I've always wanted to know, but afraid to ask

Several reasons have been suggested. Three complementary ideas stand out to me. First, it highlighted the seed promise, that through physical descent, not just appearing out of the sky, the Messiah would come. Second, God made a covenant with Abraham that had ramifications for his children and all others in his house. God administers the visible covenant not merely on an individual basis, but according to corporate identities. Thus, the sign identified those who were under the visible covenant (the women being included under their covenantal heads). As an extension of the second reason, it was to discourage intermarriage with outsiders. Studies consistently show that women in nations where circumcision is the norm (US, Muslim countries, Israel) are aesthetically repulsed by the uncircumcised penis, whereas those from uncircumcising nations (everyone else) feel oppositely.

I want to remark, though, that the acceptance of routine infant circumcision in the US is not in any way related to the Bible and is merely genital mutilation of our children. More on that if you want it.

[Charlie] I want to remark, though, that the acceptance of routine infant circumcision in the US is not in any way related to the Bible and is merely genital mutilation of our children. More on that if you want it.

Charlie, it seems like the amount of evidence for or against male circumcision medically is about evenly distributed. Why the strong opinion?

Personally, I’ve always felt that the fact that God commanded it for religious identification reasons suggests that health might have been a secondary effect, just as many of the other OT commandments would have had a positive health effect in other areas. This has made me inclined toward accepting the arguments for male circumcision on a medical basis.

I’ve been researching this for a while now. I’m working on a professional journal article, so I can’t spill everything, but I can outline some basic points.

1) There is a huge physical difference between biblical circumcision (milah) and the “circumcision” practiced by modern Jews and US doctors. The modern practice has its roots in post-Christian rabbinic Judaism, which sought to prevent “uncircumcising” by making the procedure far more invasive. A male circumcised today loses a lot more than a pre-Christian Jew.

2) The medical arguments are nowhere near neutral. Circumcision has never been practiced for medical reasons outside the English-speaking world, and the US is the only country which currently practices “medical circumcision.” Medical circumcision arose in late 18th-century Britain as a potential solution for things I won’t post on here b/c of a wide reading audience (I will send you links to some of my writings if you ask). All of the original justifications for medical circumcision have been disproved or don’t even exist anymore as real diagnoses, so all the other English-speaking nations have dropped it. The current “benefits” of circumcision are nothing more than possible prevention of a handful of diseases and infections, almost all of which are treatable without surgery. In other words, we are circumcising hundreds of infants to prevent 1 from getting a urinary tract infection that can be treated with antibiotics.

3) On the other hand, there are very real disadvantages to circumcision, recognized by almost all physicians outside the US. It has significant negative sexual repercussions (again, too explicit for this site). Obviously, the organ lacks the protection it was designed to have, potentially causing other problems. The process of circumcision, though rarely (but still sometimes!) fatal, can cause later problems both aesthetic and anatomical.

4) Where else do we approve of unnecessary surgery without consent?

5) Considering the extent of the alteration involved in modern circumcision, as a Christian I am convinced that it violates the sanctity of the image of God. We do not have the right to alter human bodies in ways that reduce or alter their functions without his permission. Modern circumcision is a substantially different practice than its biblical equivalent, but even biblical circumcision would have been impermissible without positive commandment by God.

I think there is a much simpler reason for biblical circumcision: To remind a man and his wife that God is the giver of life and the perpetuator of the covenant community. Their place in the covenant community, both as inhabitants and progenitors, is under the authority of God himself.

I wonder about the relevance of Charlie’s “attraction” reason. It doesn’t really have any relevance that I can see to the biblical idea of a sign of the covenant. It may have modern significance, but it doesn’t seem to have any biblical foundations. I wonder about it’s inclusion in an article about biblical circumcision (or perhaps the article is not about biblical circumcision).

[Larry] I think there is a much simpler reason for biblical circumcision: To remind a man and his wife that God is the giver of life and the perpetuator of the covenant community. Their place in the covenant community, both as inhabitants and progenitors, is under the authority of God himself.

I wonder about the relevance of Charlie’s “attraction” reason. It doesn’t really have any relevance that I can see to the biblical idea of a sign of the covenant. It may have modern significance, but it doesn’t seem to have any biblical foundations. I wonder about it’s inclusion in an article about biblical circumcision (or perhaps the article is not about biblical circumcision).

Hi, Larry, I agree with the reason you posted (though I don’t know of a Biblical passage that explicitly connects those ideas), but I don’t think I used the word attraction, so I’m not sure to which of my arguments you’re referring. As to the article I’m writing, it’s about the ethics of modern routine infant male circumcision.

Charlie, my comment about attraction was based on your statement that “Studies consistently show that women in nations where circumcision is the norm (US, Muslim countries, Israel) are aesthetically repulsed by the uncircumcised penis, whereas those from uncircumcising nations (everyone else) feel oppositely.”

I concluded my position in my study on Genesis. I think that is a position that Ross and Hamilton, among others, make a case for in part but I don’t remember for sure.

As I recall, the Philistines alone were the uncircumcised nation, indicating that others ANE nations practiced circumcision.

Charlie, I believe I’ve seen news articles stating that circumcision reduces the spread of AIDS in Africa by half (or those who are circumcised are half as likely to get AIDS). Am I correct?

Greg, you are sort of correct. There have been such articles in magazines and newspapers, but they severely distort the material. (I have personally read dozens of the medical journal articles.) There were a few studies in sub-Saharan Africa that showed circumcision as a significant inverse corollary to whether a person had AIDS. However, there are major problems jumping from those studies to the sensationalist headlines in the magazines. First, we don’t know when in life they were circumcised vs. when they contracted AIDS. Second, we don’t know about confounding factors (homosexuality, “safe sex factors”, etc.). Third, other studies in sub-Saharan Africa have not confirmed these findings. Fourth, studies outside sub-Saharan Africa do not confirm these findings. Fifth, circumcision is only the latest of many desperate, exaggerated “solutions” to the African AIDS crisis. Here are two popular level refutations of the circumcision/HIV link:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf

I won’t fight to defend my third reason. It is certainly not integral to understanding circumcision, which is more definitely related to the seed promise and the covenant. My point, which would probably have been better put as a suggestion, is that if circumcision was designed to serve as a covenant boundary marker, the physical effects of it may have at times actually helped it to do so.

By the way, back to the OP, OT scholar Meredith Kline offers some detailed though occasionally eccentric reflection on circumcision in his work By Oath Consigned.