The Bible and Circumcision

[King Malachite]

My sister (the pastor I mentioned in my "God Doesn't Make Mistakes thread) disagree about circumcision.  She is for infant circumcision while I am vehemently against it.  We disagreed on it for a while and haven't spoken of it lately, but  this morning she sent me bible verses on Facebook concerning circumcision and how Abraham was told by God to circumcise his son as a sign of a covenant.  Here's the verses:

Genesis 17:11-14 (KJV)


11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



Now I can't claim to know the Bible 100 percent, so this kind of confuses me.  However, I do know that Leviticus is known for a lot of strict rules (that often times, many Christians pick what they want to follow).  I have followed a facebook page called Christians against circimcision and actually called up my sister to tell her the bible verse that states it didn't matter.  Here are the verses:


Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. – Galatians 5:2

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything". (1 Cor. 11:19)


"Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you should be circumcised. Beware of the evil doers. Beware of the mutilation." ~Phil 3:2


When I presented my sister with this, she basically told me that I was taking it out of context and I would have to read further since it was talking about a spiritual circumcision instead.  I read and I see where she's coming from, but I still think it can relate to a physical circumcision.  Then she told me we can agree to disagree.

My thing is that I think the child should choose for himself when he gets older if he wants to be circumcised or not.  I don't really think it matters anymore.  There are a lot of laws we don't follow anymore like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics.  What makes those laws any less important that circumcision?  After all some would say you have to follow ALL the laws if you follow one.  What is your opinion on it?

[Jess42]

Well for one, it is more hygenic to be circumsized. I would say it is far better to have it done as a baby because I know a grown man that has had it done due to reoccuring infections and to just listen to the horror of the pain. I'm glad I was circumsized as a baby.

[ZoeM]

I find it interesting that people are so vehemently against all forms of circumcision. While I have no particular emotional attachment to any part of that structure, I certainly do not begrudge the fact that it was done - and indeed, am rather grateful.
Do I think young-boy-me would have agreed, though? Never. And even older/current-day me would have reservations due to the pain involved which, not being old enough to remember, is immaterial now. Which is why the argument that we should get to choose rings hollow to me - to outlaw a religious sacrament, or make it a choice that no one would ever choose, because some people are unhappy with the result - even if others are equal-and-opposite happy with it?


The thing about the scriptures that most seems to confuse people is New vs. Old Covenant. (Testament, in shorthand) As I understand things from Theology 101, the New Covenant is perfectly valid. Anything from the Old explicitly mentioned in the New is equally so. Anything present only in the Old is more like guidelines than rules - stuff like cleanliness and stoning punishments are understood no longer to be necessary, even if the restrictions themselves are still good ideas.

[spacial]

When I presented my sister with this, she basically told me that I was taking it out of context and I would have to read further since it was talking about a spiritual circumcision instead.  I read and I see where she's coming from, but I still think it can relate to a physical circumcision.  Then she told me we can agree to disagree.

My thing is that I think the child should choose for himself when he gets older if he wants to be circumcised or not.  I don't really think it matters anymore.  There are a lot of laws we don't follow anymore like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics.  What makes those laws any less important that circumcision?  After all some would say you have to follow ALL the laws if you follow one.  What is your opinion on it?

That is the standard dismissal of everyone I know who claim the authority of the Bible.

Those that think mutilating babies sex organs is ordained, those that don't. Those accepting of sexual freedom, those that don't and so on.

It's basically a standard cop out for those that lack argument. A dismissal by teacher to the noisy child.

But then that brings the next standard cop out, 'You have your beliefs, now kindly keep them to yourself so I can tell everyone mine without interruptions.'

[ZoeM]

That is the standard dismissal of everyone I know who claim the authority of the Bible.

Those that think mutilating babies sex organs is ordained, those that don't. Those accepting of sexual freedom, those that don't and so on.

It's basically a standard cop out for those that lack argument. A dismissal by teacher to the noisy child.

But then that brings the next standard cop out, 'You have your beliefs, now kindly keep them to yourself so I can tell everyone mine without interruptions.'

Which many people on both sides of every religious and political divide engage in with great gusto.

[Sarah Louise]

Unfortunately if you take one verse (or part B of a verse) as so many do today, you can make it mean whatever you want.

It does make sense to take everything in context.

[Ms. OBrien CVT]

I am totally against it.  The only reason why it is done now is because parents are lead to believe the lie that it is more hygienic.  If a parent is taught o clean the penis properly, there will be no issues.  Parents think that it is cleaner.  In reality it is because they don't want to clean it.

If you are Jewish, it is law.  But if you are not then it is not required.  If a Christian parent wishes to have it done, then the doctor is obligated to explain the cleaning procedure and the risks involved.

As one who was circumcised as a baby, I really wish it had not been done.  Sensitivity was reduced, and now the loss of that extra skin can cause a neo-vagina to be shortened.

[Mohini]

I am personally against it, and I do know that the New Testament even negates its necessity.

If people wish to do it to their child, that's fine, but somehow cutting a child's flesh without any knowledge of its will or desire just seems utterly wrong to me.

[Vicky]

The Paulist Epistles are pretty lopsided, since there was a serious dispute going on between Paul and Cephas aka Peter over what part the Jewish law should play in the newly developing Christian church. Paul was literate and could write his own schtick, but Peter was not capable of writing as best we know, and did not have as much to be put in the Bible. The politics that went on, and the folks that won points back then make for interesting reading, but it will take time.  The outcome was in doubt as to which side would win for over 400 years after Jesus was killed off, and then came good old Emperor Constantine.  The rest is history.

Please note, I am Christian and have a deep reverence for Christ, and a great irreverence toward some of the other believers I know.   

[spacial]

Which many people on both sides of every religious and political divide engage in with great gusto.

I appreciate the point and apologise if I seemed to be attacking one group.

I was making the very point ZoeM has clarified and thank her for doing so.

[Del]

The covenant of circumcision according to the prophets is a type and shadow of circumcision of the heart whereby we are new creatures in Christ. A spiritual renewing per se.

The eight day time frame may go back to the sanctification of the priests. They were to stay in the tabernacle 7 days as they would be sanctified the eighth day. And, we are called priests and kings before our God. All of these things being allegories, parables and similitude rather than literal.

In the natural, it's just cleaner and probably healthier but to each their own.

[Cindy]

The covenant of circumcision according to the prophets is a type and shadow of circumcision of the heart whereby we are new creatures in Christ. A spiritual renewing per se.

The eight day time frame may go back to the sanctification of the priests. They were to stay in the tabernacle 7 days as they would be sanctified the eighth day. And, we are called priests and kings before our God. All of these things being allegories, parables and similitude rather than literal.

In the natural, it's just cleaner and probably healthier but to each their own.

I'm sorry Del, it seems that people who interpret the Bible always want to keep their options open. If they believe it ,it is literal truth and the 'the word of God' if they don't or it doesn't fit, then it is an allegory or a parable.

Why not just say it is an old book written with instructions for living a life in those particular times. Pork was full of parasites, so don't eat it, circumcision kept boys 'clean' so they could procreate more efficiently. There were steps in place so that woman could be bred from if their husbands died.  It was a guide book for an old society.

[noeleena]

Hi,

No matter what part of the bible you read youll read it with an engilsh mind set, your understanding will be taught from the english transations  no dought, so to understand the old writings you need to go back to the days of those peoples & learn what took place then say 10,000 5,000 or 2,000 years,

The ? is really are we liveing in those days / times . what was suposdedly writen then would it apply to us who are far removed from then ,& did what you read in the bible ... apply ... to day, no,   or did it apply to every one liveing in those days / times .

Dont forget the many other peoples liveing then,   take Egypt were they under any of the writeings of the bible or any of the other 30 odd different tribes or nations, . no. so when you see this in the light of who these details were given to then you understand it was for them alone & no one else, no matter wether it was from that time of say 5000 years ago or 2000 years ago, & even if you could claim being a jew youd be  2000 years to late, it was for then not now,

wether you do have circumcision  or not   is not the issue it was about a deal between those then not us we are not part of that history, its over ,   read history for what it is dont take it out of context & try & make it part of a people , (  us  ) who are not a part of that time. & those who do should think about what was behind what was going on then,


...noeleena...

[Del]

Hosea 12:10
[10] I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

With all due respect, the word of God says the Lord has used visions and similitudes to guide his people. Many today still have visions from God and many today see clearly the similitudes that reveal the spiritual things of God. Like the dreams that Joseph had about his life and the salvation of his people which came about as he was sold into slavery to get where he needed to be to fulfill scripture. Also like the dreams that Joseph the betrothed of Mary had about going into Egypt and then into Nazareth.

These visions, dreams, similitudes and parables are revealed by the Spirit of God unto those who believe such.

I am not trying to down anyone but merely mention these things in case a babe in Christ might be reading and questioning and seeking with an open heart attempting to go farther with their faith. With such I would never discourage them speaking against such things.

I hope I have not offended any here but I also hope that if anyone is wondering about these things they will continue with their faith and trust God to lead them. I hope and pray that they will get their answers in due season.

May God bless.

[Sarah Louise]

The Bible is a Living book, it is as alive and valid today as it was when it was written.

[spacial]

I hope I have not offended any here but I also hope that if anyone is wondering about these things they will continue with their faith and trust God to lead them. I hope and pray that they will get their answers in due season.

May God bless.

I would be most concerned if anyone were offended by you Del.

But I do suggest it is a disgusting and disgraceful thing to do to anyone without their consent.

I know in Islam it is also mandatory for men past pubatry except where there are medical reasons not to. But they also teach that it is wrong to inpose any belief onto anyone.

I once asked a group of, admittedly, fundimental, Muslims, how they can justify circumcising a baby. They accepted it was not mandated by Islamic law until the boy has reached pubatry but insisted that it was justified because babies won't remember the pain.

I think that is a mean, disgusting argument.

I have also asked some Jews but was barracked by a load about how I wanted to kill them all and drive them to the sea.

The claims that there is no loss of sensation are a total nonsense. There are real physical changes which occur to the skin surface afterward.

The claims that it can protect from aids might be rather more believable if they were backed by proper scientific evidence.

[spacial]

I knew most of this already but lacked any references.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x/abstract

Clear evidence that mutilating boys sex organs leads to a loss of sensitivity.