since the Exile. The giving of a name at circumcision (&nbsp; Luke 1:59; &nbsp; Luke 2:21 ) did not belong to the rite originally, but this has been the custom among Jews ever since the return from the Captivity, and probably even before. </p> <p> In the early Church St. Paul had a vigorous warfare to wage against his Judaizing antagonists, and it became a vital question whether the Gentiles could be received into the Christian community without circumcision. As is well known, St. Paul gained the day, but it was this question of circumcision, which involved of course the observance of the entire Mosaic Law, that was the rock on which union between the early Christians and the Judaizing Christians split. [[Henceforth]] the Jewish and the Christian communities drifted further and further apart. </p> <p> Circumcision in its symbolic meaning is found fairly frequently in the OT; an ‘uncircumcised heart’ is one from which disobedience to God has not been ‘cut off’ (see &nbsp;Leviticus 26:41 , &nbsp; Deuteronomy 10:16; &nbsp; Deuteronomy 30:6 ); the expression ‘uncircumcised lips’ (&nbsp; Exodus 6:12; &nbsp; Exodus 6:30 ) would be equivalent to what is said of Moses, as one who ‘spake unadvisedly with his lips’ (&nbsp; Psalms 106:33 , cf. &nbsp; Isaiah 6:5 ); in &nbsp; Jeremiah 6:10 we have the expression ‘their ear is uncircumcised’ in reference to such as will not hearken to the word of the Lord. A like figurative use is found in the NT ( <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; Colossians 2:11; &nbsp; Colossians 2:13 ). </p> <p> W. O. E. Oesterley. </p>

&nbsp;Leviticus 9:3&nbsp;Joshua 5:3 <p> Origin Several theories seek to explain and describe the nature and origin of circumcision: (1) initiatory rite—before marriage (as the [[Shechemites]] in &nbsp;Genesis 34:14-24 ) or at puberty; (2) physical hygiene—to prevent the attraction or transmission of diseases; (3) tribal mark of distinction; (4) rite of entry into the community of faith. In the Old Testament the origin of Israelite practice was founded upon the circumcision of Abraham as a sign of the covenant between God and the patriarch (&nbsp;Genesis 17:10 ). [[Physical]] hygiene and tribal distinction resulted from circumcision, but the aspect of covenant sign which marked one's entry into the community of Yahwistic faith is the focus in the [[Hebrew]] Scriptures. </p> <p> Ancient Near Eastern background Several Semitic and non-Semitic peoples practiced circumcision according to biblical and other sources. Jeremiah depicts Egyptians, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and the desert-dwelling Arabians as circumcised peoples (&nbsp;Jeremiah 9:25-26; compare &nbsp;Ezekiel 32:17-32 ). On the other hand Philistines, Assyrians, and [[Babylonians]] are counted among the uncircumcised. That the Canaanites are not mentioned in either regard is noteworthy. Evidence of their perspective of circumcision is lacking. In modern times the practice exists among Mohammedan Arabs and many African and Australian tribes, as well as much of Western society. </p> <p> Israelite practice The circumcision of Abraham and the male members of his entourage followed the repetition of the covenant promise (see &nbsp;Genesis 15:1 ) of land and national descendants (&nbsp;Genesis 17:1 ). Isaac, Ishmael, and other descendants of the patriarchal family were circumcised (&nbsp;Genesis 17:23-27 ). Moses' circumcision took place only immediately prior to his confrontation with the [[Pharaoh]] (&nbsp;Exodus 4:24-26 ). The tie between land and circumcision in the covenant is reflected in the purification of Israelites at [[Gilgal]] following the entry of Israel into the [[Promised]] Land (&nbsp;Joshua 5:2-9 ). Passover was limited to those who had been circumcised (&nbsp;Exodus 12:48; &nbsp;Joshua 5:10-11 ). </p> <p> Ethical implications of circumcision can be observed in the metaphorical usage of the term. The uncircumcised are those who are insensitive to God's leadership. Circumcision of the heart implies total devotion to God (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16; &nbsp;Jeremiah 4:4 ); however, the uncircumcised ear cannot hear so as to respond to the Lord (&nbsp;Jeremiah 6:10 ); and the uncircumcised of lips cannot speak (&nbsp;Exodus 6:12 ). Circumcision was therefore an external sign of an internal singularity of devotion of Yahweh. </p> <p> Circumcision and Christianity [[Controversy]] arose in the early church (&nbsp;Acts 10-15 ) as to whether Gentile converts need be circumcised. First century A.D. Jews disdained the uncircumcised. The leadership of the apostle Paul in the [[Jerusalem]] [[Council]] was crucial in the settlement of the dispute: circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship. Circumcision of the heart via repentance and faith were the only requirements (&nbsp;Romans 4:9-12; &nbsp;Galatians 2:15-21 ). </p> <p> R. Dennis Cole </p>

<p> A cutting around, because in this rite the foreskin was cut away. God commanded Abraham to use circumcision, as a sign of his covenant; and in obedience to this order, the patriarch, at ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised, as also his son Ishmael, and all the male of his household, &nbsp;Genesis 17:10-12 . God repeated the precept to Moses, and ordered that all who intended to partake of the paschal sacrifice should receive circumcision; and that this rite should be performed on children on the eighth day after their birth, &nbsp;Exodus 12:44 &nbsp; Leviticus 12:3 &nbsp; John 7:22 . The Jews have always been very exact in observing this ceremony, and it appears that they did not neglect it when in Egypt, &nbsp;Joshua 5:1-9 . </p> <p> All the other nations sprung from Abraham besides the Hebrews, as the Ishmaelites, the Arabians, etc., also retained the practice of circumcision. At the present day it is an essential rite of the Mohammedan religion, and though not enjoined in the Koran, prevails wherever this religion is found. It is also practiced in some form among the Abyssinians, and various tribes of South Africa, as it was by the ancient Egyptians. But there is no proof that it was practiced upon infants, or became a general, national, or religious custom, before God enjoined it upon Abraham. </p> <p> The Jews esteemed uncircumcision as a very great impurity; and the greatest offence they could receive was to be called "uncircumcised." Paul frequently mentions the Gentiles under this term, not opprobriously, &nbsp;Romans 2.26 , in opposition to the Jews, whom he names "the circumcision," etc. </p> <p> Disputes as to the observances of this rite by the converts from heathenism to Christianity occasioned much trouble in the early church, &nbsp;Acts 15:1-41; and it was long before it was well understood that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature," &nbsp;Galatians 5:2,3 &nbsp; 6:15 . </p> <p> The true circumcision is that of the heart; and those are "uncircumcised in heart and ears," who will not obey the law of God nor embrace the gospel of Christ. </p>

<p> There is somewhat particularly interesting in this Jewish rite. And as the appointment is from God, it demands suitable attention for the proper apprehension of it. It evidently appears, from the first moment of its institution, that the ordination was with an eye to Christ, for the covenant of redemption by Jesus had this token or seal, and it is expressly said, "that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promise made unto the fathers." (&nbsp;Romans 15:8) And by the ceasing of this Jewish rite, and the institution of Baptism to supersede it, it should seem, that it was understood by Christ's submitting to this act, he thereby became debtor to the whole law, and fulfilled it: and hence, all his redeemed not only are freed from it, but, in fact, they are prohibited the observance. Paul the apostle was so earnest on this point, that he declared to the Galatian church that an attention to circumcision virtually denied the covenant. "Behold, I Paul (said he) say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing." (&nbsp;Galatians 5:2) And the reason seems to have been this: The seed of Abraham, by the act of circumcision, declared that they were looking for and waiting to the coming of the promised Seed, in whom all the families of the faithful were to be blessed. To be circumcised, therefore, after Christ was come, was in effect denying that Christ Was come, and by that act saying, We are looking for his coming. Hence, all the faithful posterity of Abraham were so tenacious of observing the rite of circumcision before Christ came, and so determined not to observe it after. And also, this other cause renders circumcision improper. The person circumcised, by that act, declared himself under obligations to fulfil the whole law. And hence Christ submitted to it with this view. But his redeemed are justified in Him, and therefore, to undergo circumcision would imply a defect in this justification. "I testify (said Paul,) again, to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." (&nbsp;Galatians 5:3) This, then, is the proper apprehension concerning the rite of circumcision. </p>

<li> But the promises made to Abraham included the promise of redemption (&nbsp;Galatians 3:14 ), a promise which has come upon us. The covenant with Abraham was a dispensation or a specific form of the covenant of grace, and circumcision was a sign and seal of that covenant. It had a spiritual meaning. It signified purification of the heart, inward circumcision effected by the Spirit (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16; &nbsp;30:6; &nbsp;Ezekiel 44:7; &nbsp;Acts 7:51; &nbsp;Romans 2:28; &nbsp;Colossians 2:11 ). Circumcision as a symbol shadowing forth sanctification by the Holy Spirit has now given way to the symbol of baptism (q.v.). But the truth embodied in both ordinances is ever the same, the removal of sin, the sanctifying effects of grace in the heart. <p> Under the Jewish dispensation, church and state were identical. No one could be a member of the one without also being a member of the other. Circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in both. Every circumcised person bore thereby evidence that he was one of the chosen people, a member of the church of God as it then existed, and consequently also a member of the Jewish commonwealth. </p> <div> <p> '''Copyright Statement''' These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton [[M.A., DD]] Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> '''Bibliography Information''' Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'CircuMcIsion'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/c/circumcision.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

<p> '''Circumcision.''' Circumcision was peculiarly, though not exclusively, a [[Jewish]] rite. It was enjoined upon Abraham, the father of the nation, by God, at the institution and as the token of the covenant, which assured to him and his descendants, the promise of the [[Messiah]] . Genesis 17. It was, thus, made a necessary condition of Jewish nationality. </p> <p> Every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old, &nbsp;Leviticus 12:3, on pain of death. The biblical notice of the rite describes it as distinctively Jewish; so that, in the New Testament, "the circumcision," and "the uncircumcision," are frequently used as synonyms for the Jews and the Gentiles. </p> <p> The rite has been found to prevail extensively in both ancient and modern times. Though Mohammed did not enjoin circumcision in the Koran, he was circumcised himself, according to the custom of his country; and circumcision is now as common among the Mohammedans as among the Jews. </p> <p> The process of restoring a circumcised person to his natural condition by a surgical operation was sometimes undergone. Some of the Jews in the time of [[Antiochus]] Epiphanes, wishing to assimilate themselves to the heathen around them, "made themselves uncircumcised." Against having recourse to this practice, from an excessive anti-Judaistic tendency, St. Paul cautions the Corinthians. &nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:18. </p>

<p> '''Circumcision.''' A Jewish rite which Jehovah enjoined upon Abraham, the father of the Israelites, as the token of the covenant, which assured to him the promise of the Messiah. &nbsp;Genesis 17:1-27. It was thus made a necessary condition of Jewish citizenship. Every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old. &nbsp;Leviticus 12:3, on pain of death. The biblical notice of the rite describes it as distinctively Jewish; so that in the New Testament "the circumcision" and "the uncircumcision" are frequently used as synonyms for the Jews and the Gentiles. The rite has been found to prevail extensively in both ancient and modern times. Some of the Jews in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, wishing to assimilate themselves to the heathen around them, "made themselves uncircumcised." Against having recourse to this practice, from an excessive anü-Judaistic tendency, Paul cautioned the Corinthians. &nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:18. </p>

<p> ''''' sûr ''''' - ''''' kum ''''' - ''''' sizh´un ''''' ( מול , <i> ''''' mūl ''''' </i> , מולת , <i> ''''' mūlōth ''''' </i> ; περιτομή , <i> ''''' peritomḗ ''''' </i> ): The removal of the foreskin is a custom that has prevailed, and prevails, among many races in different parts of the world - in America, Africa and Australia. It was in vogue among the western Semites - H ebrews, Arabians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Egyptians, but was unknown among the Semites of the Euphrates. In Canaan the Philistines were an exception, for the term "uncircumcised" is constantly used in connection with them. [[Generally]] speaking, the rite of circumcision was a precondition of the enjoyment of certain political and religious privileges (&nbsp;Exodus 12:48; &nbsp;Ezekiel 44:9 ); and in view of the fact that in the ancient world religion played such an important role in life, it may be assumed that circumcision, like many other strange customs whose original significance is no longer known, originated in connection with religion. Before enumerating the different theories which have been advanced with regard to the origin and original significance of circumcision, it may be of advantage to consider some of the principal references to the rite in the Old Testament. </p> 1. Circumcision in the Old Testament <p> In the account of the institution of the covenant between [[Yahweh]] and Abraham which Priestly Code (P) gives (Gen 17), circumcision is looked upon as the ratification of the agreement. Yahweh undertook to be the God of Abraham and of his descendants. Abraham was to be the father of a multitude of nations and the founder of a line of kings. He and his descendants were to inherit Canaan. The agreement Thus formed was permanent; Abraham's posterity should come within the scope of it. But it was necessary to inclusion in the covenant that every male child should be circumcised on the 8th day. A foreigner who had attached himself as a slave to a Hebrew household had to undergo the rite - the punishment for its non-fulfilment being death or perhaps excommunication. According to &nbsp;Exodus 12:48 (also P) no stranger could take part in the celebration of the Passover unless he had been circumcised. In the Book of Josh (&nbsp; Exodus 5:2-9 ) we read that the Israelites were circumcised at Gilgal ("Rolling"), and Thus the "reproach of Egypt" was "rolled away." Apparently circumcision in the case of the Hebrews was prohibited during the Egyptian period - circumcision being a distinctive mark of the ruling race. It is noticeable that flint knives were used for the purpose. This use of an obsolete instrument is one of many proofs of conservatism in religion. According to the strange and obscure account of the circumcision by Zipporah of her eldest son (&nbsp;Exodus 4:25 ) the performance of the rite in the case of the son apparently possesses a vicarious value, for thereby Moses becomes a "bridegroom of blood." The marriage bond is ratified by the rite of blood (see 4 below). But it is possible that the author's meaning is that owing to the fact that Moses had not been circumcised (the "reproach of Egypt") he was not fit to enter the matrimonial estate (see 3 below). </p> 2. Theories of Origin <p> The different theories with regard to the origin of circumcision may be arranged under four heads: (1) Herodotus (ii.37), in dealing with circumcision among the Egyptians, suggests that it was a sanitary operation. But all suggestions of a secular, i.e. non-religious, origin to the rite, fail to do justice to the place and importance of religion in the life of primitive man. </p> <p> (2) It was a tribal mark. Tattooed marks frequently answered the purpose, although they may have been originally charms. The tribal mark enabled one member of the tribe to recognize another and Thus avoid injuring or slaying a fellow-tribesman. It also enabled the tribal deity to recognize a member of the tribe which was under his special protection. A mark was placed on [[Cain]] to indicate that he was under the special protection of Yahweh (&nbsp;Genesis 4:15 ). It has been suggested, in the light of &nbsp;Isaiah 44:5 the Revised Version, margin, that the employer's mark was engraved (tattooed) on the slave's hand. The prophet represents Jews as inscribing on their hands that they belong to Yahweh. The walls of Jerusalem are engraved on Yahweh's palms (&nbsp; Isaiah 49:16 ). On the other hand "cuttings in the flesh" are prohibited in &nbsp;Leviticus 19:28 because they were common in the case of the non-Jewish religions. Such tattooed marks might be made in conspicuous places when it was necessary that they should be easily seen, but there might be reason for secrecy so that the marks might be known only to the members of the tribe in question. </p> <p> (3) It was a rite which celebrated the coming of age of the person. It signified the attainment of puberty and of the right to marry and to enjoy full civic privileges. </p> <p> (4) As human sacrifices began to be done away with, the sacrifice of the most easily removed portion of the anatomy provided a vicarious offering. </p> <p> (5) It was a sacramental operation. "The shedding of blood" was necessary to the validity of any covenant between tribes or individuals. The rite of blood signifies the exchange of blood on the part of the contracting parties, and therefore the establishment of physical affinity between them. An alliance based on blood-relationship was inviolable. In the same way the tribal god was supposed to share in the blood of the sacrificed animal, and a sacred bond was established between him and the tribe. It is not quite obvious why circumcision should be necessary in connection with such a ceremony. But it may be pointed out that the process of generation excited the wonder and awe of primitive man. The prosperity of the tribe depended on the successful issue of the marriage bond, and a part of the body which had so much to do with the continuation and numerical strength of the tribe would naturally be fixed upon in connection with the covenant of blood. In confirmation of the last explanation it is urged that in the case of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham circumcision was the rite that ratified the agreement. In opposition to (3) it has been urged that among the Hebrews circumcision was performed in infancy - when the child was 8 days old. But this might have been an innovation among the Hebrews, due to ignorance of the original significance of the rite. If circumcision conferred upon the person circumcised the right to the enjoyment of the blessings connected with membership in the tribe it was natural that parents should be anxious that such an initiatory act should be performed early in life. The question of adult and infant baptism is capable of similar explanation. When we examine explanations (2), (3), (4), (5), we find that they are really different forms of the same theory. There can be no doubt that circumcision was originally a religions act. Membership in the tribe, entrance upon the rights of citizenship, participation in the religious practices of the tribe - these privileges are interdependent. Anyone who had experienced the rite of blood stood within the scope of the covenant which existed between the tribe and the tribal god, and enjoyed all the privileges of tribal society. It is easily understood why the historian carefully relates the circumcision of the Israelites by Joshua on their arrival in Canaan. It was necessary, in view of the possible intermingling of the conquerors and the conquered, that the distinctive marks of the Abrahamic covenant should be preserved (&nbsp;Joshua 5:3 ). </p> 3. [[Spiritual]] Significance <p> In &nbsp;Jeremiah 9:25 and &nbsp; Deuteronomy 30:6 we find the spiritual significance of circumcision. A prophet like Jeremiah was not likely to attach much importance to an external act like circumcision. He bluntly tells his countrymen that they are no better than Egyptians, Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites. They are uncircumcised in heart. Paul uses the term <i> concision </i> for this outward circumcision unaccompanied by any spiritual change (&nbsp; Philippians 3:2 ). The question of circumcision occasioned a protracted strife among the early Christians. Judaizing Christians argued for the necessity of circumcision. It was a reminiscence of the unrelenting particularism which had sprung up during the prolonged oppression of the Greek and Roman period. According to their view salvation was of the Jews and for the Jews. It was necessary to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul consented to circumcision in the case of Timothy "because of the Jews" (&nbsp;Acts 16:3 ). But he saw that a principle was at stake and in most of his epistles he points out the sheer futility of the contention of the Judaizers. (See commentaries on Romans and Galatians.) </p> 4. Figurative Uses <p> In a few suggestive passages we find a figurative application of the term. For three years after the settlement in Canaan the "fruit of the land" was to be considered as "uncircumcised" (&nbsp;Leviticus 19:23 ), i.e. it was the property of the Baalim, the gods of Palestine The fruit of the fourth year belonged to Yahweh. Moses with characteristic humility describes himself as a man of "uncircumcised lips" (&nbsp;Exodus 6:30 ). Jeremiah charges his contemporaries with having their ear uncircumcised (&nbsp;Jeremiah 6:10 ) and their heart (&nbsp;Jeremiah 9:26 ). "An uncircumcised heart is one which is, as it were, closed in, and so impervious to good influences and good impressions, just as an uncircumcised ear (&nbsp;Jeremiah 6:10 ) is an ear which, from the same cause, hears imperfectly; and uncircumcised lips (compare &nbsp;Exodus 6:12 , &nbsp;Exodus 6:30 ) are lips which open and speak with difficulty" (Driver on &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:16 ). </p>

<p> The history of Jewish Circumcision lies on the surface of the Old Testament. Abraham received the rite from Jehovah, Moses established it as a national ordinance, and Joshua carried it into effect before the Israelites entered the land of Canaan. Males only were subjected to the operation, and it was to be performed on the eighth day of the child's life: foreign slaves also were forced to submit to it, on entering an Israelites family. Those who are unacquainted with other sources of information on the subject besides the Scriptures might easily suppose that the rite was original with Abraham, characteristic of his seed, and practiced among those nations only who had learned it from them. This, however, appears not to have been the case. </p> <p> First of all, the Egyptians were a circumcised people. It has been alleged by some writers that this was not true of the whole nation, but of the priests only. A great preponderance of argument, however, appears to us to prove that the rite was universal among the old Egyptians, as long as their native institutions flourished; although there is no question that, under Persian and Greek rule, it gradually fell into disuse, and was retained chiefly by the priests and by those who desired to cultivate ancient wisdom. </p> <p> The Colchians, who, according to Herodotus, were a colony from Egypt, learned the practice from the Egyptians, as also did the savage Troglodytes of Africa. Herodotus, moreover, tells us that the Ethiopians were also circumcised; and he was in doubt whether they had learned the rite from the Egyptians, or the Egyptians from them. By the Ethiopians we must understand him to mean the inhabitants of Meroe or Sennaar. In the present day the Coptic Church continues to practice it; the Abyssinian Christians do the same; and that it was not introduced among the latter with a Judaical Christianity appears from their performing it upon both sexes. Oldendorp describes the rite as widely spread through Western Africa—16° on each side of the Line—even among natives that are not Muhammadan. In later times it has been ascertained that it is practiced by the Kafir nations in South Africa, whom Prichard supposes to form 'a great part of the native population of Africa to the southward of the Equator.' </p> <p> How far the rite was extended through the Syro-Arabian races is uncertain, but there can be no doubt that it was widely diffused among them. The Philistines, in the days of Saul, were however uncircumcised; so also, says Herodotus, were all the Phoenicians who had intercourse with the Greeks. That the Canaanites, in the days of Jacob, were not all circumcised, is plain from the affair of Dinah and Shechem. The story of Zipporah , who did not circumcise her son until fear came over her, that Jehovah would slay her husband Moses, proves that the family of Jethro, the Midianite, had no fixed rule about it, although the Midianites are generally regarded as children of Abraham by Keturah. On the other hand, we have the distinct testimony of Josephus, that the Ishmaelite Arabs, inhabiting the district of Nabataea, were circumcised after their thirteenth year. The fact that the books of Moses, of Joshua, and of Judges, never bestow the epithet uncircumcised as a reproach on any of the seven nations of Canaan, any more than on the Moabites or Ammonites, the Amalekites, the Midianites, or other inland tribes with whom they came into conflict, taken in connection with the circumstance, that as soon as the Philistines became prominent in the narrative, after the birth of Samson, this epithet is of rather common occurrence, and that the bringing back, as a trophy, the foreskins of slain enemies, never occurs except against the Philistines (1 Samuel 18), would lead us to conclude, that while the Philistines, like the Sidonians and the other maritime Syrian nations known to the Greeks, were wholly strangers to the practice, it was common among the Canaanites and all the more inland tribes. </p> <p> How far the rite of circumcision spread over the south-west of Arabia no definite record subsists. The silence of the Koran confirms the statement of Abulfedâ, that the custom is older than Mohammed, who, it would appear, in no respect regarded it as a religious rite. Nevertheless it has extended itself with the Mohammedan faith, as though it were a positive ordinance. Pocock cites a tradition, which ascribes to Mohammed the words—'Circumcision is an ordinance for men and honorable in women.' This extension of the rite to the other sex might, in itself, satisfy us that it did not come to those nations from Abraham and Ishmael. We have already seen that Abyssinian circumcision has the same peculiarity: so that it is every way probable that Southern Arabia had the rite from the same source or influence as Ethiopia. In fact, the very closest relations are known to have subsisted between the nations on the opposite coasts of the Red Sea. </p> <p> The moral meaning of the word 'uncircumcised' was a natural result of its having been made legally essential to Hebrew faith. 'Uncircumcised in heart and ears' was a metaphor to which a prophet would be carried, as necessarily as a Christian teacher to such phrases as 'unbaptized in soul,' or 'washed by regeneration.' If, however, we try to take a step farther back still, and ask why this ordinance in particular was selected, as so eminently essential to the seed of Abraham, we probably find that we have reached a point at which we must be satisfied with knowing the fact without the reason. Every external ordinance, as for instance baptism, must have more or less that is arbitrary in it. It is, however, abundantly plain that circumcision was not intended to separate the Jews from other nations generally, for it could not do so: and, least of all, from the Egyptians, as the words in Joshua show. Rather, it was a well known and already understood symbol of purity. </p>