That Controversial Circumcision Issue
By James Donahue
Most American males and all Jewish males have been circumcised. That means that within days after they were born, someone . . . usually a medical person . . . performed a painful surgery on the end of their penis and removed the foreskin.
The foreskin is a natural part of the male penis. Contemporary medical people tell us there is no good reason for subjecting male babies to this torture. The old belief that it is a Biblical commandment by God does not apply to non-Jews, or even contemporary Jews. It is an Old Testament story that may have been tied to ancient superstitious mythology. There has been a prevailing belief that if God commanded it in the old days, it probably was linked to keeping that sexual organ clean and free of harmful bacteria . . . especially STDs.
Paul, whose letters comprised most of the rules for establishing the early church, was himself an opponent of circumcision as a requirement for Christian believers. But the fact that Christianity was born in the heart of Jewish territory, and that Jesus was a Jew, caused many of the Old Testament beliefs to spread into what was at the time a new religious sect. Thus the issue of circumcision became a heated issue within the early church.
The historical record shows that since the first Christians were mostly Jews, they believed that the requirements of the Mosaic Law including circumcision were still required for salvation. Christians who disagreed were labeled “Judaizers” and criticized for their “legalistic views.”
The problem for the new church was that it was getting hard to convert gentiles to Christianity for obvious reasons. What man would whip out his penis and have some religious or medical person chop off the foreskin before he was accepted in church membership? They obviously perceived this whole idea as a repulsive act that had nothing to do with the way they chose to worship God. It also hurt like hell.
The issue became so heated that a special Council of Jerusalem was held in about 50 AD to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new church. After much discussion (and obvious heated arguing) the council came up with a compromise resolution called the Apostolic Decree. This document excluded the requirement of circumcision of males for gentile converts.
The decree did not settle the issue, however. There remained solid advocates of circumcision among the church members, a rebellion largely led by James the Just, that Paul perceived as a threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith. This was the purpose for some of the things Paul put in his letters . . . which of course became quickly misconstrued.
Paul was cautious in the way he wrote about this issue because his mother was a Jewish Christian and his father was a Greek. Thus in his letter to the Galatians he wrote such things as “I would they were even cut off” suggesting that the Judaizers leave the church rather than carry on the debate. A few believers misinterpreted Paul’s statement to mean castration, which they promptly did to themselves.
Upon hearing this, Paul realized to his horror he had to be more specific, so he wrote another letter to the Galatians in which he accused the church members who advocated circumcision of turning from the Spirit to the flesh. ”Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit you should not be made perfect by the flesh?” he wrote.
He also wrote in Galatians 5: “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.”
All of this was being argued out by members of the early church. So why is it still being practiced today? It seems that old belief systems are really hard to dispose of once they get ingrained in the customs of a society.
Most churches remain neutral on the subject, while others actually require circumcision for membership. Believe it or not, it is in the church bylaws.
Medical professionals do not promote circumcision. They say there is no good medical reason for cutting away a portion of the male sexual organ. They say the foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. It plays an important role in sexual pleasure because it contains special erogenous nerve endings and performs natural gliding and lubricating functions during the sexual act.
What they are saying that circumcised males have been robbed of some of the sensual pleasures they might have experienced had the doctors just left their penis alone when they were first born.
Oh the terrible things we humans do to ourselves in the name of God.
By James Donahue
Most American males and all Jewish males have been circumcised. That means that within days after they were born, someone . . . usually a medical person . . . performed a painful surgery on the end of their penis and removed the foreskin.
The foreskin is a natural part of the male penis. Contemporary medical people tell us there is no good reason for subjecting male babies to this torture. The old belief that it is a Biblical commandment by God does not apply to non-Jews, or even contemporary Jews. It is an Old Testament story that may have been tied to ancient superstitious mythology. There has been a prevailing belief that if God commanded it in the old days, it probably was linked to keeping that sexual organ clean and free of harmful bacteria . . . especially STDs.
Paul, whose letters comprised most of the rules for establishing the early church, was himself an opponent of circumcision as a requirement for Christian believers. But the fact that Christianity was born in the heart of Jewish territory, and that Jesus was a Jew, caused many of the Old Testament beliefs to spread into what was at the time a new religious sect. Thus the issue of circumcision became a heated issue within the early church.
The historical record shows that since the first Christians were mostly Jews, they believed that the requirements of the Mosaic Law including circumcision were still required for salvation. Christians who disagreed were labeled “Judaizers” and criticized for their “legalistic views.”
The problem for the new church was that it was getting hard to convert gentiles to Christianity for obvious reasons. What man would whip out his penis and have some religious or medical person chop off the foreskin before he was accepted in church membership? They obviously perceived this whole idea as a repulsive act that had nothing to do with the way they chose to worship God. It also hurt like hell.
The issue became so heated that a special Council of Jerusalem was held in about 50 AD to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new church. After much discussion (and obvious heated arguing) the council came up with a compromise resolution called the Apostolic Decree. This document excluded the requirement of circumcision of males for gentile converts.
The decree did not settle the issue, however. There remained solid advocates of circumcision among the church members, a rebellion largely led by James the Just, that Paul perceived as a threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith. This was the purpose for some of the things Paul put in his letters . . . which of course became quickly misconstrued.
Paul was cautious in the way he wrote about this issue because his mother was a Jewish Christian and his father was a Greek. Thus in his letter to the Galatians he wrote such things as “I would they were even cut off” suggesting that the Judaizers leave the church rather than carry on the debate. A few believers misinterpreted Paul’s statement to mean castration, which they promptly did to themselves.
Upon hearing this, Paul realized to his horror he had to be more specific, so he wrote another letter to the Galatians in which he accused the church members who advocated circumcision of turning from the Spirit to the flesh. ”Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit you should not be made perfect by the flesh?” he wrote.
He also wrote in Galatians 5: “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.”
All of this was being argued out by members of the early church. So why is it still being practiced today? It seems that old belief systems are really hard to dispose of once they get ingrained in the customs of a society.
Most churches remain neutral on the subject, while others actually require circumcision for membership. Believe it or not, it is in the church bylaws.
Medical professionals do not promote circumcision. They say there is no good medical reason for cutting away a portion of the male sexual organ. They say the foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. It plays an important role in sexual pleasure because it contains special erogenous nerve endings and performs natural gliding and lubricating functions during the sexual act.
What they are saying that circumcised males have been robbed of some of the sensual pleasures they might have experienced had the doctors just left their penis alone when they were first born.
Oh the terrible things we humans do to ourselves in the name of God.