 | This articleusestexts from within a religion or faith system without referring tosecondary sources that critically analyse them. Please helpimprove this article.(June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Thecircumcision controversy in early Christianity played an important role inChristian theology.[1][2][3][4]
Thecircumcision of Jesus is celebrated asa feast day in theliturgical calendar of manyChristian denominations, while the teachings of theApostle Paul asserted that physical circumcision was unnecessary for thesalvation ofGentiles and their membership in theNew Covenant.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Thefirst Council of Jerusalem (c. 50) declared that circumcision was not necessary for newGentileconverts[6][11][12] (as recorded inActs 15);Pauline Christianity was instrumental in thesplit of early Christianity and Judaism and eventually became Christians' predominant position.[13][14]Covenant theology largely views the Christiansacrament ofbaptism as fulfilling the Jewish practice of circumcision, as both serve as signs and seals of the covenant of grace.[15]
While historically circumcision is not observed by the majority of Christians in most parts of theChristian world, and mainstreamChristian denominations neither require it for religious observance[16] nor forbid it for medical or cultural reasons,[17][18][19] it is practiced among some Christian countries and communities.[20][21][22][23] SomeOriental Christian denominations retained the practice,[24][21][17] as part of arite of passage.[24] According to Scholar Heather L. Armstrong ofUniversity of Southampton, about half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised, with most of them being located in Africa, Anglosphere countries (with notable prevalence in the United States) and the Philippines.[25]
There are numerous references in theHebrew Bible to the obligation for circumcision[26] and the uncircumcised are to be cut off from the people in Genesis 17:14.[27]
During the 1st century BC, there was a controversy in Judaism relating to whether or not a proselyte who was already circumcised needed to be ritually re-circumcised. This is done via a pinprick creating a drop of blood and is still practiced to this day.
A similarcontroversy between the Shammaites and the Hillelites is given (Shab. 137a) regarding a proselyteborn circumcised: the former demanding the spilling of a drop of blood of thecovenant; the latter declaring it to be unnecessary. The rigorous Shammaite view, voiced in theBook of Jubilees (l.c.["in the place cited"]), prevailed in the time of KingJohn Hyrcanus, who forced theAbrahamic rite upon theIdumeans, and in that of KingAristobulus, who made theItureans undergo circumcision (Josephus,Antiquities of the Jews, xiii. 9, § 1; 11, § 3). According to Esther 8:17,Septuagint,[28] thePersians who, from fear of the Jews afterHaman's defeat, "became Jews," were circumcised.[29]
Jewish sources vary on whether or not circumcision ofproselytes was a universal practice intannaitic times.[30]
The issue between theZealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times[29]
The disagreement centers on the correctness of contradictory passages in theBabylonian Talmud andJerusalem Talmud and which passage is older.[30]B.Yevamot 46a is summarized as follows:
P.Kiddushin 3:12 (3:14, 64d) is summarized as follows:
During tannaitic times uncircumcised semi-converts also existed, seeGod-fearer andGer toshav.[30]
According to theGospel of Luke, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, in accordance withMosaic Law.[31]
Similar differences and disputes existed withinearly Christianity, but disputes within Christianity extended also to the place of Mosaic Law orOld Covenant in general in Christianity. This is particularly notable in themid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore.Alister McGrath, anintellectual historian and proponent ofpaleo-orthodoxy, claims that many of theJewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as theJewish Messiah.[32] As such, they tended to be of the view that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic Law were required forsalvation. Those in the Christian community who insisted that biblical law, including laws on circumcision, continued to apply to Christians werepejoratively labeledJudaizers by their opponents and criticized as being elitist and legalistic.[33]
Jerusalem was the first center of theChristian Church according to theBook of Acts,[11] The apostles lived and taught there for some time afterPentecost.[34]James the Just, brother of Jesus was leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, and his otherkinsmen likely held leadership positions in the surrounding area after the destruction of the city until its rebuilding asAelia Capitolina inc. 130 AD, when all Jews were banished from Jerusalem.[34]
Inc. 48–50 AD,Barnabas andPaul went to Jerusalem to meet with the "Pillars of the Church":[11][35] James the Just,Peter, andJohn.[11][6] Later called theCouncil of Jerusalem, according toPauline Christians, this meeting (among other things) confirmed the legitimacy of the Evangelizing mission of Barnabas and Paul to theGentiles and the Gentile converts' freedom from most of theMosaic Law,[6] especially from the circumcision of males,[6] a practice that was considered execrable and repulsive in theGreco-Roman world during the period ofHellenization of theEastern Mediterranean,[36][37][38][39][40] and was especially adversed inClassical civilization both fromancient Greeks andRomans, which instead valued theforeskin positively.[36][37][39][38][41]
The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement ofcircumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other important matters arose as well, as the Apostolic Decree indicates.[6] The dispute was between those, such as the followers of the "Pillars of the Church", led by James, who believed, following his interpretation of theGreat Commission, that the church must observe theTorah, i.e. the rules of traditional Judaism,[3] and Paul the Apostle, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles",[13] who believed there was no such necessity.[11][6][42][43] The main concern for the Apostle Paul, which he subsequently expressed in greater detail withhis letters directed to theearly Christian communities inAsia Minor, was the inclusion of Gentiles into God'sNew Covenant, sending the message thatfaith in Christ is sufficient forsalvation.[6][42][43] (See also:Supersessionism,New Covenant,Antinomianism,Hellenistic Judaism, andPaul the Apostle and Judaism).
The decision of the Council did retain the prohibitions against eatingmeat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against"fornication" and"idol worship".[44] The resulting Apostolic Decree inActs 15 may simply parallel theseven Noahide laws found in theOld Testament, and thus be a commonality rather than a differential.[45][46][47] However, modern scholars dispute the connection between Acts 15 and the seven Noahide laws.[47] In roughly the same time period,rabbinic Jewish legal authorities made theircircumcision requirement for Jewish boys even stricter.[48]
While the issue was theoretically resolved, it continued to be a recurring issue among theearly Christian communities. After the Council of Jerusalem,Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region.[5][7][9][10][12] There was a burgeoning movement ofJudaizers in the area that advocated strict adherence to traditional Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision for male converts.[5][7][9][10][12] According to McGrath, Paul identifiedJames the Just as the motivating force behind the movement. Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.[12][50]
According to theActs of the Apostles, chapter 15, theJewish Christian leaders of the early Church at theCouncil of Jerusalem rejected circumcision as a requirement for Gentile converts,[11][12] possibly the first act ofdifferentiation of Early Christianity from its Jewish roots[14] (See also:List of events in early Christianity). The rite of circumcision was especially execrable inClassical civilization[2][36][37][41][51][39][38] because it was the custom to spend an hour a day or so exercisingnude in thegymnasium and inRoman baths, therefore Jewish men did not want to be seen in public deprived of their foreskins.[36][37][39][38]Hellenistic andRoman culture both found circumcision to be cruel and repulsive.[2][36][37][39]
Paul the Apostle, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles",[13][52] attacked the practice but not consistently; for example, in one case he personally circumcisedTimothy "because of the Jews" that were in town (Timothy had a Jewish Christian mother but a Greek fatherActs 16:1–3).[53] The 19th-century American Catholic priest and biblical scholarFlorentine BechtelSJ noted in theCatholic Encyclopedia entry on Judaizers (1910):
Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with theliberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–16:3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26).[54]
He also appeared to praise its value inRomans 3:1–2, hence the topic ofPaul the Apostle and Judaism is still debated.
%2c_c._1657.jpg)
Paul argued that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice[2][12][7][9][10][55] (Rom 2:25–29). And in that sense, he wrote1 Cor 7:18: "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised"—probably a reference to the practice ofepispasm.[37][38][7][10][56] Paul was already circumcised ("on the eighth day",Phil 3:4–5) when he was"called". He added: "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised", and went on to argue that circumcision did not matter:[12][7][9][10][55] "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts" (1 Cor 7:19).
Later he more explicitly denounced the practice,[5][8] rejecting and condemningthose who promoted circumcision to Gentile Christians.[12][7][9][10][55] He accused those Judaizers whoadvocated circumcision of turning from the Spirit to the flesh.[12][7][9][10][55] In theEpistle to the Galatians, Paul warned Gentile Christians that the advocates of circumcision were "false brothers" (Gal 2:4),[5] and wrote: "Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3); he also wrote: "Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you" (Gal 5:2). He accused circumcision advocates of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh (Gal 6:12–13), and of glorying or boasting of the flesh (Gal 6:12–14).[12][7][55] Paul in hisletters fiercely criticized the Judaizers that demanded circumcision for Gentile converts, and opposed them;[12][7][9][10][55] he stressed instead thatfaith inChrist constituted aNew Covenant with God,[12][7][9][10] acovenant which essentially provides thejustification andsalvation for Gentiles from the harsh edicts of theMosaic Law, a New Covenant that did not require circumcision[2][12][7][9][10][55] (see alsoJustification by faith,Pauline passages supporting antinomianism,Abrogation of Old Covenant laws).
According toActs,Simon Peter condemned required circumcision of converts.[57] When the various passages from the New Testament regarding circumcision are gathered together, a strongly negative view of circumcision emerges, according to Michael Glass.[58] Some Biblical scholars think that theEpistle to Titus, generally attributed to Paul, but seeAuthorship of the Pauline epistles, may state that circumcision should be discouraged among Christians,[59] though others believe this is a reference to Jews. Circumcision was so closely associated with Jewish men thatJewish Christians were referred to as "those of the circumcision"[60][61] or conversely Christians who were circumcised were referred to as Jewish Christians orJudaizers. These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to meanJews andGreeks, who were predominate, however it is an oversimplification as 1st centuryIudaea Province also had some Jews who were not circumcised, and some Greeks (calledProselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who were.
A common interpretation of the circumcision controversy of theNew Testament was, that it was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to firstconvert to Judaism. However, theHalakha ofRabbinic Judaism was still under development at this time, as theJewish Encyclopedia[62] notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakha was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of theBet Hillel andBet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." This controversy was fought largely between opposing groups of Christians who were themselves ethnically Jewish, see sectionJewish background above. According to this interpretation, those who felt that conversion to Judaism was a prerequisite for Church membership were eventually condemned by Paul as "Judaizing teachers".
The source of this interpretation is unknown; however, it appears related toSupersessionism orHyperdispensationalism (see alsoNew Perspective on Paul). In addition, modern Christians, such asEthiopian Orthodox andCoptic Orthodox still practice circumcision while not considering it a part of conversion to Judaism, nor do they consider themselves to be Jews or Jewish Christians.
TheJewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah[63] notes the following reconciliation:
R. Emden, in a remarkableapology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to theseven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow theMosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding thelaws of Moses and theSabbath.
Today, manyChristian denominations are neutral about male circumcision, not requiring it for religious observance, but neither forbidding it for medical or cultural reasons.[16][64]Covenant theology largely views the Christiansacrament ofbaptism as fulfilling the Israelite practice of circumcision, both being signs and seals of the covenant of grace.[15][65]
Since theCouncil of Florence, theRoman Catholic Church forbade the practice of circumcision among Christians; Roman Catholic scholars, including John J. Dietzen, David Lang, and Edwin F. Healy, argue that "elective male infant circumcision not only violates the proper application of the time-honored principle of totality, but even fits the ethical definition of mutilation, which is gravely sinful."[66][67] Roman Catholicism generally is silent today with respect to its permissibility, though elective circumcision continues to be debated amongst theologians.[68]
The practice, on the other hand, is customary among theCoptic,Ethiopian, andEritrean Orthodox Churches, and also some other African churches,[24][69] and males are generally required to be circumcised shortly after birth as part of arite of passage.[24] TheEthiopian Orthodox Church calls for circumcision, with near-universal prevalence among Orthodox men in Ethiopia.Eritrean Orthodox practice circumcision as a rite of passage, and they circumcise their sons "anywhere from the first week of life to the first few year".[70] Male circumcision is also widely practiced among Christian communities in Africa, certainAnglosphere countries, Oceania, South Korea, the Philippines and the Middle East.[18][22] While Christian communities inEurope andSouth America have low circumcision rates.[18] The United States and the Philippines are the largestmajority Christian countries in the world to extensively practice circumcision.[71][24] Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose circumcision,[citation needed] viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya,[69][72] require circumcision for membership, despite St. Paul's warnings against those who required circumcision for salvation, in his epistle to the church of Galatia.[73][74]
TheGreek Orthodox Church andLutheran Church do not advocate circumcision among their adherents, but celebrate theFeast of the Circumcision of Christ on 1 January,[75][76] while Orthodox churches following theJulian calendar celebrate it on Gregorian 14 January. The Orthodox Church considers it one of the twelve "Great Feasts". In the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches, the commemoration of the circumcision of Christ has been replaced by other commemorations, such as theFeast of the Holy Name in the Lutheran Churches and theSolemnity of Mary, Mother of God in the Catholic Church.[77][78]
Even thoughmainstream Christian denominations do not require the practice and maintain a neutral position on it,[79] it is practiced in certainChristian countries and communities,[20][71][21][80] while it is not observed in other Christian countries and communities.[18] Both religious and non-religious circumcision is common in some predominantlyChristian countries such as theUnited States,[81] but outside of the Jewish and Muslim communities, not for reasons of religious observance; seecircumcision controversies. It may be significant that Jewish applicants to American medical schools comprised 60% of all applications in the 1930s, at a time when circumcision was becoming popular in the US.[82] The prevalence of circumcision in the United States is approximately 80%.[83] According to studies, AmericanEvangelicals andMormons have the highest rates of infant male circumcision among Christian denominations in the United States.[84] According to Scholar Heather L. Armstrong ofUniversity of Southampton, about half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised, with most of them being located in Africa, Anglosphere countries (with notable prevalence in the United States) and the Philippines.[25] Many Christians have been circumcised for reasons such as family preferences, medical or cultural reasons.[25] Circumcision is also part of a traditional practice among the adherents of certain Oriental Christian denominations, including those of Coptic Christianity, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church.[25] Circumcision is common among Christians in thePhilippines,[85][86]South Korea,[87] andAustralia.[88][89] Circumcision is near universal in the Christian countries ofOceania,[90] and among the Christians ofAfrica,[23][91] being common among Christians in countries such as theCameroon,[89]Democratic Republic of the Congo,[89]Ethiopia,[89]Eritrea,[89]Ghana,[89]Liberia,[89]Nigeria,[89] andKenya,[89] and is also widely practiced amongChristians fromEgypt,[92]Syria,Lebanon,Jordan,Palestine,Israel, andNorth Africa.[22][93][94] Circumcision is less common among the Christians ofCanada, Europe andLatin America.[18][19] It is practiced amongst someChristians in the Indian subcontinent.[95]
In summary, circumcision has played a surprisingly important role in Western history. The circumcision debate forged a Gentile identity to the early Christian church which allowed it to survive the Jewish Diaspora and become the dominant religion of Western Europe. Circumcision continued to have a major cultural presence throughout Christendom even after the practice had all but vanished.... the circumcision of Jesus... celebrated as a religious holiday... [has been] examined by many of the greatest scholars and artists of the Western tradition.
Although many Christian denominations maintain a neutral stance with respect to infant male circumcision, there continues to be a debate regarding the practice.
For most part, Christianity does not require circumcision of its followers. Yet, some Orthodox and African Christian groups do require circumcision. These circumcisions take place at any point between birth and puberty.
In his cultural accounts of circumcision, Boyarin clearly presupposes an alienated attitude to circumcision in Western countries. They show that the Christian memory of Jesus' circumcision is significantly weaker than the growing awareness of his Jewishness. In contemporary political debates – as in Canada or in North-European countries and especially in Germany – circumcision is typically described as an "archaic" rite, with those practicing it presented as forced to do so by some "ancient" law or custom.
In the last resort, even Jewish men otherwise well equipped to pretend to be Christians could be spotted, since circumcision was rare among Eastern European Christians.
Christian theology generally interprets male circumcision to be an Old Testament rule that is no longer an obligation ... though in many countries (especially the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa, but not so much in Europe) it is widely practiced among Christians
male circumcision is still observed among Ethiopian and Coptic Christians, and circumcision rates are also high today in the Philippines and the US.
However, the practice is still common among Christians in the United States, Oceania, South Korea, the Philippines, the Middle East and Africa. Some Middle Eastern Christians actually view the procedure as a rite of passage.
Christians in Africa, for instance, often practise infant male circumcision.
Uniformly practiced by Jews, Muslims, and the members of Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, male circumcision remains prevalent in many regions of the world, particularly Africa, South and East Asia, Oceania, and Anglosphere countries.
Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involvednudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict ofAntiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.
Circumcisedbarbarians, along with any others who revealed theglans penis, were the butt of ribaldhumor. ForGreek art portrays the foreskin, often drawn in meticulous detail, as an emblem of male beauty; and children with congenitally short foreskins were sometimes subjected to a treatment, known asepispasm, that was aimed at elongation.
Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict ofAntiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.
Simon Peter, considered the first Catholic Pope, condemned the practice of circumcision for converts (Acts 15). The Catholic Church formally denounced religious circumcision in its 1442 Cantate Domino, composed during the eleventh council of Florence (Eugenius IV, Pople, 1990 [1442]). Some Catholic hospitals today continue to oppose the practice based on the belief that it violates natural law within the Catholic moral tradition and Church teaching (Slosar & O'Brien, 2003). Various writings of the Church have been referenced in support of this position. TheCatechism of the Catholic Church provides in pertinent part: 'Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law. (United States Catholic Conference, 1997)' Directive 29 of theEthical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services advises that "all persons served by Catholic healthcare have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity" (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2001). Accordingly, neonatal circumcision performed for other than medical reasons is viewed as a prohibited amputation of the foreskin.
Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) identify and insightfully refute two arguments that opponents of neonatal male circumcision use in an attempt to demonstrate the moral illicitness of the practice. The first argument they consider is that circumcision is tantamount to an unjustifiable form of mutilation. The second argument is that, because circumcision is not a strictly therapeutic procedure, parents are not justified in giving consent for it on behalf of their child. As ethicists for a large Catholic health system, we have encountered a third argument opposing the practice, particularly in Catholic hospitals. In short, this argument is that the practice of circumcising male neonates is a violation of the natural law as conceived within the Catholic moral tradition and Church teaching. ... We are unaware of the Catholic Church explicitly addressing the practice of circumcising male infants in any of its official teachings.
Coptic Christians, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Eritrean Orthodox churches on the other hand, do observe the ordainment, and circumcise their sons anywhere from the first week of life to the first few years.
Although it is mostly common and required in male newborns with Moslem or Jewish backgrounds, certain Christian-dominant countries such as the United States also practice it commonly.
It is obligatory among Jews, Muslims, and Coptic Christians. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians do not require circumcision. Starting in the last half of the 19th century, however, circumcision also became common among Christians in Europe and especially in North America.
Neonatal circumcision is the general practice among Jews, Christians, and many, but not all Muslims.
Circumcision is not usually performed by public sector health care providers in Mexico and we estimate the prevalence to be 10% to 31%, depending on the population.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)This practice is old and widespread among African Christians with very close links to their beliefs. It can be executed traditionally or in hospital.
Although it is stated that circumcision is not a sacrament necessary for salvation, this rite is accepted for the Ethiopian Jacobites and other Middle Eastern Christians.
On the Coptic Christian practice of male circumcision in Egypt, and on its practice by other Christians in western Asia.