Ask Thirsty

I received an email some time ago posing a few questions concerning circumcision, questions I have answered privately due to the awkward nature of the subject. (Have you noticed how quiet everyone gets when it comes up in the adult Sunday School class?) I’ve decided to answer at least one of those questions* here. The particular question I am addressing today is,

Why, of all things, did God choose circumcision as the sign of the covenant?

The question is not why God instituted circumcision; it is why he chose circumcision rather than something else.

That is a question I’ve asked myself, and I imagine a lot of people have wondered with me. Why did God institute such a strange practice? Really, isn’t it just weird, to say the least? Surely he could have come up with something else, something that would cause less embarrassment when it comes up at Wednesday night Bible study — a tattoo, or a piercing, anything, just not that! Yes, I have had these thoughts, and so have many other Christians, I think.

The answer is I don’t know, and I’ve never read any attempt at answering this question. I have an idea, though, and while I must admit it is only an opinion, I’m fairly well convinced it’s right — at least as convinced as I can be without a direct word from Scripture.

I believe circumcision demonstrates the depth of intimacy God wants to have with his people. He wants such an intimate connection with us that he put the physical mark of his covenant with us in the most intimate possible place. Furthermore, the removal of the foreskin represents the uncovering of our most hidden parts. Think about it: even when a man is entirely naked , his most private part is still covered by his foreskin. Only under the most intimate of circumstances is he entirely exposed, and then only to the one with whom the intimacy is shared. God wants that degree of intimacy with us.

This concept is by no means unexpressed in scripture. Marriage is explicitly an earthly picture of the heavenly relationship of Christ and his church (Matthew 25:1–13; Ephesians 5:22ff; Revelation 19:7–8). And so I believe that circumcision, in part, represents the total, uninhibited abandonment of modesty and privacy between bridegroom and bride.

As I have said, this is my opinion. But I think it’s as good an answer as any to the question of why God chose that specific sign.

This post is a follow-up to this one. Warning: This post will be polemic, dogmatic, and offensive to many people. I will be stating unequivocally that circumcision is an affront to God and an implicit rejection of the gospel, and that infant circumcision, committed by over half1 of American parents of boys, is a gross, violent assault against the most helpless of victims and ought never to be considered2 by anyone, least of all Christians.

My little preface might give the impression that I am hostile toward parents who have circumcised their sons. That is not the case. In fact, I pity them. I believe the remorse they will feel, if and when they recognize their error, is more grievous than the loss of a foreskin. And I know they had good intentions. Well, at least many of them did. I know some parents circumcise for stupid, foolish reasons, such as wanting Junior to look like Dad, but many others are honestly under the illusion that they are doing a good thing for their sons. No one lets out an evil laugh and says, “I think I’ll mutilate my son’s genitals today.” As I have told my children (those who are old enough to discuss such things), circumcision is only practiced by those who don’t know any better. If that describes you, I hope to help you to know better.

The question of whether or not to circumcise might be considered a “disputable matter.” Scripture gives no direct command against it, does it? Well, let’s look at Scripture. What is the first reference to the foreskin in the Bible? It is not, as you might think after checking your concordance, Genesis 17. It is Genesis 1, in which God created man. You won’t find “foreskin” there, but neither will you find “hand” or “foot”; and I think we can safely assume that Adam was created with all of those parts. What I am getting at here is a natural law. That is, if God created it that way, it should be assumed that he wanted it that way.3 Only a direct word from God should cause us to alter his creation.

“But,” you might answer, “God did command it.” Yes, he did; but let’s not ignore context. To whom did he issue that command, and when? The command was given to a specific people: Abraham and his descendants, and no one else. If you are not a Jew, this command never applied to you. The command was given for a specific time: the dispensation of the Old Covenant. On this, Scripture is quite explicit. Circumcision, like the Jewish dietary restrictions, is not for New Testament Christians. So there is no biblical justification for the practice. In fact, Scripture has some harsh words for those who say otherwise: “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you . . . ?” (Galatians 2—3); “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves” (Galatians 5). Why does Paul speak so harshly on this issue? Because this is a gospel issue. Attempting to make a biblical case, that is, presuming to speak for God, in favor of circumcision is a repudiation of the gospel. “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1–3). This is no disputable matter.

Just briefly, I want to address the claims that circumcision is a healthy, beneficial procedure. While it is beyond the scope of this article to debunk those claims, I will say that those claims are highly disputed, and if they are a part of your reasoning, I encourage you to approach them with skepticism. However — and this is why I am not expending the time and energy to argue this point more fully — in the end, I intend to say that these alleged benefits ought to be irrelevant when considering routine infant circumcision. Furthermore, standing over and against the alleged good of circumcision is the fact that it is a risky operation which can and does result in permanent sexual disability and even death. How risky is it? Seriously — does that matter? Are you willing to take odds on the very real possibility of maiming your son with a botched, elective, surgery?

While you’re thinking of the elective nature of circumcision, consider for a moment what the act of circumcision is. I’m going to use blunt, graphic language, because I really want you to think about it. When your son undergoes circumcision, a doctor takes a knife an cuts off part of his penis. His foreskin is not a superfluous appendage to his penis — it is a functioning part of it. It is a normal part of a healthy penis, and it serves a purpose (purposes, in fact). And the doctor cuts it off. Dwell on that for a moment. I want to fix in your mind just how brutal an assault this is.4 A part of your son’s genitals is cut off. Keep that in mind . . .

. . . as I come to my conclusion. Let’s pretend now that all the alleged benefits of circumcision are true. Let’s also pretend that there is no risk involved, that no child has ever been sexually maimed by a bungled circumcision. Does not each man have a right to choose for himself whether or not he will be circumcised? Parents, that is not your foreskin! This is not a decision you can make, like dictating what your child will wear. When your son grows to be a man, he will no longer have to suffer with your poor fashion sense! But he will have to live with your decision, which should have been his, if you circumcise him.

I hope one day circumcision will be a thing of the past, especially among Christians. In fact, I would like to see it outlawed. But all I can do is reason with you, and plead with you to leave your sons intact.

There is quite a bit more I could have said about this, but I think I prefer to leave it at that. I will be willing to pursue it further, if anyone wants, in the comments.

1The good news is that the number is steadily decreasing. “The intact rate among newborn males in the U.S. has increased from 15 percent in 1965 to 44.5 percent in 2006. This is an increase of 294 percent.” (source).

2This post is concerned only with circumcision under normal circumstances. Situations involving birth defects that may require circumcision as a corrective measure are not in view here.

3Feel free to apply this principle to any other body modification, as well.

4A valid question to ask here is, how can I condemn circumcision in such pejorative terms, when God himself instituted it? Am I not accusing God of brutality, as well? By no means! That which is a crime when committed by men may be entirely within the wisdom and justice of God to do, e.g., God kills, and he is not a murderer. Man may kill only under circumstances that God has circumscribed.