Abraham and his descendants had to be circumcised. Jesus and John the Baptist were too. Then I think often Christians believe it is no longer required though in Acts 16:1-3 Paul circumcises Timothy.
At my church yesterday a guest preacher talked about Colossians 2 including verse 11:
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,
The preacher briefly said that males in the area would be circumcised but didn't explain what it meant. Twice he said that it meant "a new heart". I think the younger people in the congregation would assume it meant having a new heart.
Anyway what do you think about circumcision? Do you think it is a good idea for your children? Is it an embarrassing topic?
As Adam was the one who sinned, I thought circumcision symbolised cutting off the seed of Adam (death), to be born into the seed of the woman (life through Christ). This is why (apart from anatomical reasons) circumcision wasn't for women. I think this is also why the bible associates uncircumcision with uncleanness and sin - this comes from Adam.
I don't think God would have commanded something that would be harmful to his people, and most nurses and doctors I've read say circumcision is a good thing. I don't think it's embarrassing - its just extra skin afterall - one of those facts of life that can sometimes make the bible studies more interesting, if not outright funny. Knowing that uncircumcision can be unhygenic and that most females are in favour of circumcision, it might be an embarrassing topic to discuss if one is an uncircumcised male. I remember joking and laughing with some girls in a bible study once, but one or two guys seemed mortified - probably they weren't done!
I appreciate that you raise the question. I noticed that most Americans didn't think twice about circumcising their sons and the most common rationale was "so they won't look different in the locker room." Really! Among Gentiles and people in general, the infant undergoes this procedure without either parent to observe or comfort the child until afterwards. I've seen several dozen procedures, some with anesthetic (injected moments before cutting) and some with no anesthetic, and I've never seen a baby sleep through the procedure. For some it was a scene from a horror movie. I was frankly amazed that parents took it so ... routinely.
I think this is a difficult decision. In bible times, circumcision was done on the 8th day for a reason. But this is usually too young for an anaesthetic. So is it best to circumcise at 8 days without anaesthetic, or at several months with some pain reduction? Parents probably go more with what the bible says.
I don't have the final statement on what anyone should do in this matter. On the one hand, God made that foreskin and that was the end of the story for many generations. Why was circumcision given to Abraham, and how did he talk all his male servants into such a dramatic event? Why wouldn't circumcision be a commandment for the Gentiles in the New Testament as it was for anyone wanting to join Israel in the Old Testament?
Lol. Do you think Abraham talked them into it, or DEMANDED it?
I think only the latter would have worked. For New Testament Christians, our circumcision (the same as for the rest of the law) is fulfilled in Christ.
From what I think I know about circumcision, the skin of the glans changes to a tougher skin once the foreskin is removed. This tougher skin is harder to infect. While this is true for sexually transmitted diseases, God already told us how to behave and if we walk in what He tells us, that's not the big issue in our lives. But living in the desert, a man might have a difficult time keeping an intact penis clean, so although circumcision is painful, undergoing circumcision, especially while young with rapid healing and then not having frequent or chronic infections might be much more humane. I would expect this is why there is such an association between circumcision and the idea of "cleanliness," and the opposite view that uncircumcision is "unclean." You can find that the American pediatricians think circumcision is necessary across the board, but in other countries, there is medical support for not circumcising. I would think it the duty of a father to teach his son how to stay clean whether circumcised or not, especially in a county where we can bathe in drinking quality water.
I don't know about this, but do know that some nurses who have had to look after males say circumcision is much cleaner, even with us not living in the desert. It is also claimed that wives of circumcised men are less likely to contract certain diseases, due to better hygiene and cleanliness. Also, I think one study suggested that the tougher skin from circumcision meant less over-sensitivity, and that the male was therefore better able to satisfy his wife in intimacy, although I guess this would be hard to prove on a wide scale.
But from someone who watched altogether too many parents not even consider the cost of circumcision on their infant sons, or who don't seem to have, intelligent, convinced reasons to put their sons through this surgical process, I'm glad you are thinking about it. May you seek His wisdom and walk in full faith in Him, especially when it's your turn to make that decision for a son or sons.
Are you talking about the cost of pain, or other costs? I think some methods of circumcision are quite barbaric, but they don't need to be. Jews have circumcised for thousands of years, so many parents try to have a mohel perform the circumcision - it is much more humane. Also, in recent times because of feminism and women often having a tender, more sympathetic nature, female mohels (mohelets) are also becoming more popular for the gentlest snip.
