I was going to place this in Great Debates, since religious matters tend to get heated around here. But then I figured that the mods could always move it there or to the Pit.
I found something odd while looking for other things.
1 Corinthians 7:18 (King James Version)
Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.
:dubious:
Now, I am aware that there are techniques to reverse at least some circumcisions today. But what could this have meant in Paul’s time? Anyone know?
I see where the English Standard Version has something about hiding the “marks of circumcision” but even if that is a reasonable translation, it still has me confuzzled.
Darn! The title should have said “uncircumcised” – Mods, please correct.
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.
I think the “not become uncircumcised” was just rhetorical. He’s just saying, whatever the condition of your foreskin, it’s fine by us.
So yes, back in the day you could try to fake being uncut. Even if it were obvious you were simply covering the cut end of your penis, it was still considered polite because in a strange way, a normal penis was considered “clothed” and a cut penis was considered naked.
Avoiding any reference to l’affaire Jack Dean Tyler… )
The significance of circumcision in religious terms is that it was the mark of the covenant that God made with the Jews. As Christianity was feeling its way to being a universal religion, there was a faction that felt that, to be a Christian, one needed to become a Jew – which would mean keeping the (dietary, etc.) Law and becoming a Son of the Covenant, symbolized by becoming circumsized. Paul is teaching against these ‘Judaizers’ here. (Nor, of course, does he approve of people denying their Jewishness in an effort to become cosmopolitan or something of the sort.) It’s less what you do with your foreskin than someting like: “If you’re a Gentile, stay a Gentile; if a Jew, stay a Jew, Don’t try to become something you’re not out of an idea that God expects it – everybody is equally a child of God.”
[moderating]
Thread title changed from “Let him not be circumcised. - WHAT?!” to “Let him not be uncircumcised. - WHAT?!” at the OP’s request.
[/moderating]
Lots of things that were taken as ‘in the flesh’ in the OT were explained to be in the spirit/heart in the NT (as ‘the law is spiritual’ Rom 7:14). As such circumcision was not meant to be physical but ‘of the heart’ (Rom 2:29).
As for the above Bible cite, IMHO it means that if someone is considered circumcised (even if he is not), let the opinion remain that he is circumcised (so he can reached the population that believes that circumcision is needed), if a man is not considered circumcised, let that opinion remain (so he can reach that abundance with God’s Love). Or in other words God will use you to do His work where you are.
Also ( again IMHO) circumcision can be ‘overcome’ by a very deep connection to one’s own heart, and giving one’s self to the other giving a highly spiritual and very pleasurable (beyond description), connection between the 2, which seems to also be described in Kama Sutra.
In line with Polycarp’s answer, an interpretation I’ve heard is that the circumcision is used as an extreme example representing all Jewish laws and customs, Paul chose one custom which could not really be “unmade” to indicate that people who were used to keeping Judaic law didn’t have to throw their customs out of the window any more than those who came from a different background had to take up Jewish customs. If you were used to eating kosher, nobody was to force bacon down your throat.
I really was only asking about the possibility of ancient circumcision-reversal, but folks seem very interested in the doctrinal overview angle brought into the thread, so carry on.
And I may come back to the thread if it includes modern uncircumcision methods, pre-conditions and results.
The first circumcisions of the Jewish peoples only cut off the ‘tip of the foreskin’; so quite a lot was left on… it’s only today, when the amputated foreskins were desired by Medical researchers for cultures, etc… and was sold in the U.S. - by the pound - so, to cash in, the more you took off, the better it was… I have seen some shocking circumcisions where the skin was taken off half way down the shaft of the penis.
The olden-days were about religious ceremony, today it’s the $'s !!!
Millions a year are spent in the States repairing botched circumcisions. :smack:
That coincides with how I have had it explained to me: part of the whole early-Apostolic debate on continuing to follow Jewish ritual or not.
Though I suppose that one could take it literally in the physical realm in the sense that in turn this would allow the early Judeo-Christians to continue to circumcise their sons while the Helleno-Christians didn’t.
So Ozucator, if I understand you correctly, the modern doctors make the big money from circumcisions, while the ancient rabbis only took tips.
Yes, I also can barely believe I did it, but I did.
I’ve read elsewhere of Hellenic foreskin restoration practices.
I agree with the consensus here. In order to attract both Jews and Gentiles, they were saying ‘If you’re circumcised, that is fine with us. If you are not circumcised, that’s fine too’
