Confused about circumcision

[Anna-Anna]

Hello

I would like to apologise in advance as I am afraid I am a little ignorant on this topic, which is why I have come here to ask. I am a girl who has no experience with such things. I am confused though and would like to understand, and I hope that my questions do not offend anyone.

My father is from America and my mother is from Scotland, he is from a Christian family and she from Catholic. When my brother was born my father wanted to have him circumcised but my mother did not, and it caused them to fight but eventually they decided that they would let him grow up and make his own decision when he was an adult and able to understand these things. They continued to disagree on this after having three sons and three daughters and to this day.

From what I understand it is very common for baby boys to be circumcised in North America across many faiths, but it is not as common in Europe and the United Kingdom?

I am confused because at school and in church as a little girl I was taught that men where created in the image of God and thus where the image of perfection. God cannot be flawed, and to alter his design is wrong. If they are made in the image of God, would it not be wrong to remove that part of the boy which he was created with by God?

This is very uncomfortable to speak of, I am in my twenties but do not have any experience with men in that way. I am waiting for marriage and I hope to have a son one day if I am lucky enough. Maybe I am misinformed but I was taught in school about health and being intimate, would having that part not help when a husband and wife are trying to conceive a child? I'm sorry for the comparison but sort of like a Chinese finger trap, and preventing waste...?

I really would love to one day have a beautiful and happy boy but I worry that if I am so lucky, I don't want to make the wrong decision for something that will be for the rest of his life.

Thank you so much for your time reading this, and in advance for answering my questions.

God bless!

-Anna.

[wingnut-]

Circumcision was first introduced by God to Abraham in the book of Genesis.  Found in the passage below.

 

Genesis 17:9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

 

The Old Testament of the bible is in regards to this covenant, and really the Old Testament means the Old Covenant.  Following the resurrection of Jesus, believers in many western nations continued to follow this command in its literal form.  There are many reasons today why circumcision is recommended, and by this I am referring to health issues that can arise for those uncircumcised.  The meaning for God in regards to circumcision has always meant the same thing, it has meaning in respect to cleanliness, but the true message is found in the New Covenant, or New Testament.

 

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

 

Paul also addresses it here...

 

Galatians 5  Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

 

What Paul tells us in those two passages is that physical circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to God.  He is speaking of a symbolic circumcision of the heart, this is what God requires.  In a passage to the Colossians church Paul links the necessary circumcision to baptism.

 

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

 

I hope that helps answer your question.

God bless

[BK1110]

The first thing to realize is that circumcision wasn't to "remove a flaw" but was instead a sign of the covenant between God and the Israelites. The second thing is that since we are not bound by the old testament law we are not required to circumcise our children. It isn't a sin to do so, but it is wholly unnecessary in every respect. Personally, I would not do it to any sons I ever fathered; as you said, it was the way God originally made man, and there are good reasons to leave males fully in-tact, which we needn't get into here.

[other one]

9 hours ago, BK1110 said:

The first thing to realize is that circumcision wasn't to "remove a flaw" but was instead a sign of the covenant between God and the Israelites. The second thing is that since we are not bound by the old testament law we are not required to circumcise our children. It isn't a sin to do so, but it is wholly unnecessary in every respect. Personally, I would not do it to any sons I ever fathered; as you said, it was the way God originally made man, and there are good reasons to leave males fully in-tact, which we needn't get into here.

there are also good reasons not to keep it intact and you are right in not getting fully into here.

[Absolem]

22 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Circumcision was first introduced by God to Abraham in the book of Genesis.  Found in the passage below.

 

Genesis 17:9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

 

The Old Testament of the bible is in regards to this covenant, and really the Old Testament means the Old Covenant.  Following the resurrection of Jesus, believers in many western nations continued to follow this command in its literal form.  There are many reasons today why circumcision is recommended, and by this I am referring to health issues that can arise for those uncircumcised.  The meaning for God in regards to circumcision has always meant the same thing, it has meaning in respect to cleanliness, but the true message is found in the New Covenant, or New Testament.

 

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

 

Paul also addresses it here...

 

Galatians 5  Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

 

What Paul tells us in those two passages is that physical circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to God.  He is speaking of a symbolic circumcision of the heart, this is what God requires.  In a passage to the Colossians church Paul links the necessary circumcision to baptism.

 

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

 

I hope that helps answer your question.

God bless

Well said.

[Deborah_]

Circumcision can have religious significance, but it can also be just a cultural thing. For some reason it's normal practice in the USA, but very uncommon in the UK to circumcise baby boys (unless there are religious reasons for doing so). And I've been informed that it was very rare to do it in Korea before the Korean war, but after so many American troops (mostly circumcised) went to Korea, it became the fashion for Koreans to circumcise their little boys too - and they've done it ever since. 

In the UK, outside the Jewish and Muslim communities, circumcision is only done for health reasons (there are a few health problems that only affect uncircumcised boys and men, but they're uncommon). 

Now of course, if you get two people from different backgrounds (such as one American, one British) getting married, they're going to have different assumptions about whether their sons should be circumcised or not. It's something they need to discuss and come to an agreement on, but there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

Whether a man is circumcised or not makes no difference to his fertility.

Hope this helps

[BobRyan]

On 5/17/2017 at 2:32 PM, Deborah_ said:

Circumcision can have religious significance, but it can also be just a cultural thing. For some reason it's normal practice in the USA, but very uncommon in the UK to circumcise baby boys (unless there are religious reasons for doing so). And I've been informed that it was very rare to do it in Korea before the Korean war, but after so many American troops (mostly circumcised) went to Korea, it became the fashion for Koreans to circumcise their little boys too - and they've done it ever since. 

In the UK, outside the Jewish and Muslim communities, circumcision is only done for health reasons (there are a few health problems that only affect uncircumcised boys and men, but they're uncommon).  

Health problems for men are sometimes associated to not being circumcised, in addition some studies have shown that not being circumcised can result in higher health risk for the woman that a man is married to. So not just a health issue for men if those studies are correct.

[Omegaman 3.0]

I think there are some good, informative answers here, with decent objectivity. The only thing I can think to add that was not addressed, is that there is a certain psychological aspect involved when boys are expected to dress out for gym the first time. I know in my gym class, there was one boy who was seen as a bit of a freak, because he was different than the other boys, and there seemed to be a sense of shame for him, at a time of life, where self confidence is not over-whelming.

On that basis, parents might consider sticking with what ever is common in one's own culture. Sometimes the so-called "Green Monkey Syndrome", might be worth considering.

[Fidei Defensor]

I offer both a spiritual and practical answer to  Circumcision.

There is no need for circumcision anymore. We are not under the Law:

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." (Galatians 5:2)

"Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law." (Galatians 5:3)

"For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love." (Galatians 5:6)

"For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace." (Galatians 5:4)

Circumcision was custom under the Mosaic Law that showed those bound to Old Covenant. We are under new Covenant of Christ, "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant," (Hebrews 9:15), "But now Jesus, our High Priest, has been given a ministry that is far superior to the old priesthood, for he is the one who mediates for us a far better covenant with God, based on better promises," (Hebrews 8:6), and "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13).

The truth is the circumcision issue was addressed at the Council of Jerusalem with the Apostles Peter, James, Paul and Barnabas present:

"The Jerusalem Council:
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. ³ So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.^{[a] 4} When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. ⁵ But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

⁶ The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. ⁷ And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. ⁸ And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, ⁹ and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? ¹¹ But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

¹² And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. ¹³ After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. ¹⁴ Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. ¹⁵ And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

¹⁶ “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
     and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the remnant^[b] of mankind may seek the Lord,
    and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
     says the Lord, who makes these things ¹⁸ known from of old.’

¹⁹ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, ²⁰ but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. ²¹ For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:1-21, The Holy Bible ESV).

However to answer your question, Circumcision does have health benefits for males, because it removes foreskin that can be infected. There is no reason a Christian cannot be circumcised, "Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. ² He was well spoken of by the brothers^[b] at Lystra and Iconium. ³ Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. ⁴ As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem." (Acts 16:1-5).

Paul probably circumcised Timothy so as to create no impediment in Timothy carrying letters to the Jews and Jewish Christians. Another reason I surmise Paul wanted Timothy circumcised was so Timothy could go to Temple and retrieve excerpts from Torah, Prophets, and more for Paul's arguments in the Epistles. Only Jews could enter into Inner Court where Law and Prophets in the scrolls were contained, Gentiles were stuck at Outer Court. So there is proof that Christian was circumcised, that is Timothy. So it is up to each parent to decide if they want to circumsize or not.