Circumcision: A Biblical Perspective
By Susan Crawford Beil

To cut or not to cut: that is the question. For some parents of newborn boys, it’s not even a question, actually: they just have their baby circumcised and don’t think twice about it. For others, it’s a no-brainer on the other side: leave the boy’s penis alone, it’ll be fine. But many American parents today are unsure and have begun raising questions about a practice that for over a century was deemed medically necessary and culturally indispensable.

As early as 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Academy stated that there was no absolute medical indication for routine infant circumcision. They have stuck by this position, and, most recently in 1999, issued a new policy on circumcision.

“Circumcision is not essential to a child’s well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Instead, we encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician, and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child,” says Carole Lannon, M.D., MPH, FAAP, chair of the AAP’s Task Force on Circumcision.[1]

The policy does state that parents may take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making the decision to circumcise their child or not.

In the end, the AAP leaves it up to parents to decide, which is great, since we love the freedom to make decisions. But at the same time parents like to have guidance and direction, especially in decisions regarding the safety, health and future of our children. So, we do turn to culture, religion, and ethnic traditions to inform and guide us. Many in the current American culture cling to the whole locker-room argument and don’t want their boys to look “different” than the other boys, so they have their sons circumcised at birth. [The reality on that one is that it’s almost a 50-50 thing these days, and so locker-rooms are not all looking the same anymore anyway.] Others from various ethnic backgrounds follow what their communities practice, relying on tradition and history to be a safe guide.

Many in the Judeo-Christian tradition turn to the Bible for direction and insight into whether they should circumcise their boys. Interestingly, you can find advocates of both circumcision and “intactivism” who quote the Bible as a defense for their position. In this article, we will look at what the Bible does indeed say about the practice of circumcision, and hopefully help those who wish to be faithful to their faith and make a biblically informed decision.

Mention of circumcision first occurs in the Bible when God commands Abraham to be circumcised and to circumcise all the males in his household. Yet the practice of removing or otherwise altering the foreskin of a male’s penis – whether in part or in whole – did not begin with Abraham. So, before we delve into the biblical meaning of circumcision, a brief look at various circumcision practices in the ancient world will give us some background the matter.

Circumcision in the Ancient World

Evidence suggests that circumcision originated long before recorded history, most likely in Eastern Africa.[2] Egyptian mummies were circumcised, and ancient wall paintings suggest that circumcision was practiced for thousands of years.[3],[4] Various native groups that Columbus met in the “New World” were circumcised. The reason various culture groups circumcised their males is not fully understood.

The foreskin contains the highest concentration of nerves in the penis, and is therefore the main location of sexual pleasure in a man. One theory on ancient circumcision rites contends that some people groups viewed sex as dirty and unclean, and so genital alteration was a way to reduce sexuality and sexual pleasure, thereby “purifying” men.

Some groups circumcised infant boys, while others waited until puberty, as a “coming of age” ritual in which a boy could show his manliness by enduring the pain without a show of emotion. In many groups, circumcision was necessary to prove worthiness to marry – a sign of “purity” toward the intended spouse and for the whole community. The idea there was something like, “hey, if you’re going to marry MY daughter, you better not be out runnin’ around on her, what with that over-sexed penis of yours and all, so let’s cut some of it off and keep you in line.” Or something to that effect. . .

In certain cultures, circumcision may have been seen as a sacrifice to the fertility gods. As the penis was known to be a reproductive organ, offering a part of it as a sacrifice would appease the gods and bring about blessings for the community.

Still other groups circumcised captured slaves to mark them as subordinate. It wasn’t uncommon for slaves to be marked by castration, or the removal of fingers, toes or tongues. Yet these latter customs had a higher risk of infection and death, so circumcision would have been an equally humiliating procedure that carried fewer risks.

The ancient Jews removed only the tip of the foreskin in their circumcision rites, usually performed on infant boys when they were eight days old. However, during the Hellenistic period, many Jewish men tried to pass themselves off as Greeks by stretching what remained of their foreskin over the end of the glans. Some did it to escape persecution. Others did so in order to compete in Greek athletics, still others just to “fit in.” Jewish priests and rabbis then developed a new kind of circumcision, called peri’ah, in which more foreskin was removed, including the part that is fused with the glans in an infant. With this new procedure, it was virtually impossible for a Jewish man to be mistaken for a Greek.

While there were a number of groups who did practice circumcision, there were still more who did not. In fact, many societies condemned circumcision in any form. Greeks and Romans valued the male foreskin, and in the Roman world there were laws prohibiting circumcision.

Circumcision in the Old Testament

1)    Circumcision as a sign of Covenant with God
2)    Circumcision as sign of Purity
3)    Circumcision as a physical marker
4)    Circumcision as symbol of obedience to God

Circumcision as a sign of Covenant with God

For the ancient Jew, the practice of circumcsion - removal of the tip of the foreskin (link) - was significant for a number of reasons. It was first a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants, as recorded in Genesis 17:10-14. In this passage, the first biblical mention of circumcision is madewhen God says to Abraham: 

“This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Covenant is a very important word in both the Jewish and Christian faith. God makes the first covenant with humans when he tells  Noah and his descendants he will never again destroy the earth. The rainbow is given as a sign of that covenant (Genesis 9). Then circumcision is given to Abraham and his descendants as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants. Later still, God gives the Law to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness as part of their covenant.

What does Covenant mean?

The word covenant today connotes a mutual promise made between two parties to be faithful to one another. We might think of a marriage between two people as a covenant – a promise of lifelong love and fidelity made between two equals. The Hebrew idea of covenant carried with it this sense of lifelong faithfulness as well, yet it was not between equals. In the ancient world, it was common for a powerful king to establish a treaty with a subordinate nation or people group by promising to protect them in exchange for their obedience and service. Often, there were ceremonies to initiate these treaties, ceremonies involving some sort of blood sacrifice – usually an animal cut in two, with the blood sometimes sprinkled on the people as a sign of the new relationship (see Genesis 15:7-21, or Exodus 24:8). Indeed, the Hebrew phrase we might translate as “make a treaty” is more literally “cut a covenant.”[5]

In the covenant cut between God and Abraham, Yahweh was certainly the One in power and the One who could offer protection and providence, while Abraham and his descendants were called to live in obedience and sacrifice. But it wasn’t simply a political agreement. God called Abraham out of love, promising to do great things in and through his family because of God’s great love for him and all of humanity. Likewise, the Hebrew people were to obey and serve God out of reverence and love.

In light of this understanding of covenant, a physical act of sacrifice on the part of the Hebrews makes sense: blood is spilled, and the sacrifice of a portion of a person – indeed, the most sensitive, vulnerable part of a person – is offered up. Furthermore, that person is marked as one belonging to the covenant. A Hebrew man carried the mark on his body that God loved him and promised to provide for and protect him – and called him to a life of continued sacrifice and obedience.

Circumcision as a Sign of Purity

Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, the practice of circumcision continues as a sign of purity. Uncircumcised men were regarded as defiled, unclean, impure (eg. 1 Sam 17:26, Isaiah 52:1, Ezekiel 32). The Hebrews were not even to have contact with uncircumcised people, for fear of becoming unclean through their interactions. And in battles against other nations, defeat by an uncircumcised army was seen as the ultimate disgrace. Further, to be buried among uncircumcised warriors was a dreaded shame (Ezekiel 32:19-32).

But, what did that purity mean for the Hebrew people? There are perhaps several dimensions to what purity – as marked by circumcision – meant for the Hebrew people. For one, to be part of the covenant marked by circumcision was to be set apart by God and marked as holy. Secondly, as the covenant between God and the Israelites continued to unfold with the giving of the Law at Sinai, circumcision meant inclusion in a community that followed a set of laws designed for pure living.

Further still, the purity connected with circumcision seems to have a very physical dimension to it. Many historians contend that for a number of ancient people groups, the purity of circumcion was understood in terms of decreased sexuality and sexual pleasure (link to previous discussion of this aspect).

This understanding of purity as sexual purity is consistent with several biblical passages. Throughout the Old Testament, the word “purity” or “impurity” is used when speaking about anything related to sex (Numbers 5:13-14; Lev 20:21). Even a woman’s menstrual flow or the blood from giving birth was considered “impure” or “unclean” (Lev 15:19; Lev 12:2-8). Male semen is likewise considered “unclean” (Lev 15:16, 18, 32; Lev 22:4; Deut 23:10).

“Thou shall not commit adultery” is one of the Ten Commandments, signifying the importance of sexual purity in marriage (Exodus 20). Punishment for adultery was extreme – death for both the man and woman (Leviticus 20:10).

Sexual misconduct among the Hebrews was a recurring problem throughout their history, especially when it came to embracing foreign gods. The ancient worship of pagan deities often included fertility rites and orgies (Ezekiel 6:9, Hosea [whole book], mention of “high places” and shrines often refer to gods that required sexual offerings as well as food and grain offerings: 2 Kings 14 & 15; 2 Kings 17:9, 29, 32; 2 Chronicles 28:25).

Because the Jewish faith disdained sexual impurity so greatly, it stands to reason that they may indeed have viewed circumcision as a way of reducing sexuality and therefore keeping themselves less inclined toward sexual sins.

On the other hand, one look at the erotic language of the Song of Solomon and we have to rethink whether decreased sexuality would be God’s desire for God’s people. Solomon rejoices over the beauty of the human body and sexual intimacy. The ecstatic union of man and woman is likened to the supernatural experience of true communion with God – something surely neither God nor the people of God would like to lessen in any way.

Of course, we know that circumcision does not eradicate sexual desire or pleasure; it merely reduces it by removing a central locus of nerves from the penis. Even today’s circumcised population has plenty of sex drive and seems to enjoy sexual intercourse just fine - and they’ve had nearly their entire foreskin removed. With the ancient Hebrew practice of removing only the tip of the foreskin, we can imagine that they still found great pleasure in sexual relations (probably even more than today’s circumcised man). But perhaps to have a portion of their penises removed served as a reminder that God was sovereign over and involved in even their most intimate acts.

It seems clear from the biblical account that the purity associated with circumcision was sexual in nature. But the word “purity” may have extended past the sexual arena to encompass health and hygiene as well. Many of the laws outlined in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy have to do with purity in terms of cleanliness. The Israelites were given instructions for digging latrines in order to keep their camps pure (Deut 23:12-14). Certainly, we know today the severe contamination inherent in human waste, and applaud ancient efforts to keep latrines away from where people ate and slept. The Hebrews were subject to numerous regulations regarding dead animals: generally a declaration of “unclean” was given anyone who touched a dead carcass (Lev 5:2; Lev 7:19). Dead animals are breeding grounds for bacteria, and so we agree that one should wash up good and well after handling a dead animal, or a dead human being. The Israelites were not to eat certain animals (pigs and camels, to name two) because they were “unclean” (Deut 14:8; Lev 11). The reality was that many of these animals were not cured or cooked properly, and food poisoning was a bigger risk than with the meats deemed “clean.”

The Hebrew word for “purity” – used in speaking of circumcision and sexual morality – differs from the Hebrew word for “clean,” which deals with health and hygiene. Yet if we look at the nature of these hygiene laws and consider that God desired the people of Israel lead healthy lives, we could argue that circumcision conferred certain health benefits.

Perhaps intact boys and men experienced a higher incidence of infection, and circumcision protected against this. Personal hygiene is important in maintaining a healthy foreskin, and men can have trouble with infection if they do not retract and wash it regularly. Likewise, little boys can be prone to infection if they retract it too early. And, according to Dr. Fleiss, there are a number of conditions of the intact penis that have been (unnecessarily) remedied by circumcision even in the modern day. Most of these situations are best remedied by leaving things alone, or by treating with antibiotics or other medicines. But in the ancient days, perhaps it was deemed safest to remove at least a portion of the foreskin from the get-go in order to prevent any problems down the road. On the other hand, the practice of cutting away skin from a penis carries its own risks of infection, and some argue that a newly circumcised boy or man is more susceptible to infection than an uncircumcised male – especially in an unsterile setting such as a windy desert or a hut made of dung.

The notion of purity carried with it many levels of meaning, from spiritual to sexual to perhaps even medical. And that purity was highly esteemed among the Israelites - and with it the practice of circumcision.

Circumcision as a physical marker

Circumcision was also a physical marker by which the Israelites could distinguish between kin and enemy. When it comes to this aspect of circumcision, one would think that a dot on the forehead, a nose ring, or some other more obvious marker would have been better. I’m assuming, of course, that men of the ancient world in fact wore clothing and didn’t parade around with their parts and pieces on full display. So, how did they tell?

We can only guess. In most cases, it probably only took seeing one man from a tribe or a group to find out if the rest of his gang was cut or not. They might have just asked each other to show their stuff to find out. Or maybe they spied on each other at the local latrine. Who knows.

The only idea the Bible lends on this question involves some conjecture on a couple of strange interactions in the Old Testament. In Genesis 24:1-9, Abraham asks his chief servant to go find Isaac a wife, and he asks the servant to swear not to get a Canaanite wife for his beloved son. This oath was sealed by the servant grabbing under Abe’s thigh. Then in Genesis 47:29, Jacob has Joseph grab his thigh and promise to bury him back in his homeland when he dies.

It seems clear that this “thigh grab” was a common oath-giving practice in the ancient world, somewhat like shaking hands or signing a contract today. Perhaps in these interactions men could check each other out and see if the other was circumcised or not. Any which way, they seemed to know who was circumcised and who was not, and, with the variety of circumcision methods, they may have even been able to tell who was Jewish and who was from another circumcising nation.

However they were able to tell, we know that the practice of circumcision continued throughout the Israelites’ 400 years in Egypt. All the men who left Egypt with Moses were circumcised, but they did not circumcise anyone during their 40 years in the wilderness (Joshua 5:5-6).

After Moses died, Joshua prepared the Israelites to cross the Jordan into the promised land by having the men circumcised (Joshua 5:2-3). Presumably, this was to mark them as a people and to set them apart from the others they would encounter in their new land.

Circumcision as symbol of obedience to God

When Moses preached his lengthy Deuteronomy sermon to the Israelites just before they entered the Promised Land – and just before his own death – he used the image of circumcision to call the people to a deeper kind of obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh. Moses urged the people:

“Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts, and be stiff-necked no more.”                                                                                            Deuteronomy 10:16

As physical circumcision cuts a man’s most vulnerable part and exposes him, so circumcision of the heart makes one vulnerable to God. Circumcision of the heart became an image of repentance, compelling the Israelites to cut away at the stubborn willfulness encasing their hearts and be exposed to God and to others. Moses in no way suggests that the Hebrew people cease their practice of physical circumcision, but he asks them to take it to a deeper level and let the sacrifice of circumcision penetrate into their hearts. He calls them to live out their end of “covenant” with their hearts, not just their bodies. Likewise, their hearts would be made pure through such repentance and obedience.

Later in Deuteronomy, Moses answers the question as to how one’s heart was to be circumcised:

“The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”                                                         Deuteronomy 30:6

The prophet Jeremiah also calls the people to circumcise their hearts, and he denounces those who are circumcised only in the flesh (Jer 4:4, 9:25, 9:26).

In the end, the Israelites do not prove to be an obedient, faithful people, and they break their covenant with Yahweh again and again. God’s heart is grieved, and the Israelites pay for their sins when they are carried into exile by Assyria and Babylon.

But God does not give up on his end of the promise to be faithful to Israel:

“The time is coming, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. . . . I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”                                                                                                            Jeremiah 31:31-34

God’s covenant with Israel had by no means come to an end, for as God had promised Abraham, it was to be an everlasting covenant. But it was soon to take on new depth and dimension, and become a new covenant, a new “testament” of God’s love and grace in the person of Jesus Christ.

New Testament Circumcision

While the Old Testament clearly speaks in favor of circumcision for all who wish to be obedient of God, as the story of circumcision in the New Testament unfolds we see yet another picture. . .

Jesus and Circumcision

In the New Testament, Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), as were John the Baptist (Luke 1:59) and the Apostle Paul (Philippians 3:5). In fact, we can assume that all the disciples, and all other Jewish males in the New Testament, were circumcised as infants, following the Law of the Hebrew people.

Jesus has very little to say about circumcision, except to use it as an example of an acceptable practice on the Sabbath. He had been accused of breaking the Sabbath for healing a man. So he asks,

“If a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?” (John 7:23).

Interestingly, Jesus seems to be saying here that circumcision is a matter of health. One might argue that Jesus is suggesting an infant’s penis is in fact healed by having a portion of it removed. This would support the theory discussed earlier, that one aspect of the highly regarded “purity” conferred on a person through circumcision was one of hygiene and health.

The Apostle Paul and Circumcision

While circumcision was not much of a discussion piece during Jesus’ life, after his death, resurrection, and glorious return to heaven, it soon became one of the hottest issues of dissension among early believers. Once the radical news of the gospel spread among the Gentiles (non-Jews), many converted to the new Christian faith, and the big question became: should they be circumcised? Numerous Jews believed they should, for if Jesus was the Messiah of the Hebrew people, following Jesus meant following the Hebrew laws as well as the commands of Jesus (Acts 15:1-5).

 The Apostle Paul, however, disagreed. In fact, he built several arguments against circumcision. In Romans 2, he echoes the words of Moses and Jeremiah by saying that circumcision – indeed, following any part of the Law – is a question of spiritual obedience, not outward appearances:

“A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.” (Rom 2:29).

Paul goes on to talk about Abraham, arguing that because he was reckoned as righteous because of his faith before he was circumcised, he is the father of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised believers (Rom 4:10-11).

When Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman and a Greek father, became a Christian and joined Paul’s ministry, Paul had him circumcised before they went to preach the gospel to the Jews in Lystra and Derbe (Acts 16:1-5). While this goes against what Paul argues in other places, it is consistent with his missionary strategy of blending well with his target audiences (1 Cor 9:20). He did not want Timothy (who was half-Jewish anyway) to pose a stumbling block to the Jews to whom they were preaching.

Except for this situation with Timothy, Paul encourages people to lay the matter of circumcision aside when it comes to being a Christian. He says to the Corinthians:

“Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.” (1 Cor 7:18)

As if it were possible to become uncircumcised. . .

While these arguments are compelling, Paul makes his most convincing case against circumcision for Christians by holding up the question of circumcision to that which was accomplished for us in Jesus Christ. We are made righteous – fit to stand before God - not by our physical actions or our good works, but by our faith in Christ (Gal 2:15). Some felt that they still needed to “cover all the bases,” so to speak. But Paul says they were missing the point, because it is in Christ that we are made righteous.

“Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. . . . Every man who lets himself be circumcised [is] obliged to obey the entire law. . . For in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.” (Gal 5:2-6).

“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” (Gal 6:15).

Furthermore, all that was ever meant by the act of circumcision – in terms of covenant, repentance, commitment, obedience - is taken care of for us in Christ. For in him we “were also circumcised with a spiritual circumcision” (Col 2:11). And in Christ, “there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Col 3:11).

Paul understood that for the Jewish Christians circumcision was gravely important. The Jewish part of them said that circumcision signified purity, covenant, holiness, the mark of God’s people. Without it, they felt at a loss, as if following this Messiah Jesus was on shaky ground if it didn’t mean bringing with it all the familiars. So he defines a new “circumcision” group – those “who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3). He justifies the elimination of the physical circumcision by establishing the more important circumcision of the heart and the removal of our sin through Christ’s sacrifice.

While there continued those believers who held out for circumcision, they soon became lumped with the “rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers” (Titus 1:10). The practice quickly died out among the early Christian churches as believers held on to the promise that in Christ all things had truly been made new.

Circumcision and the Early Church

Following in the theological footsteps of Paul, the early church adamantly denounced circumcision. Christian parents did not circumcise their baby boys, nor did any adult males become circumcised in order to belong to the faith. But circumcision had always been a marker, a symbol of God’s covenant with the people of God. So, as the practice of circumcision fell to the wayside, Christians embraced the new symbol of God’s covenant given in Jesus: baptism.

When Abraham was called into covenant with God, God required that Abraham mark himself, his household - and all those born in his household after him -with the sign of circumcision. When an adult male was circumcised, he made public his commitment to Yahweh and to Yahweh’s Law. When Jewish parents brought their newborn sons to be circumcised, they marked their children as children of the covenant and committed to raising their children under the Law. Furthermore, circumcision meant belonging to the family of God. When people came to faith in Christ, baptism became the sign and seal of God’s new covenant of love and forgiveness offered in Jesus Christ. When an adult believer was baptized, they made public their faith in Christ and their commitment to follow him. When Christian parents brought their babies to the church to be baptized, they were marking their children as children of the covenant and promising to raise them in the faith. Baptism means belonging to the family of God.

The sixteenth century Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, argued that God’s covenant of love and faithfulness did not change between the Old and New Testaments, but the outward sign of it did:

“The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. Only the manner of confirmation is different – what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism.”[6]

Baptism carried with it all the symbolism of circumcision as a mark of the covenant, as a sign of repentance, and a symbol of commitment to God. Yet baptism takes us even deeper into understanding God’s covenant with us. For one, baptism is conferred on both men and women – revealing God’s desire that women share more fully in the life of faith.

Further, in circumcision, only a part of a person is surrendered to God. Yet in baptism, we lay down our whole lives. As we go down into the water, we die to sin and we are united with Christ in his death. And as we are raised up from the water, we are cleansed from our sin and are baptized into the promise of resurrection with Christ (Col 2:12).

The purity of circumcision was limited to a physical purity, whereas the purity offered in Christ and symbolized in our baptism, is a purity that erases all our sin.

“When you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of the flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Col 2:13).

What About God’s Commands?

For many Christians, the matter of Old Testament law becomes an issue of hot debate. Some interpret Paul’s instructions on the Law, along with Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross, to mean that no part of the Old Testament has anything to do with their faith. At all. Others strive to follow the Mosaic law, citing Jesus’ words in Matthew:

^“I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”      (Matthew 5:18)

A more responsible and biblical perspective is to look at which parts of the Old Testament Law applied to atonement - making oneself right before God - and which parts had to do with living out one’s faith in terms of worship and interpersonal relationships. The former category of Law includes animal sacrifices, grain offerings, etc. Because Christians believe that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice on the Cross and paid the penalty for the sins of humanity, we no longer need to offer blood sacrifices (Hebrews 10). In Christ we are made righteous, and because of his obedience and his death, we are justified and, united with him, stand before God as pure and holy.

Yet in our life of being sanctified, of living out what it means to be justified in Christ, we are called to worship God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as our selves. This is the whole point of the Law and prophets, says Jesus (Matthew 7:12). It is this part of the Law that Jesus promises will not disappear.

So we uphold the Ten Commandments, for they instruct us in proper worship of God and in how to live in relationship with others. But we do not need to offer blood sacrifices, for our atonement is made complete in Jesus Christ. We do not need to remove any foreskin from our male children or our adults any longer. We were circumcised with Jesus not by human hands but by a spiritual circumcision, and we are marked with the sign and seal of baptism.

We are children of the New Covenant made in Christ’s blood, blood that was poured out for us and for our salvation. 

Circumcision: Recent History

For over eighteen centuries, Christians denounced the practice of circumcision as anything other than an ancient rite associated with the legal demands of the Mosaic law. But in the 19^th century the waves of Victorian “propriety” and sexual modesty made their way through England and the United States, and in their wake came a number of medical doctors promising that circumcision would help keep young men in line. Circumcision was heralded as a solution to the “problem” of masturbation. Doctors also claimed that circumcision could remedy a long list of maladies, from epilepsy to impotence, and from venereal disease to nocturnal enuresis, night terrors and “precocious sexual unrest.”[7]^,[8] No research was done to document these claims and no 19^th century medical studies exist to support the circumcision movement.

Yet by the early 20th century, more and more newborn boys were leaving British and American hospitals with circumcised penises. The procedure used on these babies was basically the Jewish peri’ah (link to earlier) in which nearly the entire foreskin was removed. You will recall that this is not the circumcision practiced by Abraham or his descendants until the Hellenistic period.

By 1950, British doctors began to denounce circumcision and deemed it medically unnecessary. The practice quickly died out in Great Britain, but it was another 20 years before American doctors made any official statement against routine infant circumcision. In 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), issued a statement in which they said:

"[t]here are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."[9]

It was in that same year that the incidence of infant circumcision in the U.S. reached its peak. But with this new statement from the AAP came a slow but steady decline in routine neonatal male circumcision that continues to this day.

Making the Choice in the 21^st Century

What was made obsolete in the first century for followers of Jesus became a massive medical campaign in the 19^th century, and countless British and American boys were removed of their foreskins in an attempt to maintain proper Victorian morality. Because most 19^th century Americans were also Christians, circumcision became embraced as a socially and religiously acceptable practice. The lines between medical necessity and social propriety soon blurred, and as the medical establishment withdrew its support of circumcision, social - and sometimes religious - voices kept the cry for severed foreskins alive in America.

We began this discussion on circumcision with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 1999 policy on circumcision. In this policy, the AAP puts the decision in the hands of parents, letting them take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions when choosing to circumcise their child or not.

The medical establishment has spoken, and there is no compelling medical reason to circumcise a newborn boy. God, too, has spoken, in Holy Scripture and through the traditions and teachings of the Christian church for centuries. Our Christian faith gives absolutely no reason or defense for the circumcision of any male child or adult. We are children of the New Covenant, sealed with the sign of baptism, marked for eternity by the blood of the Risen Lord Jesus. To the glory of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

Should We Circumcise our Boys? One Mom’s Story

When our first son was born in 2001, my husband and I had done a bit of research on the matter of circumcision. We knew that fewer and fewer boys were being circumcised these days, but we weren’t sure why. Most of what people gave us to read had to do with theories about disrupted mother-child bonds caused by infant circumcision. It seemed a bit of a stretch.

We asked a few people what their experiences were and heard stories of intact boys who often experienced infections, some of whom “had to be” circumcised later in childhood, which turned out to be especially traumatic. Further, I happened to be doing a chaplaincy internship in a hospital when I was pregnant. I noticed that on the surgical reports that we received each day, “adult circumcision” was often listed: for some reason or another, men in their 60’s and 70’s were having some or all of their foreskins removed, at a rate of about 2-3 per week.

It looked to me like there might be some medical reasons to have our child circumcised, if in fact we had a boy. But we still weren’t sure. As Christians, we turned to Scripture to help us further navigate our decision. I wrestled with the following conundrum:

1.     If God’s creation indeed is good, and everything is created with a good purpose, then the human foreskin is purposeful and good, and should not be removed.

2.     If God required that Abraham and his descendants remove their foreskins, there must be a very good reason, and therefore it should be removed.

With our smattering of medical “evidence” that we had gathered through conversation and some casual research, we leaned toward number 2, and decided that God must have had a good reason to ask Abraham, and all the Jews thereafter, to be circumcised.

So, when Collin was born, we had him circumcised. Because we had refused the Vitamin K shot (I ate a great diet full of Vit K, had taken no antibiotics, and felt it was unnecessary that our baby receive the shot), we had to come back to the hospital after his blood clotting factors had matured (usually within 48 hours, we were told). We brought him back when he was eleven days old and had him circumcised in out-patient surgery. I was a wreck. They had us leave the room, and I went to the restroom and cried. It was awful.  

In the days that followed, we took care of his sad little penis with plenty of Vaseline and gauze. The wound was bloody and raw for days. We couldn’t imagine it being a very sterile situation, what with all the poop and pee sloshing around in his diaper – even though we changed him frequently. He healed well, however, and in time the memory of that traumatic day faded for me.

When I became pregnant with our second child, I prayed for a girl so that we wouldn’t be faced with this decision again. Caleb Michael was born in August of 2002, and we felt that, since we’d “marked” his brother, we had better follow suit with any other boys we had. And though the first time had been so awful, we really had not found – or looked for - much more evidence to support “intactivism.” So we had Caleb circumcised in our family doctor’s office when he was 10 days old. This time, the nurse assisting the doctor encouraged us to give Caleb his pacifier, which he apparently sucked on with little or no complaint through the whole thing.

Both Collin and Caleb had been given local anesthetics for their circumcisions, and so the actual procedure was hopefully not as painful as it could have been. And they are both healthy, happy little boys who are as fascinated with their penises as the next boy. But since Caleb’s circumcision, I have continued in my research – both formal and informal – and I know that were we to start all over we would not have had  either of them circumcised.

So when we found out we were pregnant again, I offered up that same prayer for a little girl. As the birth of our third child neared, however, I had begun the research and writing for Circumcision: A Biblical Perspective. My research was much more thorough this time, and I made a greater effort to look at the whole of Scripture and the practice of circumcision throughout all of human history. There seems to be no question about whether God desires circumcision for my children – he clearly does not, as the Apostle Paul and Christian theologians throughout the centuries have proclaimed.

I was especially troubled to realize that the circumcision procedure in use today is much more radical and severe than the one originally instituted with Abraham. And to think that people are choosing circumcision for their children because they think this is God’s command – not only is it obsolete as a whole, but the procedure itself is nowhere near what the original ever was intended to be.

As for my former conundrum, I recognize now that God’s creation of the human foreskin indeed is good and purposeful, and that God called Abraham and his descendants to circumcision as an act of sacrifice and obedience – a command that reached its culmination in the person of Jesus Christ.

I have consulted medical professionals regarding the “adult circumcisions” I had seen listed at the hospital that summer. Apparently, some men do not take proper care of their foreskins, and without good hygiene they can get infections. In some situations, men with diabetes have trouble with yeast infections, but again this is usually attributed to poor hygiene. Or, some men just don’t want to bother with cleaning it anymore, so they want it removed.

As for my interviews with friends whose sons were intact and who had experienced troubles, I read Dr. Fleiss’ article and became convinced that not only had I been duped by “medical claims” for circumcision, so had countless doctors and parents in our country. I have spoken with many more parents of intact boys, and wives of intact husbands, who have no problems to report whatsoever.

We wondered if, having circumcised our first two boys, we had committed to a course of action for any subsequent boys we might have. But we realized that making sure all the penises in our family look alike simply is not reason enough to circumcise a child. One of our dear friends is the oldest of three boys. When he was a teenager, he asked his dad why he and his brothers had been circumcised. His father replied, “Well, I guess I wanted you to look like me.” Our friend was sadly disappointed in his father’s response, because he’d done his own research and knew that a very invasive and medically unnecessary procedure had been performed on him – and only to satisfy his father’s ego.

So, when Jonathan Isaac was born in October of 2004, my husband and I had a long heart to heart. We decided to leave our third son intact. We sometimes wonder if this might become an issue among our sons. But we have made a commitment to be open and honest with them, and as questions arise (which we suspect is inevitable) we plan to give them age-appropriate responses.

Our older boys are 4 and 2, and they seem to see no difference between themselves and their baby brother at this point. I think it is perfectly appropriate and acceptable to tell them in these early years – should they ask – that some penises look one way, and others look another way. Indeed, even among the circumcised boys their age there is a wide range of appearance – there is probably more uniformity of appearance among the intact boys. But let’s face it, they’re all unique!

As the boys mature and enter puberty, we plan to answer their questions with greater depth and let them know that we had something to do with the difference in their appearances. And, if they don’t ask questions, we will still address the issue, in case there are underlying questions they might not be willing to ask. We plan to tell them the truth: that when the first two were born, we felt we were making the right decision based on the information we had at the time. But we knew by the time Jonathan was born that circumcision was not necessary, and we didn’t think it fair to have Jonathan circumcised simply to look like his brothers.

So, we plan to be honest with our boys and let them know we wish we hadn’t had the first two circumcised, but that we thought we were making the right decision at the time. And that we left Jonathan intact, knowing that perhaps they might be troubled by their differences at times, but knowing, too, that it was simply the right thing to do.