Bible Dictionaries
CircuMcIsion (2)

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
CircuMcIsion

Next Entry
Circumstantiality in the Parables

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

CIRCUMCISION (מולָה, περιτομή).—With the origin^{* [Note: Its very early origin is shown by the fact that the rite was originallv performed with a stone implement, see Riehm, HWB, art. ‘Beschneidung’; cf.} Joshua 5:2^.] of this rite we are not here concerned; as regards the three main theories—that it was a tribal mark, that it was of the nature of a sacrifice to the deity, and that it was practised from hygienic motives—see the Literature at the end of this article.

Circumcision was very far from being confined to the Hebrews; it was practised by the ancient Arabs (Eusebius, Praep. Evangelica, vi. 11; W. R. Smith, Rel. of the Semites^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , p. 328; Wellhausen, Reste Arab^{. [Note: Arabic.]} Heident.^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} pp. 174–176; H. H. Ploss, Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Volker, i. 295–300; Bertherand, Médecine ct Hygiène des Arabcs, pp. 306–314) as well as by the Mohammedans (Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern Hist. p. 68), by the Ethiopians (Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 4), by the Kaffirs (J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , i. 327) and other African races (Hartmann, Die Völker Afrikas, i. 178; Ploss, op. cit. i. 295 f.), by many central Australian tribes (J. G. Frazer, Totemism, p. 47; Lagrange, Études sur les religions sémitiques, p. 239 ff.; Ploss, op. cit. ii. 250, 255, who says it is practised by the central, northern, and northwestern tribes, but not by those in the east and south-west), by the Egyptians (Ebers, aegypten und die Bucher Mose’s, i. 278; Lagrange, op. cit. p. 241 ff.), and by the Aztecs and other Central American races (Jewish Encyc. iv. 97), etc.

The great difference between the national observance of the rite by the Hebrews (however one may seek to account for the somewhat conflicting statements in Genesis 7:12, Exodus 4:25-26, and Joshua 5:5; cf. John 7:22)^{† [Note: It is noteworthy that as a physical act circumcision is not considered in the book of Deuteronomy, though it is used in a figurative sense, 10:16, 30:16.]} and that of other peoples was, firstly, that its significance was wholly religious,—the outward symbol of a covenant with God,—it was a religious act, whereas, among other nations, whatever the reason may have been for practising circumcision, it did not occupy a position like this;^{‡ [Note: A certain religious element, though in quite a subordinate sense, has been observed in the performance of the rite in some races, e.g. among the Polynesians (see Ploss, op. cit. i. 299 f.). In later Judaism, when sacrifices had ceased, circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath were regarded as substitutes for sacrifices.]} and secondly, that the Hebrews performed circumcision on the eighth day after birth,^{* [Note: This applies also to the Samaritans.]} i.e. in infancy, whereas among other races it almost invariably took place at the age of puberty.^{† [Note: An exception to this is found among the Persians, who circumcise their children at any age from eight days to ten years, though it is unusual to do so at the earliest age (see, further, Ploss, op. cit. p. 248ff.).]} It is possible that this difference between the Mosaic Code and the usage of others was due to the more humane character of the former, which enjoined the rite at a time when least painful.^{‡ [Note: Bertherand, Médecine des Arabes, p. 306; Driver, Genesis, p. 190.]}

It was the custom among the Hebrews at all times, as it is among modern Jews,^{§ [Note: The so-called Reform Jews are an exception.]} to give a boy|^{| [Note: | Girls receive their name on the day of birth.]} a name at his circumcision^{¶ [Note: With this may be compared the custom among some primitive races of changing the name at circumcision.]} (see Luke 2:21). The rite had to be performed on the eighth day after birth, even though that day happened to be a Sabbath; technically this was a breaking of the Sabbath, but the law concerning circumcision took precedence here (see Christ’s words in John 7:22 f.). If, however, from one cause or another, e.g. sickness, a child’s circumcision had to be postponed, the rite could under no circumstances be performed on the Sabbath.*^{* [Note: * Cf. A. Asher, The Jewish Rite of Circumcision, p. 41 f.]} In the time of Christ the ceremony was performed in the house; by the 7th cent. it had become customary to perform it in the synagogue; the modern Jews, however, have gone back to the earlier custom, and have their children circumcised at home.†^{† [Note: † For an account of the ceremony as performed at the present day, see Singer, Authorized Daily Prayer-Book, pp. 304–307; Asher, op. cit. p. xix f. Some interesting details will also be found in Jewish Encyc., art. ‘Circumcision.’]} How fully the Law was fulfilled in the case of Christ is seen from Luke 1:59 ‘On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child [John]’ (cf. Acts 7:8, Philippians 3:5), and Luke 2:21 ‘And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called Jesus’ (cf. Galatians 4:4).

Whatever may have been the original object and signification of circumcision,‡^{‡ [Note: ‡ See a remarkable art. by J. G. Frazer in The Independent Review, Nov. 1904.]} it had lost its primary meaning long before the time of our Lord. By the time of the Babylonian exile it had become one of the distinguishing marks of Judaism; yet in spite of this, it is remarkable to find that in later days there arose a divergence of opinion among the Jews as to the need of circumcision for proselytes. Hellenistic Jews did not enforce circumcision in the case of proselytes, affirming that baptism was sufficient (see the Jewish Encyc. iv. 94, 95, where further details are given); the Palestinian Jews, on the other hand, would not admit proselytes without circumcision. The view of the latter ultimately won the day, but the episode testifies to the fact that, in the opinion of a very influential and important class of Jews, circumcision and baptism were analogous rites. Now there was one element in circumcision which may possibly have been of greater significance than is often supposed. It was an essential part of the rite that blood should be shed (cf. the ‘Mezizah’ cup, an illustration of which can be seen in the Jewish Encyc. iv. 99); but blood represented life, was even identified with life (Leviticus 17:11; Leviticus 17:14, see art. Blood); it is therefore difficult to get away from the conviction that when a child was circumcised he was consecrated to God by the fact that his life (i.e. under the symbol of blood) was offered to God. The fact of circumcision being called ‘the sign of the covenant’ (Genesis 17:11 אות בְּרִית; cf. also the modern name בְּרִיח מִילָה, and the words in the service at a circumcision: ‘From this eighth day and henceforth may his blood be accepted, and may the Lord his God be with him’)^{* [Note: Singer, op. cit. p. 307.]} supports this view, for no covenant was ratified without the shedding of blood.^{† [Note: See Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, passim; W. R. Smith op. cit. p. 314 f., Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia2, p. 57 ff.]} i.e. the symbolic laying down of a life.

If circumcision, then, was in a certain sense a death (or at least a symbol of life laid down), there is a very striking analogy between it and baptism; cf. the words of St. Paul in Romans 6:3 ff. ‘Are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life …’ Both circumcision and baptism were a figurative death, by means of which a new spiritual life was reached. In the later Jewish literature this view was held with regard to circumcision, as the following quotation, for example, will show: ‘According to Pirke R. El.… Pharaoh prevented the Hebrew slaves from performing the rite; but when the Passover time came and brought them deliverance, they underwent circumcision, and mingled the blood of the Paschal lamb with that of the Abrahamic covenant, wherefore (Ezekiel 16:6) God repeats the words: In thy blood live.’^{‡ [Note: Jewish Encyc. iv. 93b.]} The same thought is brought out in the modern ‘service at a circumcision,’ when the Mohel^{§ [Note: An official specially qualified to perform the rite.]} says, in reference to the newly circumcised: ‘Let thy father and thy mother rejoice, and let her that bare thee be glad; and it is said, And I passed by thee, and I saw thee weltering in thy blood, and I said unto thee, “In thy blood live.” ’|^{| [Note: | Singer, op. cit. p. 305.]}

Taking these facts together, we must regard the circumcision of Christ as of the highest significance; for it was not only a fulfilling of the Law, but inasmuch as it was symbolic of a life laid down, it must also be regarded as a ‘parable’ of the Crucifixion (cf. Milton, Poetical Works, ‘Upon the Circumcision’; Keble, Christian Year, ‘The Circumcision of Christ’).

Literature.—H. H. Ploss, Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Volker, i. 295–300, ii. 250 ff., Stuttgart, 1876, Geschichtliches und Ethnologisches über Kuaben-Beschneidung, Leipzig, 1885; A. Asher, The Jewish Rite of Circumcision, with the Prayers and Laws appertaining thereto (English translation), 1873, very useful, but must be used with caution; Stade in ZAT^{W [Note: ATW Zeitschrift für die Alttest. Wissenchaft.]} , 1886, a most interesting and instructive article on the origin of the rite in the Hebrew nation; an article in ZDP^{V [Note: DPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins.]} xvii. 89 ff. is also useful; Harper, Priestly Element in OT^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , Chicago, 1905, 149 f., and the lit. there; Driver, Genesis, London, 1904, pp. 189–191; Bertherand, Médecine et Hygiène des Arabes, Paris, 1855, gives many interesting details concerning the modern rite among Arabs generally, though the work deals mainly with Algeria. There is also much information to be gathered here and there in J. H. Petermann’s Reisen im Orient, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1860. The articles in the works on Hebräische Archdologie by Nowack and Benzinger, as well as that on ‘Beschneidung’ in Hamburger’s R^{E [Note: E Realencyklopädie.]} , should be consulted; cf. also art. ‘Circumcision’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible and in the Encyc. Bibl. and the Jewish Encyclopedia.

W. O. E. Oesterley.