What is the significance of circumcision? (Gen 17:9-27)

A friend once had a medical appointment where the doctor made a pass at her. In response, she flashed her engagement ring at him indicating that she belonged to someone else. While engagement rings and wedding bands are removable and so somewhat different from circumcision, they are reminders and signals of a relationship and a commitment to a person. Another parallel, this time etched into the body, are the traditional tattoos among New Zealand Māori. The markings made on the face declare a person’s connection to his family and ancestry and his or her standing within her community. It is a public declaration of identity, allegiance and belonging. Though not an exact match to circumcision, these examples may help us appreciate the significance of this custom.

The centrality of circumcision

That circumcision is at the heart of Genesis 17 is highlighted by the chapter’s structure. The command given to Abraham (Gen 17:9-14) is the third in a block of five and therefore right in the middle of the chapter. God’s call for Abraham to walk before Him and be blameless (Gen 17:1-2) is matched by his obedience in performing circumcision (Gen 17:23-27), while God’s promises to him and his name change (Gen 17:3-8) correspond the promise of a son to Sarah and her name change (Gen 17:15-22). Thus, the outer blocks share a connection at either end of the chapter while circumcision has no matching pair, again drawing our attention to this central section.[1] This is what the structure looks like visually.

The meaning of circumcision

Some aspects of circumcision raise questions for us in a modern context (the exclusion of women and the corporate perspective that even foreign slaves are circumcised – see the ‘For Interest’ section for a reflection on these). The key point, however, is that circumcision is a sign of the covenant. Given its nature, it was not public like a wedding band or a Māori moko (traditional tattoo) that is visible to everyone. Nevertheless, it is a reminder for Abraham and his household that they are included in God’s covenant and its blessings as well as in its obligation of allegiance. What does such commitment to God involve for Abraham and, by implication, for the people of God? The later Mosaic law will fill out the details, but at this point, we are directed back to the importance of faith and trust in God that leads to obedience. This is highlighted by the brief exchange between God and Abraham over the promise that Sarah will have a physical offspring (Gen 17:15-22).

A change of direction and the cost to Abraham

Much as this news would have created elation fourteen years earlier when the couple were actively seeking a solution to their childlessness, it now engenders mixed feelings. For thirteen years, Abraham has pinned his hopes on Ishmael as his son and heir in whom God’s promises of a great nation would be fulfilled. He had no reason to think otherwise, and one can imagine how he poured all his love and joyful expectations into this child. Now God was promising the impossible (witness Abraham’s musings in Gen 17:17). More confusingly, Abraham would have to make the emotional switch from a much-loved Ishmael in whom his hopes were centred (Gen 17:18). God, of course, understands and promises blessings for Ishmael, too, but He is adamant that His covenant will continue through the promised son of Sarah (Gen 17:20-21).

Why does God insist on Sarah as Israel’s matriarch?

Why was Ishmael not good enough for God’s plans? Why create such an emotional dilemma for Abraham? It may seem an unnecessary complication, but it is an important reminder that God’s people are always the result of life out of death only made possible by His power. Israel sprang from the dead womb of a barren woman and an aging man past procreation, humanly speaking. As Christians, we were once dead in our sins, but God made us alive. Although no further response is recorded from Abraham, his submission to the command of circumcision underlines his acceptance of God’s plans rather than his own. For better or worse, and despite his likely emotional turmoil, his actions say, ‘Your will be done.’ When God moves us in unexpected directions, may we too say with words and life that we want His will to be done.

---

For Interest – Circumcision and some cultural issues

Christians today may not be aware that circumcision was well-known among many tribes and people groups in the world. In the ancient Near East it was practised, for instance, by the Egyptians, Canaanites and Arabs. However, it was generally performed in puberty as a rite of passage into adulthood or before marriage. God then did not invent a new custom but took an existing one, familiar at the time, and gave it new significance as a mark of allegiance to Him. The later sacrificial system is another example of this process, where God takes an existing practice (worship through animal sacrifice) and subtly alters its meaning for Israel. God then works within the parameters of the human experience often using what is familiar to people at the time even as he transforms their significance.

Another aspect that may puzzle us is the fact that even foreigners bought as slaves were required to be circumcised because the household was seen as a unit – again alien thinking for us in an individualistic Western culture. This same thinking means that households rise or fall together. When the head of the household sins, all within it are included in the punishment (e.g. Achan’s sin – Josh 7:20, 24-25), but in Abraham’s story the opposite is also true. Those in his service will be blessed and flourish for Abraham’s sake. Women reading this today may also feel left out (though I doubt we would be too keen on female circumcision!), but culturally they were included by virtue of their connection to male family members (to their father before marriage and then to their husband later). That Sarah receives the promise of royal descendants and a name change as a mirror image of the promise to Abraham and his name change, however, underline the equal place of women within God’s covenant (Gen 17:4-6, 15-16).

Nevertheless, women today may feel diminished by the thought that they are only an extension of men rather than persons in their own right. However, the trajectory of Scripture suggests that this is not God’s view of women. Looking at the broad picture of women’s position in the Bible, a more varied perspective emerges with examples of female leaders and prophetesses (Deborah – Judg 4:4; Huldah – 2 Kings 22:14; Anna – Luke 2:36), as well as wise women whose advice is valued and submitted to even by men (e.g. 1 Sam 25:32-35; 2 Sam 20:16-22). Moreover, the NT lists female disciples following Jesus (Matt 27:55; Luke 8:1-3), the Holy Spirit is promised to both men and women (Joel 2:28-29) and the NT testifies to the fulfilment of this promise. Women also actively worked in the cause of the gospel (e.g. Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia who is also called an apostle – Rom 16:1-2, 3, 7).[2] Finally, Paul affirmed that in Christ these cultural categories of superior and inferior, included and excluded are no longer valid (Jew-Gentile, male-female, slave-free; Gal 3:27-29). This is a larger topic that I cannot address here, but even this brief look shows a development away from the view that women are only defined by their connection to a male and are always in a subordinate position. Rather such a perspective is culture-specific.

My sense is that rather than how God thinks of us, this is an example of God accommodating Himself to human ways of thinking. When certain ideas are deeply ingrained in societies’ structures, changing them takes a while. Thus in the ancient world, women were generally counted as a unit with a man (marriage being the default), so that they were always under the authority of a man (under their father when unmarried, or in case of his death, an older relative, uncle or even brother, later their husband and so on). Women in the Old Testament were also seen as having diminished responsibility, so that for instance their vows to God had to be confirmed by the male relative they were under (father, husband) to be valid (Num 30:1-16). The concern for women’s equality that we have today may not have been discernible for them at all since they knew no alternative. God then does not correct everything in our culture and thinking all at the same time – we would not be able to cope with that. Rather, He operates within the parameters of our human culture gradually broadening and transforming our perspective.

It strikes me as I read about male circumcision, how different our world is today when religion and spirituality are often associated with women more than men. Women are more likely to be thought of as sensitive or open to spiritual things and for a man to be ‘very religious’ may seem a little effeminate. These are, of course, crude generalisations, but perhaps men should feel challenged (and encouraged) by Abraham’s story that relationship with God is not ‘a touchy-feely’ thing but a solid commitment and allegiance to the Lord that is perfectly compatible with being male.

---

[1] This is called a chiastic structure from the Greek letter chi that resembles an X. The first and last section share a theme and are paired, so are the second and penultimate ones and so on. The point that is emphasised is in the middle where the two lines of the X meet. This is a common device to aid the memory in an oral culture like Israel’s. Although writing was known in Israel, most people operated in an oral setting listening to stories rather than reading them.

[2] Many translations change Junia to Junias (the male form of the name) because they assume that an apostle had to be a man, but this is not a valid justification to make such an amendment.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.