CIRCUMCISION (מוּל֒, H4576, מוּלָה, H4581; περιτομή, G4364). The Eng. word is derived from the Lat. and means literally “to cut around.” The Biblical reference is to an operation whereby the foreskin (prepuce), a covering of skin on the head of the penis of the male, is removed by surgery. Today most male babies born in the western world undergo this simple operation in infancy because of hygienic considerations.
In Biblical times circumcision was practiced widely among the Western Semites, including the Hebrews. Numerous references suggest that circumcision became a mark of racial and cultural pride. The Philistines and later the Greeks were derisively referred to as the “uncircumcised” (Judg 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam 14:6; 17:26; 2 Sam 1:20; 1 Chron 10:4; Acts 15:1; Gal 5:1-12). The Hebrews seem to have realized that circumcision promotes cleanliness. In time this was spiritualized, suggesting that the circumcised were holy while the uncircumcised were spiritually corrupt. Further, circumcision appears to have had a function among the Jews analogous to Christian baptism. It was a sign or symbol of purification and commitment to the covenantal relationship with God. For some rabbinical thinkers it became more than a symbol; it became a necessity. One had to be circumcised to become a member of the covenant community. A cause and effect relationship was visualized. This belief was carried over into the Early Church and became a major point of contention in its first decades. Paul was plagued by this issue throughout his ministry (Acts 15; 16:1; 21:17-32; Gal 5:1-12).
Circumcision found acceptance among widely scattered primitive societies throughout the world. Anthropologists have found tribes in America, Africa, and Australia practicing this rite.
I. Theories of origin. Yahweh is credited with introducing circumcision as a sign of the covenant (Gen 17:10-14). The shedding of blood, cutting, is universally associated with covenant making, both in the OT and the ancient world. Given within the setting of Abraham’s failure to have children by Sarah, circumcision may have meant symbolically: I am yielding my powers of procreation, my stake in the future to Yahweh. I am becoming totally dependent upon Him. If I have descendants enough to be a great nation it will be Yahweh’s doing, not my own. One can well imagine that this was the supreme sacrifice for the ancient patriarch. This theory of origin is called
A. Sacramental operation. Studies of circumcision practices by anthropologists have issued in several naturalistic theories of the origin of this practice. Since Genesis 17:10-14 is attributed to the Priestly Code by the textual critics, some students doubt the authenticity of this account. Also Egyp. tomb art depicts the practice of circumcision prior to Abraham’s sojourn there. Abraham would have been familiar with the practice before the events described in Genesis 17. Consequently, thoroughness and honesty demand consideration of these other theories.
B. Hygienic operation. In antiquity Herodotus suggested that the explanation for the Egyp. practice was personal hygiene. Certainly, the foreskin can be an incubator and carrier of filth and social disease. However, this explanation does not take account of the universal identification of circumcision with religious sacrifice.
C. Tribal mark. Many peoples tattoo or scarify themselves so that they will be easily identifiable to other members of their tribe. With the sharp distinction made by the Hebrews between those who were circumcised and those who were not, surely circumcision partook of this function in Heb. life. However, since the mark of circumcision could not normally be readily apprehended, this cannot be the primary explanation of the origin of the practice.
D. Rite of passage. Many tribes around the world have practiced circumcision as a part of the ceremony marking the passing of males from the status of children to that of adults. Usually this occurs about the time of puberty. Some scholars have suggested this was the origin of the practice among the Hebrews, with it subsequently being moved to infancy because of the pain involved. There is no real textual basis for this reconstruction. The Hebrews set the eighth day (Gen 17:11, 12; Luke 1:59) as the time to circumcise. For converts to Judaism, however, circumcision was something of a rite of passage. It marked their commitment to and entrance into the covenant relationship with Yahweh. Unfortunately, as noted by Jeremiah 4:4 and in Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6, many of the natural Jews were circumcised physically, but failed to realize the symbolic and spiritual significance of the act.
E. Vicarious human sacrifice. With the passing of the practice of human sacrifice, an expendable portion of every male was sacrificed as a substitutionary offering. However, there is no evidence that the Hebrews practiced human sacrifice, except perhaps for apostate groups under the influence of pagan religions (Lev 18:21; Ezek 16:20).
It is the writer’s opinion that although some of these theories may be related to supporting causes for the practice of circumcision, there is no compelling reason to reject the account of origin as it appears in Genesis 17:10-14. This was a sacramental operation. Bonds are bound by blood among the ancients. Covenants are sealed by shed blood. Circumcision, the cutting of one’s genital organ, symbolized one’s utter dependence upon and commitment to the will of Yahweh. Rightly understood circumcision is a most meaningful rite.
II. The Jewish practice. The rite of circumcision was a sign that one was a member of the covenant community. There is no reason to doubt that circumcision dates to the origin of the Heb. nation. Several early accounts concerning circumcision are of interest here, although they appear in difficult passages.
First, there is the account in Genesis 34 of the Shechemites submitting to circumcision and subsequently being slain. This record substantiates the contention that circumcision was adopted early. It also indicates that other Semites were slower in adopting this practice.
Second is the account of the circumcision of Moses and/or his sons (Exod 4:24-26). This is a most difficult passage. Coming as it does immediately after a prophecy of the events of the initial Passover, it would seem to have been a lesson for Moses concerning the power of God and the seriousness of the task presented to him. Apparently, Moses had not yet brought his own sons under the covenant by having them circumcised.
Third is the account of Joshua circumcising all the Heb. males as he entered the land and prepared for the conquest (Josh 5:2-7). As the ancient writer explains this was a season of forging the diverse groups who had comprised the train of the Exodus into a united band. Here circumcision partakes of “tribal mark.”
Fourth is David’s “bride price” for Saul’s daughter Michal, 200 Philistine foreskins, twice what Saul had asked (1 Sam 18:20-29). This was a feat of valor and disdain for the enemy.
Circumcision is commanded in the law codes only in passing as part of a reference to the Passover (Exod 12:48) and in the rites of purification following childbirth (Lev 12:3). This infrequency of command would seem to indicate that circumcision was a widely accepted practice, not requiring lengthy prescriptions.
By the time of Jesus, circumcision was performed at the Temple or synagogue by a priest. Earlier it was a family activity performed in the home. Interestingly, the literal tr. of father-in-law (חָתָן, H3163) is circumciser. Perhaps he customarily performed this act on the sons of his daughters. Also in the time of Jesus the naming of a child was a part of the circumcision ceremony.
Among the Jews circumcision was a mark of distinction. The uncircumcised were viewed with contempt. This ethnocentric attitude lay behind the controversy about circumcision in the Early Church.
This ethnocentrism also blinded many to the real meaning of the rite. It became a form of external religious practice lacking spiritual content. As such it was condemned by the prophets. Jeremiah attempted to get at its real meaning by introducing the concept “circumcised heart” (Jer 4:4). Jeremiah’s contemporaries believed that God was on their side. Not so, cried Jeremiah. Religion must be internalized. Symbols must not be emptied of their meaning and allowed to stand alone. Circumcision was meant to symbolize a commitment of oneself to God’s will forever. It is an outward sign of a heart, the inner core of one’s personality, dedicated to doing the will of God. Paul picks up this train of thought in Romans 4:9-13 where he contends that circumcision is not the cause of God’s promise to Abraham, rather it is an act of faith symbolizing Abraham’s confidence in God’s ability to do what He has promised.
The history of circumcision illustrated one of the basic paradoxes which plague religion. Man needs symbols as a means of expressing religious faith. Repeatedly, however, the symbols have become ends in themselves. They have lost their original purpose and power. Periodically symbols must be renewed, or discarded.
III. Early Church controversy. The first generation Christians were Jews. Many, if not most, continued to frequent the synagogues and Temple (Acts 5:42; 6:7). They saw themselves as a reform movement within Judaism, not a new religion. The central issue in the early chs. of Acts is whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Even during the persecution led by Saul (Paul) the Christians remained within Judaism (9:1, 2). The essential mark of distinction was their experience of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
However, as converts among the Gentiles began to multiply, a great controversy arose (Acts 10-15). Essentially the issue was this: since circumcision is the mark of the people of the covenant, and since Christ brought and is bringing the fulfillment of the covenant promises, is it not necessary for one to be circumcised (be a proselyte Jew) to participate in these promises? Or phrased another way: Does one need to become a Jew before he can be a follower of Christ? At Jerusalem a “circumcision party” was formed. Countering this group was Paul and his followers. Peter seems to have vacillated on the matter (Acts 11; 15; Gal 2).
The account of the first church council is recorded in Acts 15. Although there are some problems of harmonization, Galatians 2 is generally thought to be Paul’s account of this council. (Some believe Galatians 2 refers to an earlier visit by Paul to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:27-30.) Here Paul won the support of the church leaders. Circumcision was dropped as a prerequisite for being recognized as a member of the Christian fellowship. The only requirements were a turning from pagan worship and refraining from immorality (Acts 15:19-21).
Although Paul won a victory at the council, the issue continued to plague him (Gal. and much of Rom. are addressed to this issue). The Judaizers followed him from city to city and finally at Jerusalem succeeded in getting him imprisoned by charging him with polluting the Temple by bringing a non-proselyte Greek there (Acts 21). Likely the circumcision controversy caused Paul to rethink the whole of Jewish legalism and come to his position concerning the primacy of faith (Gal 2:15-21) and the sacrificial death of Christ. In this sense the circumcision controversy was not only the first but also the most important controversy in church history.
Paul taught that the symbol must not be confused with its meaning. Faith, not circumcision, was the basis of God’s covenant with Abraham (Rom 4:9-12). Circumcision of the heart, purity and commitment to doing the will of God, is what is desired (Rom 2:29).
IV. Relevance of circumcision for today. Paul declared circumcision was not to be the key symbol of the new covenant. What has replaced it? Baptism (Col 2:8-15) may be interpreted as such. Yet it suffers the same danger of becoming confused with that which it was meant to signify. Both Paul and the writer of Hebrews avoid this rather obvious identification. The more likely sacrament is that of the Lord’s Supper, and Paul so labels the cup (1 Cor 11:25). The advantage of this symbol is that it is to be repeated regularly during adulthood. Consequently, the believer is repeatedly confronted by the meaning of this symbol.
Bibliography T. Lewis, “Circumcision,” ISBE, I (1915), 656, 657; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I (1955), 108-114; R. Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible (1959), 195-204; J. P. Hyatt, “Circumcision,” IDB, I (1962), 629-631.