C
I have noticed a trend over the past few years in news and articles I read, and it seems as if there is a deliberate trend to demonise circumcision. While I can understand this from the (spiritually) uncircumcised, I don't understand when Christians malign the covenant sign that was once mandated by God. Even if some Christians are opposed to circumcision, I find it offensive when these Christians claim that circumcision is barbaric, as I don't believe God would command something barbaric for his people (I'm not saying it doesn't hurt - giving birth hurts also, but I don't think its barbaric).
I know that circumcision is not necessary for Christian men today, but I also understand that many Christian guys are still circumcised for a number of reasons. Common reasons include reminding the man of to whom he belongs, and improving the health (and peace of mind) of his future wife.
One of the most recent (Christian) arguments I have read against circumcision is that in bible times, only the tip of the foreskin was removed, but today (due to improved techniques) most of the foreskin can be removed, and this is sometimes (somehow) harmful to the man. This doesn't make sense to me - in Genesis, God commanded Abraham to "circumcise the flesh of his foreskin" and of his descendents, not just the tips of their foreskins. In Exodus, Zipporah threw the foreskin she had circumcised (not just the tip of it) at Moses feet (and so much for the argument that "circumcision is sexist"). In Joshua, the hill where the sons of Israel were circumcised was called the hill of foreskins, not hill of foreskin tips.
Just as (physical) foreskin is (physically) unclean, it is also used metaphorically in the Old Testament for spiritual uncleanness and sinful nature (e.g. Deut 10:16 "circumcise the foreskin of your hearts"). If only a tip of the unneeded foreskin was removed during circumcision, does that mean only part of the sinful nature and spiritual filth (foreskin of our hearts) should be circumcised?
I apologise to any ladies who may have read more about uncircumcision in this post than they ever wanted, but I do want to get more Christian views on the claims made by some Christians, to see if there is any truth, or if it is just a sneaky way of accusing our God of barbarism.
I know that circumcision is not necessary for Christian men today, but I also understand that many Christian guys are still circumcised for a number of reasons. Common reasons include reminding the man of to whom he belongs, and improving the health (and peace of mind) of his future wife.
One of the most recent (Christian) arguments I have read against circumcision is that in bible times, only the tip of the foreskin was removed, but today (due to improved techniques) most of the foreskin can be removed, and this is sometimes (somehow) harmful to the man. This doesn't make sense to me - in Genesis, God commanded Abraham to "circumcise the flesh of his foreskin" and of his descendents, not just the tips of their foreskins. In Exodus, Zipporah threw the foreskin she had circumcised (not just the tip of it) at Moses feet (and so much for the argument that "circumcision is sexist"). In Joshua, the hill where the sons of Israel were circumcised was called the hill of foreskins, not hill of foreskin tips.
Just as (physical) foreskin is (physically) unclean, it is also used metaphorically in the Old Testament for spiritual uncleanness and sinful nature (e.g. Deut 10:16 "circumcise the foreskin of your hearts"). If only a tip of the unneeded foreskin was removed during circumcision, does that mean only part of the sinful nature and spiritual filth (foreskin of our hearts) should be circumcised?
I apologise to any ladies who may have read more about uncircumcision in this post than they ever wanted, but I do want to get more Christian views on the claims made by some Christians, to see if there is any truth, or if it is just a sneaky way of accusing our God of barbarism.