Abstract
One of the features of our generation is the freedom with which people now speak about subjects which were previously the subject of unspoken taboos. So it is bizarre that just at this time of free speaking, the church has taken to stepping with maidenly modesty altogether away from, the event which occurred in Jesus’ life on the first of January. The church now calls that day The Naming of Jesus. Doubtless He was named then. But the matter which the universal church had previously celebrated is His circumcision.
This was no small matter. Circumcision was not only of fundamental importance for the Jews themselves; it was the striking feature by which Jews were identified. Of course, their circumcision was not normally visible but it was seen in the gymnasiums of the Roman towns. In those days men exercised naked—the Greek word ‘gymnos’ means ‘naked’. So some Jews tried to alter their physical appearance, enough of them for a new word to enter the Greek language meaning ‘to uncircumcise’.
Today, Jews are not the only peoples to have a sacred rite of circumcision. The largest tribe in Kenya, for example, the Kikuyu, circumcise all their males as an initiation rite for entry into manhood. The importance attached to it is illustrated by an event in a country town called Ngong where I have more than once stayed. One youth did not want to be circumcised. He was pulled round the town in a cart with what was regarded as his shame on public view and circumcised willy-nilly. Some of those who lined the route contributed to the cost of the operation.
A nineteen-year-old explained to me in detail why in his view the operation had practical benefits. He elaborated on three such benefits. But these were not the upfront reasons for the custom. More ex post facto justification. It is the ritual itself which mattered.
And then there are the Arabs. Their ancestor Ishmael, Abraham’s first son—but by a maid, not his wife—was circumcised when Abraham himself and all the males in his household were circumcised. Isaac was circumcised later, eight days after he was born. As Jesus once pointed out, the Jews of His generation were all circumcised under the law of Moses, but this rite went back long before the law, even to Abraham; and so it is that all Arab males are circumcised—this doesn’t have its roots in the Koran—and at the age of thirteen, the age of Ishmael when he was circumcised. And what a shame it is that having this common Abrahamic bond so many Arabs and Jews today—thankfully not all of them—cannot look upon each other with brotherly love.
And if all these other peoples—the Kikuyu and so on—treat the rite as of such importance, how much so do the Jews? For them it is the entry into sharing in the covenant between God and Abraham and heirs to the promises made to Abraham. Right at the heart of their standing. And circumcision was the token of that covenant. It is no wonder then that the Galatians and other Jewish Christians in the early days of the church thought it essential that Gentile converts, the likes of most of us, should be circumcised. This was not necessarily any selfish thought on their part. How else other than by circumcision could we become spiritual heirs of Abraham?
Nor, for the same reason, is it a cause for surprise that the apostle Paul had such an uphill struggle persuading the church that circumcision was not necessary for Gentile converts. How could such a vital rite not be necessary? His teaching eventually succeeded, however and was accepted at the Council of Jerusalem.
But Paul was not saying ‘No circumcision. End of story. Forget circumcision.’ Far from it. The Jewish Christians were right; there has to be that for which circumcision stood, insofar as still relevant. The rite has to be there; only the externals are—for good reason—changed.
But first of all, insofar as still relevant. There was one part of the rite which is no longer relevant, and this too shows why that particular form of rite, the cutting off of flesh, is no longer appropriate. Circumcision means ‘cutting around’ and it is the cutting of the foreskin that is painful. And although called ‘skin’ in English, it is in fact flesh; and so there is shedding of blood.
And that part of the rite—sacrifice with shedding of blood—had been fulfilled by Jesus in His life and death. There is no longer place for the prophetical symbolism of that sacrifice to be included in the rite of entry to becoming one of God’s people.
But the rite itself is still needed, and Paul explains, in his letter to the Colossians (Colossians 2:11–15), the new form which it takes and why it does so. There is space here to read only the key part of what he writes.
In Christ also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein you are also risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who has raised Him from the dead.
The symbolic representation of sacrifice in circumcision still stands to remind us of the obligations of the individual if he is to enjoy the benefits of the covenant. It spoke of giving up our own wills to the will of God. And even Moses, when he added circumcision to the law, knew that having a law was not sufficient. He spoke of circumcising the heart (Deuteronomy10:16; 30:6). Only being circumcised in heart makes the keeping of the law possible.
And that is why baptism is the new form of circumcision. The Gospel is not about keeping a law, keeping rules. It is about having a right heart so that we then do what is right.
But that is not the end of the matter. The new form of the rite is baptism, but only if it achieves that for which the continuing part of the rite stands. We throw away the actuality which the new form of the rite, namely baptism, can bring if we suppose that baptism is only an expression of faith and intent on our part. What matters, as Paul clearly says, is our faith ‘in the operation of God’ in baptism. If we do not believe that God works in our baptism, we have indeed thrown away circumcision and what it still means.
But if we have that faith, then just as the visible sign of circumcision in the gymnasia of old showed who were Jews, so the inward grace given to us in our baptism, our circumcision not made with hands, will characterise us, in all places and at all times.