• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Circumcision

Who is like God?

Who is like God?

New Member
My comment is not about wither or not male infants should be circumcised, as I think that they should not be, but rather on the topic of foreskin restoration. Should one who is circumcised under go restoration techniques to restore themsleves to their natural state?
 
I don't believe they should.

1Co 7:18 If you are already circumcised, don't try to change it. If you are not circumcised, don't get circumcised.
1Co 7:19 Being circumcised or uncircumcised isn't really what matters. The important thing is to obey God's commands.
1Co 7:20 So don't try to change what you were when God chose you. (CEV)

That being said, I believe you should reconsider circumcision for your children, not as a religious issue, but as a health issue. There is a significantly higher percentage of women who develop cervical cancer when their male partner is uncircumcised.

Additionally, adolescent boys who are uncircumcised are at higher risk for certain bacterial and fungal infections due to the same hormonal changes that cause pimples and other skin issues. Their somewhat lackluster personal hygiene habits (til they discover girls anyway) may be a contributing factor. I once was an ambulance driver and saw some pretty gruesome examples of the latter. Just MHO, but I had all my boys circumcised.

Dave
 
It'd be good to heed Dave on this one. While its become trendy not to circumcise children I know quite a few people who's trendiness has come back to hurt their kids quite a lot. Due to health issues a few have had to have their kids circumcized around 5-7, and I mean had too, much more painfully than a normal circumcision because of infections as well. Another distant cousin of my wife's almost lost his parts as a teen due to uncircumcision.

Cleanliness is part of Godliness.

Anyway, obviously I'd see seeking some kind of foreskin addition surgery as a step backwards in terms of health, simplicity, and devotion. 1 Corinthians 7:18 actually says it more specifically than Dave quoted "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." As a process of restoring the foreskin actually existed in Pauls day (and was actually forced on some Jews under Antiochus) So, we have the luxury in which this topic is actually clearly and specifically addressed in scripture.

I'd also say an uncircumcised adult who comes to Christ should remain uncircumcised unless there is a problem, though its always preferable to circumcise a baby boy.
 
Oddly enough, Jewish law says to circumcise a boy on the eighth day and medical research shows that this is when a baby's immune system normally peaks. God always knew what was best for His people - and told them as well.

Dave
 
Buppa,

Its no verse, its an observation from spending the time to look at the nature of many 'ceremonial laws' of the old testament. Things like washing and avoiding crowds when potentially contagious are written into the law itself. Dave pointed out another part of His provision where circumcision is not only healthier, but the timing ordained for circumcision is optimal for healing. God is very much concerned with sanitation and its his provisions that inspired a great deal of the basic research into both asepsis and antisepsis.

Ignoring Gods laws about cleanliness has resulted in untold numbers of deaths due to infection, such as when doctors would go from handling kadivers to delivering babies and infant and maternal death skyrocketed.

Cleanliness is indeed part of trusting his knowledge and provision and trusting God is part of Godliness. Cleanliness is part of Godliness.
 
There are lots of things in the Bible that are good for us to do, from observing honest weights and measures to honoring our contracts, that may or may not be "salvation" issues. But "if we love Him", we will keep His commands anyway.

When God promises a blessing for obedience, He isn't kidding. Even if the great replacement god 'Science' is a bit slow in figuring it out, there are health benefits to whatever He recommends in His Word - whether it's food, or trimming.
 
Personally, I feel that I would pray about it and seek counsel on it and if then you feel that it is worth the effort then I say go for it and do the restoration process.
 
Well this was a good way to lose weight. I came to this part looking for a good recipie and now I am not hungry any more! j/k I am a big boy so I am still hungry.

But on a more serious note I believe if you would feel the conviction to get it done then maybe that's what you should do. Personally I had it done at 13 (Circumcision) and the pain was so unreal I honestly do not think I could even think about getting any kind of any thing down there. If I knew that was what it took to become a man I would have asked for a one way ticket to peter pan and never looked back!
 
So in other words leave the shmekel alone unless it is a nessesity?
Shimon said:
I don't believe they should.

1Co 7:18 If you are already circumcised, don't try to change it. If you are not circumcised, don't get circumcised.
1Co 7:19 Being circumcised or uncircumcised isn't really what matters. The important thing is to obey God's commands.
1Co 7:20 So don't try to change what you were when God chose you. (CEV)

That being said, I believe you should reconsider circumcision for your children, not as a religious issue, but as a health issue. There is a significantly higher percentage of women who develop cervical cancer when their male partner is uncircumcised.

Additionally, adolescent boys who are uncircumcised are at higher risk for certain bacterial and fungal infections due to the same hormonal changes that cause pimples and other skin issues. Their somewhat lackluster personal hygiene habits (til they discover girls anyway) may be a contributing factor. I once was an ambulance driver and saw some pretty gruesome examples of the latter. Just MHO, but I had all my boys circumcised.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
1Co 7:18 If you are already circumcised, don't try to change it. If you are not circumcised, don't get circumcised.
1Co 7:19 Being circumcised or uncircumcised isn't really what matters. The important thing is to obey God's commands.
1Co 7:20 So don't try to change what you were when God chose you. (CEV)
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a really bad translation. There is a big difference in understanding between (colloquially) the concept of "don't sweat it" and "don't DO it!" Shaul (Paul) is talking about circumcision NOT being a 'salvation' issue.

That last line is particularly heinous ("don't try"), BTW. If the human heart is - as He says repeatedly, in many different ways, and through so many examples -- "desperately wicked", and we aren't supposed to change in order to "conform ourselves" to His example, then why did He bother Writing the Book for us? Much less even die for us so that we might learn what it means to be reborn?

To read Paul's letters (to formerly pagan churches in the process of trying to change themselves to conform to His Word, at that!) without discernment is folly.

Of COURSE we're supposed to change! Just don't believe for a second that any outward or mere physical attempt alone is sufficient.
 
I think what many people miss in trying to discuss circumcision from scripture is that modern circumcision is nothing like what God commanded in the Bible. It is a far more extreme operation, and exists for completely different (and secular) reasons.

In the Scripture, people were able to circumcise their children with a sharp stone in the middle of the desert, without the child dying. Furthermore, guys routinely had the operation done as adults, and seemed to recover within a few days, without anaesthetic. Have a think about this. There is an enormous amount of tissue removed in a modern circumcision, and bleeding is prevented using fancy little devices that are a bit more high-tech than a sharp stone.

In the Old Testament, circumcision was a very minor operation, with only the very tip of the foreskin removed - thus there was little bleeding and recovery was rapid. However it was possible to hide the "mark" of circumcision by pulling the remaining foreskin down (since it was still nearly complete), and encouraging regrowth (which takes little time in that situation).

To avoid this, at some point (maybe 140AD, but sources differ) the Pharisees introduced a more severe operation, approaching modern circumcision, which could not be hidden. Note that this was not scriptural, but the new traditions of man. This was never practiced by Christians as the Catholic church banned circumcision.

Then in the late 19th century a few people started thinking that masturbation caused a range of health problems (not true, not commenting on the moral side of this just the medical). Kellogg (cornflakes inventer) was a key thinker in this area. He promoted the idea that people should eat a spartan, cereal-based diet, males should be circumcised, and females punished for masturbation by applying carbolic acid to the clitoris :o . The new form of circumcision promoted was designed deliberately to reduce sexual pleasure, and was particularly extreme, removing the entire foreskin.

This new idea was promoted for American soldiers in the World Wars, and in a few countries such as ours who are heavily influenced by American culture. This resulted in many people receiving it and it becoming the new "normal". But the origins and reasons for this modern practice are far from scriptural, and should never be argued for from scripture. They are purely medical, and the bulk of international medical opinion these days is that circumcision is not recommended due to the health problems it can cause.

Why cut off something just in case it gets sick? People used to remove tonsils in case people got tonsillitis, an idea popularised at a similar time to the modern circumcision fad, and it caused no end of problems - God made tonsils for a reason, and doctors know that now. The same goes for the appendix. Should we cut off women's breasts just in case they get breast cancer? God created a foreskin for a reason, and it fulfils an important role. He never commanded anybody to remove it either, just trim the end as a symbolic sacrifice to Him. Removing it is an invention of man (pharisees and later Western sex-phobes), not scriptural.
 
There is a significantly higher percentage of women who develop cervical cancer when their male partner is uncircumcised.
Click to expand...
Cervical cancer is caused by a virus, HPV, not uncircumcision. An uncircumcised male may be more able to harbour the virus, so if he is having casual sex with a pile of women he could be more likely to transmit it among them. But the issue is a virus, and a circumcised man can also transmit it, just possibly not as readily.

If you're married, and one has HPV, all your wives will get it eventually, it's inevitable whether you are circumcised or uncirumcised. It just might happen on the third encounter instead of the first. All will be at risk of cervical cancer. If none of you has HPV, none of you can catch it unless somebody cheats - again circumcision makes no difference.

Medical advice for promiscuous men does not necessarily apply to Christian marriages.
 
A lot of that falls under knowing your surgery before you opt for it.

Anyway, we (as a culture) do circumcision because of the puritans. Some segments of puritanism called for a return to the Law in many areas, and where occasionally burned or gaoled for it (Christians REALLY hate those that love the Law). This is the 1650's.

This started about 100 years before Simon-Andre Tissot wrote his works on the 'evils of masturbation' and promoted the rather extreme 'full circumcision' to combat that and siphilous. Kellog didn't write his works until 100 years after that, and that nut job did promote circumcision for the very reasons you say. However even his type of circumcision was a minor operation, and did not require anaesthetic, though one might opt for it he discouraged that.

Oddly enough while the more mainstream views of medicine even since those times correctly identified the glans as the most sensitive part, the anti-masturbation crowd said the foreskin was, and that is the basis of saying circumcision made a difference with masturbation. People having received the surgery at an older age have actually occasionally said their glans was more sensitive after the operation, thereby (expectedly) showing that these views where wrong in almost every way. It shows where the 'circumcision leads to less sensitivity' idea came from, and gives some evidence against it (though the whole idea is subjective, you can't really prove something like that one way or the other)


It's still not a major surgery, and the full cut is also nothing like the norm. Mid cut and high cut are both pretty basic and not 'an enormous amount of tissue' by any respect, and guys (and babies) do recover in a few days. Anti bleeding devices are much easier to keep in place than a wool cloth, and are more high tech often being made of polymers, but they're more about convince than much in the way of added function.

This is one of those many places where medical science is very wishy washy (like eggs), they where on a vendetta in the 50's and they're on a different vendetta now. But we'll do it for the same reasons the puritans did. That it is hygienic is a nice bonus.
 
I didn't realise this had started in the USA with the Puritans, that is interesting.

I have no problem with anybody trying to follow the Law. However I think it is very important to in that case work out exactly what the Law is, and not presume the traditions of man are scriptural. Genesis 17:24 states that Abraham was circumcised "in the flesh of his foreskin". This wording is key. His foreskin was not removed, the circumcision was a mark that was made in his foreskin, which (mostly) remained.

God created every part of our bodies for a reason, to think that chopping a part off will be beneficial in some way makes no sense to me. God knows how to make a healthy (and hygenic) human far better than you or I.
 
Really the practice of circumcision in 'western culture' (including such places as Australia) comes partially (and independently) from the Puritans and Renaissance medial theory. I agree the medical theory is junk.


Where do you get the idea that it was ever just a small mark though? I haven't heard it. The passage literally means 'you will cut off your foreskins flesh.' which is fairly total.


Its the same 'cut off' that is used in

Psa 58:6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
Psa 58:7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
Psa 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

or

Psa 90:6 In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.



As for 'the flesh of the foreskin', it has to go along the lines of 'you will cut off your flesh, what flesh? the flesh of the foreskin'. It can't mean that you cut off the flesh of the foreskin and left the rest, as the only thing the foreskin is is flesh. If you cut the flesh of the foreskin off then you cut the whole thing off. That's all there is to it.

Also don't knock the tools of the ancient near east. Even if you're talking about stone tools you're talking about flint, which is is quite razor sharp for a surgery. Glass would also be readily available and was one traditional circumcision tool. And both of those is an 'if no iron is available' situation.


God knows how to make a body properly, he also knew how he was going to lay down his law. That is reason enough for there to be a foreskin.
 
It's not a terrible diagram, though it seems to be painting the Brit Milah as a bit 'taller' than it is, and the Brit Periah as a good deal shorter.

I really don't know how short the Rabbi's started cutting it in 140, but the illustration there is 'full circumcision' which is not normal and probably deserves a good bit of the flack it gets.

The standard medical circumcision around here is 'mid cut' where about 50-60% of the glans is exposed depending on its state. A 'tall cut' is usually around 40% exposed, which is not too far off the Milah in that picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top