USING HIS INFINITE WISDOM, POWER AND INTELLIGENCE, God created the universe. He stretched out space and time itself, flung galaxies of a dazzling spectrum of varieties throughout its vastness, engineered the specifications of untold kinds of stars, created untold billions upon billions of them, and stocked interstellar regions with sufficient dusty gas to give birth to multitudinous more stars over the course of endless time. He created earth, filling it with millions of species of carefully designed organisms, from nematodes to blue whales, delicate birds nest fungi to giant California redwoods. He formed man, giving him a brain so complicated that not a soul alive can fully grasp its workings. He made us male and female, endowing us with the capacity to multiply our number indefinitely within the mold of His devising.

All was going well until one day, some thousands of years after making man of the dust of the earth, He took a closer look at a fine specimen of Homo sapiens — Abraham by name. He gulped, then blushed with embarrassment as His eyes happed upon the male phallus. Oops. A design flaw. Why hadn't He noticed it before — a piece of useless skin dangling from its tip? Why, germs could get in there and create a health risk. Time for damage control.

He devised a way of getting around this embarrassment and saving face by pretending that it had been His plan all along to create this flap of skin, dubbed “foreskin” by embarrassed linguists, so that He could then tell people to cut if off! That was close.

Well… maybe it wasn't quite that way. But truth is, if ever the Bible presents us with a puzzle shrouded in mystery wrapped up in an enigma, circumcision is it. Was circumcision given for Israelites only? If not, for whom and why? Does it have any relevance today? Will it be practiced in King Jesus' millennial reign?

The answers to these and other questions will prove shocking to readers. Far from being an irrelevant and boring topic, understanding circumcision is crucial to rightly dividing the New Testament.

Many people find it difficult to take circumcision seriously. Others are repelled by it. Other than Jews, few see it as a serious, God-ordained rite with deep and ongoing spiritual meaning. For those who see it as an ordinance from the God of creation, maker of heaven and earth, of quasars, gamma ray bursters, hummingbirds and termites, mocking it means mocking God. Despising it is tantamount to despising God.

Circumcision confusion

Numerous explanations have been given over the years as to circumcision's function in the scheme of the universe. Goldingay (2000, p. 7) lists some of the traditional rationales for its existence, such as avoiding infection, contributing to hygiene, symbolizing the disciplining of creativity, and enhancing fertility. He adds that Philo, a Jewish-Hellenistic writer and philosopher of Jesus' time, believed circumcision reduces human pride in the capacity to procreate among those who practice it. None of these ideas has anything to do with circumcision's intended purpose. Some may hold true as entirely incidental spin-offs for respecting divinely-given rites. A reduction in the risk of infection through circumcision therefore seems possible. But reducing infection risk certainly is not the reason for the command. God could have made males foreskinless in the first place.

Proper understanding can be gained only by taking Scripture's own explanations at face value.

Circumcision's origin

Nobody knows when circumcision originated. Scripture shows that it became a covenant rite when God made a covenant with Abraham. This covenant, known as the “Abrahamic covenant” or “patriarchal covenant”, contains, in hidden form, the promise of salvation through faith in Christ. Participation in the spiritual aspects of the covenant is made available to all who follow in Abraham's footsteps of faith, whether Gentile or Israelite. Abraham's physical descendants, who are to fulfill a vital role in that plan of salvation, are promised numerous staggering benefits under the same covenant. Genesis 17:4-8 summarizes its content:

As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations… I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Abraham's fleshly seed would enjoy the promises at the physical level; his spiritual seed would receive the Promised Land, and ultimately the whole earth and universe, as an eternal inheritance along with Abraham himself.

Even renowned scholars get off to a bad start by making a major mistake — they associate circumcision with the wrong covenant, binding it firmly to the old covenant made with Israel at Sinai hundreds of years after the patriarchal covenant was cut. Bahnsen (ed. Strickland 1993, p. 99) calls circumcision an “ordinance of the old covenant”. Thus, since the old covenant is now obsolete, so is circumcision. Saucy says that, “Physical circumcision, which had validity as a sign of the old covenant between God and his people, could now have no real meaning under the new covenant" (1993, p. 203).

Yet Israelites were practicing circumcision hundreds of years before the covenant made at Sinai. Why so many make such an obvious mistake so consistently is baffling. John 7:22 supports the simple truth that circumcision arose as a feature of the patriarchal covenant, not of the old covenant:

Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.

The comment about its being from the fathers, not Moses, suggests that people of the time had a wrong understanding of circumcision's association. Like Christian writers today, Judaism of the time erroneously associated circumcision with the later, lesser covenant made at Sinai. Jesus' words served to correct the error.

	Like Christian writers today, Judaism of the time erroneously associated circumcision with the later, lesser covenant made at Sinai.

We repeat. Circumcision should be associated with the everlasting Abrahamic covenant, a covenant that stands right at the control centre of human history. Any explanation of circumcision's meaning that cuts it loose from its moorings in the patriarchal covenant will be just plain wrong.

It's a sign!

What function did circumcision serve in the Abrahamic covenant? Consider verses 9-13 of Genesis 17:

And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 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… and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you… 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”.

God had just outlined a list of magnificent benefits He would bestow on Abraham's physical and spiritual seed. The emphatic “as for you” shows that now He lays a bittersweet burden on those descendants — the sign of circumcision, itself taking the form of an everlasting covenant.

Thou shalt not forget

What is the purpose of a covenant sign? It is a memory device, reminding the participants of some vital covenant truth. A simple example will illustrate. Exodus 31 speaks of a special covenant God made with His people Israel:

Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you… for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed (vss. 13-17).

The Sabbath stands as one of God's fundamental laws for mankind, ordained at creation and numbered amongst the Ten Commandments. This passage shows its purpose — to serve as a sign between God and His people. Those who observe the Sabbath cannot help but be mindful of God the Creator, and of Jesus Christ, the agent of creation (John 1:3), the one true God, Lord of heaven and earth, a god to be feared, worshiped, and obeyed. The Sabbath covenant reminds its participants that God is sovereign Lord of all He surveys — of everything.

The Sabbath covenant reminds its participants that God is sovereign Lord of all He surveys — of everything.

In harmony with their memory-jogging function, most covenant signs seem to have one common denominator — they are of such a nature they cannot be ignored. If you observe the Sabbath, its message is in the forefront of your mind. The rainbow was given by God after the Flood so that, when God looked upon it, He would remember never to inundate the earth again (Gen. 9:15). Of course, God can never forget; but the presence of a sign from which He cannot hide His eyes is reassuring to believers.

Another feature of signs is their permanence. They serve to indefinitely remind covenant participants of the vital truths they highlight. Rainbows occur regularly (except in drought). Sabbath observance comes around every seventh day. Childbirth, and ensuing circumcision, is a regular, if not common, feature in the life of a given family.

Scholars argue endlessly over who is reminded about what by circumcision. Some think it reminds God to fulfill His promise to make Abraham's descendants fruitful. As for what it reminds its human participants of… we'll get to that shortly. But note this point. Circumcision does not serve as a covenant reminder to the individual whose foreskin was removed in infancy. As one who was circumcised in infancy, I confess that my anatomical condition reminds me of nothing. Having my sons circumcised was different. That I remember; it had an impact upon my wife and me. The rite serves as a reminder to the family practicing it, not to the child.

Tag of identity?

Many students make the mistake of seeing the sign as a tag, an identifier, showing outsiders who is and is not in covenant with God. But covenant signs are for the benefit of covenant participants, not to provide a witness to outsiders.

Those who keep the Sabbath enjoy the benefit of knowing the true Creator, and being reminded week by week of the glory and power of their Father. Those who practice circumcision are reminded of a vital truth. Any theory that interprets circumcision as a badge to identify Abraham's descendants or God's people to outsiders is wrong. Nature itself teaches us that it could not serve such a function — without everybody walking around stark naked nobody knows who is and who is not circumcised. Ask the Queen of Sheba why she visited Israel. It certainly was not to see for herself if Solomon was circumcised and resting on the Sabbath.

What circumcision means

So what does the circumcision sign specifically remind its participants of? As Hamilton points out (1990, p. 471), the account in Genesis gives no explanation for the sign. Most intriguing. Can we induce its specific purpose from Genesis 17 somehow? The answer to that question is a resounding “No”. We could pick at and exegete that chapter till it wearies us and still be beaten to consensus by nations agreeing on a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Goldingay confesses as much (pp. 5-6), observing that for all the digging and thinking done on circumcision theory, the outcome has been anything but agreement. Rather, the impressive array of theories shows that no amount of philosophizing seems likely to produce usable results.

Can we believe the inspired answer given by Paul? As the one whom God chose to carry the gospel to the nations, he needed thorough understanding concerning the patriarchal covenant, the foundational covenant of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. Both groups are blessed by the spiritual aspects of the promises made to Abraham.

The $64,000 answer

The apostle Paul, then, gives the $64,000 answer:

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… (Rom. 4:11).

I beg your pardon, Paul. Are you serious? Did you just say that circumcision confirms and authenticates one's right standing in God's sight through faith in Christ's blood? You're pulling my leg.

All the patriarchal covenant's astounding promises were given to Abraham because he had faith in God and in the One to Come. He was cleansed of sin and made righteous in God's sight by the application of Jesus' shed blood. He will inherit the covenant promise of inheritance of the land because God imparted to him the righteousness of faith.

And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6).

The goal of the patriarchal covenant is to eventually bring all mankind, Israelites and Gentiles alike, into the same saving relationship with God through faith. The central promise of the Abrahamic covenant is found in the words, “in your seed all nations will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). This promise foretells the means and grounds of salvation — Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected.

Abraham was willing to demonstrate his faith in these things by circumcising his sons. (The faith is that of the parent who circumcises, not of the child.) Each time he did it, he was powerfully reminded of his living covenant relationship with God.

God chose circumcision as a reminder to Abraham's seed, both physical and spiritual, that as participants in the covenant they should seek to walk as Abraham walked, to live by faith. A couple who has their newborn son circumcised should think about God's grace extended to them, about the atoning sacrifice of their Savior that has made them pure as crystal in God's eyes.

Stop and think. Eating Passover — a reminder of Christ's sacrifice — could only be enjoyed by the circumcised. The two go together. Those belief systems that set the two in opposition are seriously flawed. The bottom line about circumcision is this:

It is important to see that the whole point of circumcision is its relation to righteousness and to faith (Morris 1988, p. 203).

That Abraham's fleshly descendants generally observe the sign without understanding its significance or really following in Abraham's footsteps of obedience does not render the sign meaningless any more than the common practice of praying mindless prayers makes prayer a pointless pursuit. As a reminder of faith, circumcision is most appropriate:

•  The rite seems pointless, even barbaric, to many people. What could be a better reminder of the need for faith in God than being required to do something that seems unnatural? One does it because God has ordained it, whether or not it seems appealing. Walking by faith requires daily confidence in God's wisdom, for it often requires taking a path that seems strange to human minds.

•  Other than eating the bread and wine symbols, what could be a better reminder of the miracle of being made righteous through Jesus' shed blood? Those attending the circumcision see spilt blood; they also realize that they are doing something for the infant, filled with symbolism, that he cannot do for himself.

Is the circumcision sign dead now? The New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ confirmed the patriarchal covenant promises (Rom.15:8). To suggest that Jesus confirmed the promises but scrapped their sign doesn't make sense.

Initiation rite?

Some ignore the scriptural explanation of circumcision's purpose of reminding believers of the grace of God and of faith and ascribe a completely fictitious function to it — serving as an initiation rite.

Circumcision is not an initiation ceremony into the patriarchal covenant. Initiation rites, when used, are conducted at the moment of induction; they serve as the formal means of one's entry into the community or covenant involved. God made the great covenant with Abraham years before He introduced circumcision, the covenant's sign. The covenant was made when Abraham was childless (Gen. 15). When circumcision was instituted, Abraham's son Ishmael was 13 years old (17:25). So circumcision cannot possibly be seen as an induction rite into the patriarchal covenant. Circumcision is something one practices after enlisting in God's program of salvation, not before.

	So circumcision cannot possibly be seen as an induction rite into the patriarchal covenant.

Some scholars say that circumcision acted as an initiation rite into the covenant community of Israel. Invariably Exodus 12:48 is called upon as proof. But that verse describes circumcision as a prerequisite for eating the Passover, not as an esoteric means of turning Gentiles into Israelites — a feat as impossible as turning a pumpkin into a royal carriage. Only those who had faith in the significance of the Passover lamb were to eat it. Practicing circumcision on one's children is not the means of starting on a life of faith but of demonstrating it and reminding one of the need to live by faith till the day one dies. Paul called it a seal of faith; a seal confirms and authenticates something that has gone before.

Circumcision's symbolic meaning

We earlier mentioned the symbolism conveyed by circumcision. The rite serves not only as a memory-jogging sign, but also as an emblem of spiritual truth. What's the difference between circumcision as a sign and circumcision as a symbol?

As a sign, circumcision reminds the covenant participant of the grace of God that enables him to enter and remain within the covenant and of his obligations to live a life befitting someone in such a saving relationship with God. As a symbol, it also represents a spiritual truth. The symbolic meaning will, of course, harmonies with circumcision's essential significance as a reminder of the work of the promised seed that underlies the covenant.

Thankfully, we are not left guessing about circumcision's central symbolism. The Law itself explains:

Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer (Deut. 10:16).

This symbol perfectly fits into the mold provided by circumcision's essential meaning. One who has faith in God will be totally yielded to God, will submit to every revealed will of God, will hang on His every word — the exact opposite of stiff-neckedness. Abraham was compliant through faith, and so must all others who wish to walk in his footsteps and receive the same gift of eternal life. Jesus' sacrifice not only cleanses us of sin, imparting “the righteousness of faith”, it works a dynamic change in the heart at the time of conversion. Sign and symbol work together to keep believers on God's wavelength.

Biblical symbolism is often multi-faceted. Therefore, circumcision may hold further symbolic meaning. For instance, Goldingay logically argues that male circumcision, far from betokening male superiority over females, highlights the male's strongest spiritual weakness — sexual temptation. It makes sense.

How serious is God about circumcision?

Human reasoning pooh-poohs circumcision. How seriously does God treat this covenant sign?

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 (Gen. 17:14).

Scholars debate the meaning of “being cut off”; most believe it refers, not to being put out of the assembly of Israel, but to a sentence of sudden death to be carried out by God when He sees fit (Hamilton, p. 474). Now that's serious.

God is concerned most about attitude. Note that the thrust of the Hebrew verb is more forceful than the translation “is not circumcised” suggests. The nifal imperfect form suggests refusal to do it. The Stone's Chumash translation “whose foreskin will not be circumcised” expresses the sense well. God doesn't smile on stubbornness. (Obviously, an eight day old child cannot be stubborn. The refusal spoken of is that of the parent, not of the child.) Hamilton makes a shocking statement about the importance of circumcision:

The failure to circumcise is a breach of covenant. It is the omission of this ritual act that nullifies the covenant, rather than the failure to walk obediently and blamelessly before Yahweh… (p. 474).

The significance of this statement should not elude those who recognize that the patriarchal covenant still stands as the very basis of God's plan for man. (See Galatians 3:29 and Romans 15:8.) The prohibition against eating the Passover unless one practices circumcision provides insight into the premium God places on this sign. The evidence consistently teaches we should not dismiss it as mere piffle. It goes without saying that circumcision should only be done by legally- and medically-qualified personnel. And surely God holds nobody accountable if they cannot find a qualified person willing to do it.

Adult or child circumcision?

One of the most difficult aspects of the whole circumcision question is this: does God expect adults to be circumcised as a seal of faith? Consider these facts.

Fact : Abraham was circumcised as an adult. Thousands of Israelites were circumcised as adults upon entering the Promised Land under Joshua (Josh. 5:1-9).

Conclusion : God required adult circumcision.

Fact : God commanded Abraham that, “ He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations” (Gen. 17:12). Likewise, the Law required circumcision on the 8 th day (see epigraph).

Conclusion : Circumcision on any other day is not required.

How is one to reconcile these facts? Which conclusion is correct? Were the cases of adult circumcision meant to provide a model for future generations, or were they exceptions for exceptional circumstances? T his question was much debated in Jesus' time. Hamilton summarizes the questions well:

… can an eight-day-old boy be cut off from his people for not being circumcised? Does accountability come only later in life… or is the onus on the parent or owner rather than on the one to be circumcised? (p. 473).

We will look to the New Testament for some help on this difficult question. There we find one abundantly clear point: God does not require adults to be circumcised. Once the 8 th day has passed, all obligation for cutting off the foreskin ceases. (Nevertheless, adult circumcision is not banned — Paul circumcised Timothy.) The Old Testament cases of adult circumcision and, in the case of Moses' son (see below), possibly on a day other than the 8 th , should probably be seen as being required for particular, national reasons that should not be taken as a model for individuals today. (Jewish explanations of the strange case of Moses and his son suggest that the circumcision spoken of did in fact occur on the 8 th day thus presenting us with no precedent for circumcision on any other day.)

The meaning of “being circumcised”

Now for a shocking concept. It is here proposed that the essence of “being circumcised” in the Old Testament sometimes referred not to having one's own foreskin cut off, but to one's willingness to practice circumcision on one's children. Exodus 12:48 hints at this interpretation:

And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person [Hebrew: ‘orel] shall eat it.

The clause “Let all his males be circumcised” suggests that the adult who wishes to observe the Passover needs to practice circumcision on his sons which, according to Genesis 17, is to be done on the 8 th day after birth. Any head of household who is willing to do that is himself considered circumcised, even though he may retain his foreskin. If he is willing to do it, he is counted as circumcised and may eat Passover.

Support for the idea that “being circumcised” sometimes means being willing to circumcise one's children after birth comes from Isaiah 56:3, where God says,

Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord speak, saying, “The Lord has utterly separated me from His people”.

Isaiah goes on to say that such a foreigner can enjoy all that God has to offer as long as he takes hold of “the covenant” and chooses the things that please God, including the Sabbath. One reason a foreigner might be afraid that he will be separated from God's people and their blessings is because he himself is not circumcised in the flesh (Pope, ed. Buttrick, Vol.3, p. 924a.). But if he takes hold of the covenant, and circumcises his newborn, he is honorarily circumcised.

More support for this meaning of “being circumcised” comes from a strange story. Hundreds of years after Abraham, Moses was commanded by God to leave Midian, where he was living in exile, and go to Egypt to deliver Israel from bondage. Moses had an infant son who was of the age to be circumcised. For some unknown reason, Moses of all people had not circumcised him. Let's read the account:

And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses' feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” (Ex. 4:24-25).

Based on the antecedents to this section, most scholars agree that the one who was about to be killed was Moses, not the boy. So! We saw earlier that the uncircumcised person might be cut off, that is, be killed by God. Who is about to be killed here — the father, who had been circumcised as an infant, or the baby who still had his foreskin? This case helps us interpret the meaning of being circumcised. Think about it.

Close examination of Genesis 17:14 suggests the same meaning for being circumcised, providing the rationale for the story just related. Hamilton's questions, quoted above, can be solved by looking at the sentence structure. Remembering the sense of the verb mentioned earlier, this verse can be rendered,

As for the uncircumcised man — the son of whom he will not have circumcised — even he shall be cut off from his people.

Though unwieldy in construction, the sense is straightforward. The truly uncircumcised person is the one who refuses to carry out the act on his infant son. This verse perhaps should be seen as a definition of the term “uncircumcised”. Indeed, a case could be made that the Hebrew term ‘orel could equally well be rendered “one who refuses to circumcise”, or “uncircumciser”, or something like that. In that case, the well-known phrase “uncircumcised Philistines” should be rendered “uncircumcising Philistines”; that is, they refused to practice the divinely-ordained rite.

Moses, having failed to do his duty, making himself an “uncircumciser” as a result, barely escaped being cut off.