Contributor: Hortensius F. Mandaru, SSL.
Editor: Vince Ellysabeth
Among the various religious practices in the Bible, circumcision is perhaps one of the least discussed in the modern church due to its specific nature and the fact that it is often regarded merely as part of the ritual law of ancient Israel. Yet in the history of salvation, circumcision actually plays a significant role: it served as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, a marker of the identity of the chosen people, and a crucial point of theological debate within the early church. The fact that Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), as were John the Baptist and the apostles as devout Jews, raises a fundamental question: why is this practice no longer required in Christianity?
Circumcision in the Context of the Ancient World: A Common Practice Imbued with Theological Significance
Circumcision was not a practice exclusive to Israel. Jeremiah 9:25 states that the Egyptians, the people of Judah, Edom, the Ammonites and the Moabites were familiar with the tradition of circumcision, whilst the Babylonians, Assyrians, Philistines, Greeks and Romans did not practise it. A number of studies even suggest that this practice was known in Egypt as early as around 3000 BC. Thus, circumcision was originally a widespread anthropological and cultural practice in the ancient world, particularly amongst the Semitic peoples.
Generally speaking, in ancient cultures, circumcision was often associated with rites of passage, particularly around the time of puberty or prior to marriage. Circumcision marked a boy’s entry into the status of social adulthood, with full rights and obligations as a member of society. Furthermore, the form of circumcision varied from one nation to another. Some sources mention that the Egyptian practice did not involve completely cutting off the foreskin, but merely splitting it. Such variations could even serve as markers of ethnic identity.
Israel adopted this common practice but imbued it with a distinctive theological significance. This is where the process of cultural inculturation took place: an existing practice was given new meaning in the light of God’s revelation.
Joshua 5: Circumcision as a Severing of the Egyptian Defect, a Sign of New Identity
In Joshua 5:2–9, it is recounted that the Lord commanded Joshua to make a stone knife and to perform circumcision again upon the Israelites. The use of a stone knife (a very ancient tool) indicates continuity with the old practice, yet the phrase ‘circumcise them again’ gives rise to interpretative debate. Some commentators suggest that the generation that left Egypt may have practised a form of circumcision in the Egyptian style, so the act of ‘circumcising them again’ serves to reaffirm the distinctive Israelite practice of removing the entire foreskin.
Verse 9 records the Lord’s words: ‘Today I have removed from you the disgrace of Egypt.’ Circumcision in this context serves as a symbol of the severing of the old identity—that of slavery and dependence on Egypt—and the affirmation of a new identity as the people of the covenant. Thus, circumcision is not merely a physical act, but a theological declaration of who belongs to the Lord.
Genesis 17: Circumcision as a Sign of the Covenant
The deepest theological significance of circumcision in the Old Testament is found in Genesis 17. Although God’s covenant with Abraham had already been declared in Genesis 15, chapter 17 provides the concrete sign of that covenant: circumcision. God promised to make Abraham the father of a multitude of nations and established an everlasting covenant with his descendants. On the part of Abraham and his descendants, the sign of faithfulness to that covenant is circumcision.
There are two significant distinctive features of Israelite circumcision. Firstly, circumcision is performed on male infants on the eighth day. This practice is unknown in other cultures, which generally associate circumcision with puberty or as a prerequisite for marriage. The circumcision of an eight-day-old infant emphasises that God’s covenant does not depend on human ability. An infant possesses neither the capacity for procreation nor the ability to contribute in any way to the fulfilment of the promise. Thus, circumcision serves as a sign that the fulfilment of the covenant depends entirely on God’s power and faithfulness, not on human strength.
Secondly, circumcision is performed only on males. In the patrilineal culture of ancient Israel, men were regarded as the heads of the family and the custodians of the lineage. The covenant concerning the promise of descendants was symbolically marked on the organ directly associated with procreation. This sign was placed on the part of the body that symbolised the continuation of the generations of the covenant people. Thus, circumcision served as a sign of the covenant engraved in the flesh, marking the exclusive relationship between God and His people.
The individual dimension is also very strong. Genesis 17:14 emphasises that any man who is not circumcised must be cut off from his people for having broken the covenant. Although the covenant applies to the community, the responsibility to obey it is personal. Circumcision is an absolute prerequisite for participation in the covenant community.
From the Physical to the Metaphorical: Circumcision of the Heart in the Old Testament
Interestingly, within the development of Old Testament theology itself, the meaning of circumcision began to shift from the physical to the spiritual dimension. Deuteronomy 10:16 calls out, ‘Circumcise your hearts, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.’ Deuteronomy 30:6 affirms that it is the Lord who will circumcise the hearts of His people so that they may love Him with all their heart and soul. Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel also speak of the circumcision of the heart and even the circumcision of the ear.
Here, circumcision serves as a metaphor for openness and total obedience to God. Just as the foreskin is cut away to open up, so too must the heart be opened to be receptive to the Word and will of the Lord. Thus, the Old Testament itself has provided the theological basis for understanding circumcision not merely as a physical act, but as an inner transformation.
The Early Church and the Identity Crisis
Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day in accordance with the Law (Luke 2:21), as were John the Baptist and the apostles. As Jews, they lived in obedience to the Law. However, when the Gospel began to be preached to non-Jewish peoples, a crucial question arose: must non-Jews who believe in Christ be circumcised in order to be validly counted as God’s people?
This question sparked fierce debate within the early church. Some Jewish Christians insisted that circumcision was a prerequisite for salvation. It was in this context that the Apostle Paul offered a theological reinterpretation that determined the direction of the church.
Paul and the Reinterpretation of Circumcision: Faith Precedes the Sign
In Romans 4:11, Paul reinterprets the meaning of Abraham’s circumcision. He emphasises that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15, before he was circumcised in Genesis 17. Thus, circumcision is a seal of righteousness based on faith, not the source of that righteousness itself. Abraham could become the father of all believers, whether circumcised or uncircumcised.
Paul’s argument is historical-theological: faith precedes the sign. Therefore, non-Jews who have faith like Abraham do not need to be circumcised to be part of God’s people. Circumcision retains its significance as a mark of identity for Jews as the physical descendants of Abraham, but it is not a requirement for Abraham’s ‘spiritual children’ who live by faith in Christ.
For Paul, what matters is not whether one is physically circumcised or not, but faith working through love. Thus, circumcision undergoes a transformation in meaning: from an ethnic sign and a physical covenant to a symbol of righteousness by faith.
Conclusion
The history of circumcision in the Bible shows that religious signs fulfil an important function in specific contexts, but are not necessarily absolute throughout all time. In the unfolding of God’s revelation, signs can be reinterpreted and given new meaning in accordance with the development of the plan of salvation. From an ancient cultural practice, circumcision became the sign of the covenant with Abraham; from a physical sign, it came to be understood as the circumcision of the heart; from an ethnic obligation, it was transformed into a symbol of faith in Christ.
Thus, the question ‘Jesus was circumcised, so why aren’t we?’ cannot be answered simplistically. Jesus lived within the context of the Old Covenant and fulfilled it. The Church, as a New Covenant community that transcends ethnic boundaries, is called to understand that the essence of the covenant does not lie in outward signs, but in faith that entrusts itself entirely to God’s work in Christ.
Finally, we are reminded that in religious life, certain signs can be of great importance in their own time. However, faithfulness to the faith demands the ability to reinterpret those signs in the light of God’s work, which continues to unfold throughout history. Circumcision teaches us that what matters most is not a sign on the body, but a heart that is open and trusts in God.
Of course, when we speak of circumcision, we are speaking of the outward aspects of the life of faith. All such outward signs are irrelevant, of little value, if they do not truly express our deepest faith. That is what matters most. So all the outward acts we perform—whether gestures of worship or anything else—must spring from the purity and sincerity of a deep faith. Furthermore, in the history of Christianity, the debate over circumcision once caused a schism amongst the apostles. However, they eventually reached a common solution. Perhaps that, too, is a timeless message. No doctrine or practice should divide the followers of Christ (Hortensius F. Mandaru, SSL.)
This article is adapted from Bincang Alkitab. Watch the full video version on LAI’s YouTube channel:
https://youtu.be/Q5WnqkwRQ8A?si=bHeMfE7kRo8rxz2o
