circumcision controversy in early Christianity

According to the Hebrew Bible, circumcision was enjoined upon the biblical patriarch Abraham, his descendants and their slaves as "a token of the covenant" concluded with him by God for all generations, as an "everlasting covenant".

The Council of Jerusalem during the Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity did not include religious male circumcision as a requirement for new gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree": "But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. ... By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Saint Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists ()." It may be one of the first acts differentiating early Christianity from Judaism.

Circumcision has played an important role in Christian history and theology; the circumcision of Jesus is celebrated as a feast day in the liturgical calendar of many Christian denominations, while Paul's teaching that physical circumcision was unnecessary for membership in the new covenant was instrumental in the separation of Christianity from Judaism. In some Eastern Christian denominations male circumcision is an established practice, and males are generally required to be circumcised shortly after birth as part of a rite of passage. While circumcision is not observed in certain Christian countries and communities, it is practiced in other Christian countries and communities.

Background

There are numerous references in the Hebrew Bible to the obligation for circumcision and the uncircumcised are to be cut off from the people in Genesis 17:14.

During the 1st century BC there was a controversy in Judaism relating to whether or not a proselyte who was already circumcised needed to be ritually re-circumcised. This is done via a pinprick creating a drop of blood and is still practiced to this day.

1st and 2nd century AD Judaism

Jewish sources vary on whether or not circumcision of proselytes was a universal practice in tannaitic times.

The disagreement centers on the correctness of contradictory passages in the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud and which passage is older. ''B. Yevamot 46a'' is summarized as follows:
:Rabbi Joshua says that if a proselyte is immersed but not circumcised this is valid. Because our mothers were immersed but not circumcised. Rabbi Eliezer says the opposite. Because such was found regarding our fathers. However the sages say both are required.

''P. Kiddushin 3:12'' (3:14, 64d) is summarized as follows:
:Rabbi Eliezer says only circumcision is required the same as in B. Yevamot 46a. Rabbi Joshua says both are required.

During tannaitic times uncircumcised semi-converts also existed, see God-fearer and Ger toshav.

Circumcision of Jesus

According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, in accordance with Mosaic Law.

Mosaic Law in Early Christianity

Similar differences and disputes existed within Early Christianity, but disputes within Christianity extended also to the place of Mosaic Law or Old Covenant in general in Christianity. This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore. Alister McGrath, an intellectual historian and proponent of paleo-orthodoxy, claims that many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they tended to be of the view that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic Law were required for salvation. Those in the Christian community who insisted that biblical law, including laws on circumcision, continued to apply to Christians were pejoratively labeled Judaizers by their opponents and criticized as being elitist and legalistic.

Council of Jerusalem

The Council of Jerusalem of about 50 AD was the first meeting in early Christianity called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new community. Specifically, it had to consider whether gentile converts to Christianity were obligated to undergo circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, but it was conscious that the issue had wider implications, since circumcision is the "everlasting" sign of the covenant of the pieces. Jewish culture was still trying to find its place in the more dominant Hellenistic culture which found circumcision to be repulsive.

The decision of the Council, called the Apostolic Decree, was that most Mosaic Law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile converts. The Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship". There is a view that 'strangled' and 'blood' in the texts refer to foreskin conditions - paraphimosis and ruptured frenulum, respectively. Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Leviticus 17 as the basis.

The Decree is one of the first acts differentiating the Church from its Jewish roots, though a similar dispute was taking place at the same time within Judaism, but which came to a contrary conclusion.

Teaching of Paul

While the issue was theoretically resolved, it continued to be a recurring issue among Christians. After the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. There was a burgeoning movement of Judaizers in the area that advocated adherence to traditional Mosaic laws, including circumcision. According to McGrath, Paul identified James the Just as the motivating force behind the movement. Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.

Paul, who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles", attacked the practice, although not consistently. In the case of Timothy, whose mother was a Jewish Christian but whose father was Greek, he personally circumcised him "because of the Jews" that were in town. He also appeared to praise its value in Romans 3:1-2.

Two interpretations exist of Paul's comment on those wanting to force circumcision on Gentile Christians in Galatians 5:12. The King James Version reading "I would they were even cut off" suggests cut off from the Church, but most modern versions, following scholars such as Lightfoot, R. C. H. Lenski and F. F. Bruce, read as the English Standard Version "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" due to a reading of the Greek text ''apokopsontai'' "be cut off" as Paul wishing that the circumcisers would castrate themselves. This parallels katatomē. Eusebius reported that the early Christian Origen did in fact castrate himself, although following Matthew 19:12.

Paul argued that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice (), and 1 Corinthians reads: "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised." ()

Later Paul more explicitly denounced the practice, rejecting and condemning those who promoted circumcision to Gentile Christians. Paul warned that the advocates of circumcision were "false brothers".() He accused Galatian Christians who advocated circumcision of turning from the Spirit to the flesh: "Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" () He accused advocates of circumcision of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh () and of glorying or boasting of the flesh. () Some believe Paul wrote the entire Epistle to the Galatians attacking circumcision and any requirement for the keeping of Jewish law by Christians, saying in chapter five: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." ()

In a late letter he warned Christians to "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision," (κατατομή, ''katatomē'') saying that Christians were the true circumcision because they worshipped in the Spirit of God. ()

Florentine Bechtel notes in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910): Judaizers:
:Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ().

Later views

According to Acts, Simon Peter condemned required circumcision of converts. When the various passages from the New Testament regarding circumcision are gathered together, a strongly negative view of circumcision emerges, according to Michael Glass. Some Biblical scholars think that the Epistle to Titus, generally attributed to Paul, but see Authorship of the Pauline epistles, may state that circumcision should be discouraged among Christians, though others believe this is merely a reference to Jews. Circumcision was so closely associated with Jewish men that Jewish Christians were referred to as "those of the circumcision" or conversely Christians who were circumcised were referred to as Jewish Christians or Judaizers. These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominate, however it is an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who were not circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who were.

A common interpretation of the circumcision controversy of the New Testament was, that it was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism. However, the Halakha of Rabbinic Judaism was still under development at this time, as the Jewish Encyclopedia notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakha was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." This controversy was fought largely between opposing groups of Christians who were themselves ethnically Jewish, see section Jewish background above. According to this interpretation, those who felt that conversion to Judaism was a prerequisite for Church membership were eventually condemned by Paul as " Judaizing teachers".

The source of this interpretation is unknown; however, it appears related to Supersessionism or Hyperdispensationalism (see also New Perspective on Paul). In addition, modern Christians, such as Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox still practice circumcision while not considering it a part of conversion to Judaism, nor do they consider themselves to be Jews or Jewish Christians.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah notes the following reconciliation:

Contemporary practices

Today, many Christian denominations are neutral about ritual male circumcision, not requiring it for religious observance, but neither forbidding it for cultural or other reasons. Covenant theology largely views the Christian sacrament of baptism as fulfilling the Israelite practice of circumcision, both being signs and seals of the covenant of grace.

Since the Council of Florence, the Roman Catholic Church forbade the practice of circumcision among Christians; Roman Catholic scholars, including John J. Dietzen, David Lang, and Edwin F. Healy, argue that "elective male infant circumcision not only violates the proper application of the time-honored principle of totality, but even fits the ethical definition of mutilation, which is gravely sinful." Roman Catholicism generally is silent today with respect to its permissibility, though elective circumcision continues to be debated amongst theologians. The Roman Catholic Church currently maintains a neutral position on the practice of cultural circumcision, as the church has a policy of inculturation.

The practice, on the other hand, is customary among the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, and also some other African churches,Customary in some Coptic and other churches, indicating that it has been regionally normative since ancient times:
*"The Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians— two of the oldest surviving forms of Christianity— retain many of the features of early Christianity, including male circumcision. Circumcision is not prescribed in other forms of Christianity... Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose the practice, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya, require circumcision for membership and participants in focus group discussions in Zambia and Malawi mentioned similar beliefs that Christians should practice circumcision since Jesus was circumcised and the Bible teaches the practice."
*"The decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in ; there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is practiced by Coptic Christians.
"circumcision"
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-05. and males are generally required to be circumcised shortly after birth as part of a rite of passage. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church calls for circumcision, with near-universal prevalence among Orthodox men in Ethiopia. Eritrean Orthodox practice circumcision as a rite of passage, and they circumcise their sons "anywhere from the first week of life to the first few year". Male circumcision is also widely practiced among Christian communities in Africa, certain Anglosphere countries, Oceania, South Korea, the Philippines and the Middle East. While Christian communities in Europe and South America have low circumcision rates. The United States and the Philippines are the largest majority Christian countries in the world to extensively practice circumcision. Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose circumcision, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya, require circumcision for membership, despite St. Paul's warnings against those who required circumcision for salvation, in his epistle to the church of Galatia.

The Greek Orthodox Church and Lutheran Church do not advocate circumcision among their adherents, but celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ on 1 January, while Orthodox churches following the Julian calendar celebrate it on Gregorian 14 January. The Orthodox Church considers it one of the twelve "Great Feasts". In the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches, the commemoration of the circumcision of Christ has been replaced by other commemorations, such as the Feast of the Holy Name in the Lutheran Churches and the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God in the Catholic Church.

Even though mainstream Christian denominations do not require the practice and maintain a neutral position on it, it is practiced in certain Christian countries and communities, while it is not observed in other Christian countries and communities. Both religious and non-religious circumcision is common in some predominantly Christian countries such as the United States, but outside of the Jewish and Muslim communities, not for reasons of religious observance; see circumcision controversies. It may be significant that Jewish applicants to American medical schools comprised 60% of all applications in the 1930s, at a time when circumcision was becoming popular in the US. The prevalence of circumcision in the United States is approximately 80%. According to studies, American Evangelicals and Mormons have the highest rates of infant male circumcision among Christian denominations in the United States.

According to Scholar Heather L. Armstrong of University of Southampton, about half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised, with most of them being located in Africa, Anglosphere countries (with notable prevalence in the United States) and the Philippines. Many Christians have been circumcised for reasons such as family preferences, depending on Biblical interpretation by individuals, medical or cultural reasons. circumcision is also part of a traditional practice among the adherents of Coptic Christianity, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church.

Circumcision is common among Christians in the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, and Canada. Circumcision is near universal in the Christian countries of Oceania, and among the Christians of Africa, being common among Christians in countries such as the Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Kenya, and is also widely practiced among Christians from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and North Africa. Circumcision is less common among the Christians of Canada, Europe and Latin America. It is practiced amongst some Christians in the Indian subcontinent.

See also

* Christianity and Judaism
* Expounding of the Law
* Relations between early Christianity and Judaism

References

External links

Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision



Gentiles and Circumcision

{{DEFAULTSORT:Circumcision controversy In Early Christianity

1st-century Christianity
Ancient Christian controversies
Bible-related controversies
Biblical law
Judaism in the New Testament
Mosaic law in Christian theology
Schisms in Christianity