THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ENDORSES CHILD ABUSE IN THE FORM OF CIRCUMCISION
CIRCUMCISION IN THE BIBLE
The revolting violation of the male baby's body, circumcision is said in the
Bible to be the sign of making a covenant with God to be his people and for him
to be your God. The Old Testament God commanded that baby boys be circumcised so
that they could be part of the covenant God had made with his people Israel. God
made threats if this was not done and vowed the children would suffer at his
hands for it (Genesis 17).
Jews carry out circumcisions to put children in the covenant. Christians claim
that this law has been done away for non-Jews and so they don’t bother with
circumcisions. The New Testament is alleged to support Christianity in this.
Christian scholars today say that Paul the apostle of Jesus who claimed to be
his voicepiece declared that the Jews may still keep the Law even if they become
believers in Jesus but that non-Jewish believers must not. Clearly the Church
must advocate the right of religious circumcision to fit in with scripture. A
close reading of the New Testament shows that Paul did advocate circumcision for
everybody but only in the ideal world.
CIRCUMCISION DONE AWAY?
The New Testament appears to assert that circumcision has been done away. This is wishful thinking for boys a few days old were put through this horrible dirty dangerous tradition.
We must remember though the changes to the Jewish faith were attempted by the followers of Jesus after he supposedly went back to Heaven so Jesus as a Rabbi or Jewish minister would have been cutting little boys.
Anybody who is sure that the New Testament abandons the practice needs to take a closer look. The evidence that
the New Testament regarded the Law of Moses as still valid would only mean that
if it said, “Don’t circumcise”, it would only mean that circumcision will be
miraculously taken care of at the resurrection when it will magically be done to
the dead as they arise from their graves.
When the New Testament condemns circumcision it only condemns the physical act
without the spiritual side being taken into account. It stresses that
circumcision is worthless unless you intend to circumcise your heart and keep
God’s Law.
Romans 2:25 says that circumcision is good and right if you can keep the Law of
Moses. But once you break the Law you break the contract signified by your
circumcision and it is no longer any good. Your circumcision is now
uncircumcision. He is speaking of circumcision when used as a contract to keep
God’s Law without breaking any of it. But if you believe that you are bound to
keep the Law but don’t and that Jesus atones for your mistakes so that you will
still be right with God and you get circumcised your circumcision will be a sign
of your peace with God or pact or covenant and not a vow to do the impossible.
The Jewish law did not speak of circumcision as obligating one to obey the whole
Law. But the Jewish culture of the apostles' day did. "We know from Acts 15 and
Galatians 2 that the issue of circumcision, [was] part of the Judaizers' agenda
to get the Gentiles who were becoming Christians to obey all of the Jewish Law"
page 45, Making Sense of the New Testament (Craig Bloomberg, IVP, 2003). Paul
was ferocious against the doctrine that a person should get circumcised and
therefore obligated to hold to the whole Law. You would think this obligation
would not be necessarily binding once the person realised circumcision as
created by God was not intended for that purpose. It shows that if the Catholic
doctrine, "Get baptised and you will be obligated by it to obey all God has told
us and to obey his Church" is false it must be severely opposed.
Paul was vehemently opposed to using circumcision as a promise to God to keep
the whole law but he circumcised Timothy. Was he a hypocrite? No for he said he
did it for cultural reasons. It was not done as a promise to God. See 1
Corinthians 9:19.
1 Corinthians 7:18 is the only verse that says one must not be circumcised but
it says it in the context of a list of things not to bother doing including
marrying or fighting for your freedom if you are a slave for the focus must be
entirely on the return of the Lord Jesus which is so near duties have to be
neglected for the main duty is to be ready to greet him.
Philippians 3 condemns evil men who mutilate the flesh by circumcising and says
that Christians are the circumcision of God though they put no trust in the
marks of the flesh. Circumcision done for an evil reason would be a mutilation
for it is not authorised. And Christians trust in grace and not in marks or
baptismal water even if these give grace. It is God that gives the grace and not
the sign.
In Acts 16:3, Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the Jews in that area.
They would not have anything to do with an uncircumcised man. Some say that when
Paul did it for that reason it proves that he did not believe in doing it for
the reasons given by the Law for it. Luke does not say it was the only reason by
the reason why he chose to do it in that place. And if Paul did for an
unspiritual reason, Acts does not say that he was right to. Paul was a sinner
and sinners do things for bad reasons. But Paul may not have been deceiving the
Jews at all for he might have given Timothy the circumcision for a holy reason
and Acts would be unlikely to mention the episode if it thought that Paul did
wrong. Paul could not give circumcision if he didn’t believe in it because then
he would have been found out and in big trouble.
In 1 Corinthians 7:18,19, Paul says that the person who was uncircumcised when
he converted to God should stay that way for circumcision is immaterial and
keeping God’s commandments is what is important. But this appears in chapter 7
where Paul told the people to stay whatever way they were for Jesus was coming
soon so soon that distractions such as getting married or circumcision had to be
forgotten about. It was more important for them to worry about their hearts. The
Law does not mean that when it commands circumcision that people are to be
circumcised no matter what but only when it will bring them to God for that is
what it is for. It is like when Jesus allegedly commanded baptism he could not
have wanted all people baptised indiscriminately where they were right or not.
Paul is just saying that there is no time for circumcision not that it is
forbidden for he circumcises Timothy and recognised that it might have been done
for medical reasons.
In Colossians 2:11, the prophet declares that because of the circumcision of
Christ all are spiritually circumcised by having the evil urges of the flesh cut
away. Does this mean that circumcision is wrong because it is now superfluous?
Not necessarily. And it does not say it is unnecessary. Jesus was baptised in
the Spirit for us and that does not mean that we don’t need to be and with
circumcision it could be the same.
Colossians 2 has the prophet telling the people that they were dead because they
were sinners AND HAD NOT BEEN CIRCUMCISED. Circumcision is necessary for being
right with God.
In Romans 4, Paul says that Abraham was forgiven and called righteous by God
before he was circumcised. Paul is not using this as an example that
circumcision was bad but to prove that a right relationship with God cannot be
earned. Abraham was not circumcised to become righteous but circumcised because
he was righteous and it was a promise that he would stay that way. Babies were
circumcised because they were born into a covenant that regarded them as
righteous already.
In Acts 15, heretics were saying that only those Jews or Gentiles who were
physically circumcised could be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them.
They held that God harboured great understanding towards holy people who could
not get circumcised for they said that repentance was necessary for entry into
the kingdom of Heaven and a repentant person would not be excluded just because
they were uncircumcised. The heretics were extremists.
Some Pharisees who were Christians said that for Gentiles to be saved it was
necessary for them to be circumcised and to promise to keep the entire Law of
Moses. The Church got together to consider this problem and condemned this view
saying that salvation was by the grace of Jesus not by obeying the Law which
couldn’t be obeyed anyway. You were meant to try and obey the Law but if you
failed Jesus had paid for the sins so strict obedience by you wasn’t necessary
for salvation.
The apostles sent a letter to the Gentiles reminding them that they were plagued
by heretics and that they would give them no greater burden than four rules.
Christians say that since circumcision was not one of these that this proves
that it is not for Gentiles. Wrong. The rules were given for some reason. The
only moral one in it is against fornication. The apostles would not have simply
told them that it was sinful without mentioning the other sins without some
reason. Their hands were tied. They imply that the Gentiles would not be able to
cope if any more rules were given. The chapter proves nothing about anything
being done away. Acts 15 does not say that the Gentiles have just four rules to
worry about forever. It must have been temporary.
It is known that the Christian Church at Jerusalem retained the rigid law that
members of the Christian Church must be circumcised even a hundred years after
Jesus was executed (page 234. Theodore Parker’s Discourses).
Romans 4 just says that the uncircumcised can be right with God like Abraham was
before he was circumcised. It does not say that it is right or lawful to refuse
to be circumcised.
There is no Bible authority for saying that God wants circumcision no more. What
could we expect when God in Genesis 17 says that circumcision is to be observed
forever and ever and that even non-Hebrews who are living under Hebrews must get
it done. The Law decreed that male babies must be circumcised on the eighth day
(Leviticus 12:3).
Abraham was told by God that all his descendants must be circumcised (Genesis
17:6). Not some of them or all to a certain date but just all. This shows that
it is a law forever.
The Old Testament never says that circumcision means you have to keep the whole
Law of God perfectly forever for the Law made prescriptions for how to get
pardoned if you failed so it is not a promise to do that. And neither does it
say that circumcision has anything to do with intending to keep the Law of God
to any level. It just says that circumcision is a symbol of the covenant with
Abraham and his descendants which was a purely earthly pact and had nothing to
do with the Law. The Law had not been given yet. Genesis 17:14 says that any
person who does not get circumcised that person breaks the covenant so instead
of a person entering the covenant by means of the rite a person must get the
rite done because he has already entered it. Women were not circumcised and they
were held to be in the covenant. Notably, Abraham even circumcised the slaves he
bought from other races (Genesis 17:27) – this was not necessary at all even if
they were made to practice Abe’s brand of religion so it indicates that God
wanted Gentiles circumcised. When Genesis decreed that the rite was not for
promising absolute obedience to the Law, the Christians who Paul and Co opposed
for teaching that it was were opposed for teaching a perversion of the rite and
not just because they were pro-circumcision.
Even if circumcision was not intended for non-Jews or was optional for them it
would not show that they were not obligated to live under the Law of Moses.
Circumcision became obsolete - it was not done away with. God never
apologised for it. And the Church has never apologised for worshipping a
God that has no problem with it. And it says it has a moral compass!!
GALATIANS
In Galatians 5:11, Paul says that he no longer preaches circumcision like some
accuse him of doing and is being persecuted for it.
That is because the most urgent and important message he has is the message of
the death and resurrection of Jesus. He could not digress from that central
theme in his belief that Jesus could come back anytime. Jesus or the angels
could do the circumcising himself or themselves.
In Galatians 2:3, Paul mentions that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised
by the Jewish Christians. This does not refute the doctrine that true Christians
practice circumcision for he is only reporting something not making a judgment.
Titus might not have been compelled to be circumcised but he could have been
asked to.
Paul tells the Galatians (5:2) that if they receive circumcision that Jesus will
be no good to them.
He said that Jesus will not be their saviour then because they would be falling
from grace (v4). They would be ceasing to believe that grace was needed for
salvation and would be claiming to be self-sufficient. They would be receiving
this from the heretics who denied grace making circumcision a declaration that
there was no grace. This does not refute the doctrine that the Bible never
abrogated the circumcision law. It forbids heretical circumcision. It forbids
circumcision that is the expressing of a desire to do what God has condemned.
The Galatians were not ready for Christian circumcision because Paul had to
teach them some basic stuff.
In Galatians 5:1-3, Paul declares that the Galatians must not get circumcised
for that will bind them to follow the whole Law which they cannot do. Paul did
not believe in people promising to do what they could not do unlike the modern
Catholic Church which says they should. Paul did explicitly agree with
circumcision when it was not done in this hypocritical way (Acts 21:21-26). He
is only opposing it when it is undergone by people who think it binds them to
keep the whole Law for they are binding themselves to do the impossible.
Galatians 5:6 says that circumcision or uncircumcision does not count for
anything to those who have been saved from the burden of the Law for only faith
working though love does.
Circumcision in itself does not matter. The physical act does not matter. What
matters is the reason it is done for. Giving somebody a sweet does not matter
but the love this sharing represents does and that does not mean that you are
morally free not to share. The verse does not eliminate circumcision done for
the proper reason to signify a willingness to live a life of love and faith.
Some say that Paul’s doctrine that circumcision didn’t matter was for people who
had no Israelite blood only (Galatians 6:15). (It is good that they realise that
the practice of circumcision was not ended for the Jews.) To say that is to say
that the Law is not for the Gentiles - a view that must be regarded as untenable
for Paul said the Gentiles needed Jesus to obey the Law in their place because
the Law judged them to be immoral meaning it had authority over them. If the Law
is infallible then it follows that all people who are not Jews should follow it
and be circumcised for God is unlikely to make a difference. The Law commands
the circumcision of non-Jews (Exodus 12:48).
The Bible God commands circumcision but this was made optional in the New Testament as it was thought that Jesus did the obeying for us. This is not an abolition but a replacement. This evil practice which was central to Jesus' Jewish faith is absolute proof that Christianity is not divinely inspired.