Doesn't circumcision as a sign of God's Covenant People imply nudity?

[richinoregon]

For those who insist that the Bible teaches that it is wrong to be seen naked, here is food for thought from the latest issue of Fig leaf Forum...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.. I would like to hear why readers think God chose circumcision as a mark of covenant for Abraham if people were never seen naked at home and in society. Wouldn't a mark on the back of the hand or on the forehead be more open? Or perhaps God could have had covenant men wear some special facial hair -- one side shaved, no beard, no mustache, etc., or a tattoo or brand. Or for that matter, God could have instituted some special or distinctive clothing if the body is to be hidden as textile people and most Christians insist. Certainly God was not trying to hide the mark of covenant, was He? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jochanaan]

Not necessarily. The majority of ancient Israelites lived not in cities, but in villages or in the country. And country folk know what happens in their own neighborhood; they would know who was circumcised and who wasn't.

It was probably a cleanliness issue. Circumcised penises are easier to keep clean than uncircumcised ones and would seem to be less prone to infection when constantly covered by garments. But later on too many people thought it was more important to keep the law's fine points than to be just, merciful, and loving. In his teachings Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth put everything back into perspective.

[Fresh Air]

I agree with Jochanaan,

Coming across soap and sterile water wasn't as easy as jumping in the shower. Poor hygeine mixed with an uncircumcised penis can be more of a problem this way. In some third world countries the problems are more evident.

Fresh Air

[Boomhousedriver]

Circumcision is a commandment from Yahweh (God). Thus, if you believe, then you are obligated to follow the commandment with your son when he is born.
Paul said in short, if you are an adult convert who was not from a believing family, that a ohysical circumcision is not necessary. However, once a beleiver, you are then required to follow Yahwehs word.

None of this implies nudism.

[missouriboy]

Many of you say that God created Man in his own image, and then declared that creation to be good. This is offered as indication that our bodies need no alterations and/or embellishments, and that doing so refutes God's will, i.e., that which he called good.

Many now also say that God instructed us to alter the creation he once called good! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

How is one supposed to reconcile this? When/why did God change?

[Trailscout]

MOBoy, Circumcision began with Abraham, some 2000 years after the fall of Man. Enoch, Noah, and many others were redeemed sinners without it.

Circumcision is now optional. Mosaic law is superseded by a higher law, and our hearts are circumcised. It is up to you if you want to circumcise your foreskin as a testimony.

[Fresh Air]

Boomhousedriver,

Are we saved by works then?

In my oppinion, things like submerged baptism and circumcision are given to us in the bible and maybe God still wants us to do them, but neiter of them is what saves us. And somebody not doing them, I don't think, will keep them from having an eternal loving relationship with God.

Fresh Air

[sawdust]

Fresh Air: Baptism is a public decloration of your committment (salvatiuon in) to Christ. It, in itself, can not save because if you made your committment to Christ you are already saved. Baptism will not make you MORE saved then what you already are.
As for its necessity, we who are saved through Christ are asked to, but not commanded to make this public decloration. The thief on the cross next to Christ was saved because of his repentence and committment. He was not baptized, yet Jesus said that he would be in paridise that very day. You don't need to be baptized to be saved!
Moboy: You said it right, "Many now say." People are always trying to add to or reinterpet scripture so as to support their own adgendas. God DID NOT say of His creations, "It is good, and O by the way, I did not get around to finishing my work on mankind. Would somebody please finish up for me?" NO, He said, "It is good." For Him nothing was left to be done by others. He was completely satisfied with His creation of mankind as it originally was done. Sawdust

[melissastarr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sawdust:
Baptism is a public decloration of your committment (salvatiuon in) to Christ. It, in itself, can not save because if you made your committment to Christ you are already saved. Baptism will not make you MORE saved then what you already are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought baptists believe that you must be baptized to truly be saved? Am I wrong or are there maybe different beliefs among baptists? It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. LOL!

Melissa

[sawdust]

There are christian denominations that do believe that to trully be saved you must be baptized. The Baptist traditionally do not hold to that belief and use as the proof the thief on the cross and his salvation without baptism. Sawdust

[Trailscout]

No, Melissa! I can tell you are from a part of the country where there aren't many Baptists. They are on a dozen radio stations every day here and by the time I was 10 years old I knew that Baptists teach that baptism is an act of obedience for people who are already Christian, It is not a salvific act. As a consequence, you will NEVER see them baptise infants because they are incapable of understanding the act. The thing that distinguishes them from many other denominations is that they believe that the only correct method of baptism is total immersion (not sprinkling). All Baptists share these beliefs.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Church of Christ teach Baptismal regeneration, that is, they hold the view that salvation cannot occur unless one is baptized and that the moment of baptism is the moment of one's salvation. They do not believe that the water saves you, otherwise anyone who has ever taken a bath will be saved. The Church of Christ teaches that they are the only Christians, that the baptisms received by members of the Disciples of Christ, Baptist, etc. are invalid.

[melissastarr]

I knew SOMEONE believed that you had to be baptized to be saved... I guess I just got the denomination wrong! LOL

Melissa

[FLTony]

O.K. somebody please educate me on this matter of circumcision. Was this solely a practice amongst the Jewish faith or was this a practice with other religions as well? Richinoregon mentions above that this practice was a covenant between God and Abraham. Was this the sole purpose for circumcision? Could someone point me to where in the Bible it refers to this? I am not sure I buy the hygiene point (albeit a good one) since this evidently did not occur prior to the time of Abraham.

Thanks!

[Frank R]

FLTony -
Paul said circumcision was not needed for a Christian. He pointed out that some Jews were trying to add various Jewish laws that people had to follow to become Christians. Timothy was not cirucmcised and he was one of the writers of the books in the New Testment.

[Trailscout]

Circumcision is entirely done as a spiritual covenant. It would be interesting to speculate as to why God required it rather than piercing the ear or tongue. It seems to me that the foreskin of the penis is the portal of all subsequent generations. As if one were making an intergenerational covenant.

[FLTony]

Thanks Frank R and Trailscout for the info. Trailscout, interesting insight into the intergenerational covenant!

[NORM-UK]

Circumcision is not required for Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc.). Many churches actually have specific church laws, statements, or teachings against circumcision for religious reasons. Circumcision is not necessary as it was the old covenant and belief in Jesus is the new covenant. As discussed above, various churches have various teachings on how salvation occurs and the importance of baptism.

Although I am not a religious scholar it is my understanding that sometimes 'nudity' or 'nakedness' was sometimes used in the Christian Bible when the original would have been better translated to mean sexual intercourse or misconduct. Perhaps this would be an interesting topic for discourse in the future?

Traditionally, Jews circumcise their sons, but not all Jews circumcise. A boy born to a Jewish mother is a Jew in Jewish tradition no matter what is genitals look like. Some Jews object to cutting the genitals because it causes pain and is not really necessary. Dr. Ron Goldman has written an excellent book about this topic. A group in Israel called 'Kahal' was formed by Jewish parents that have decided not to circumcise their sons. There are also Jewish groups in America and elsewhere that perform the bris ceremony without genital cutting. NOCIRC (http://www.nocirc.org) has some links to these groups. Also, converts to the Reform tradition are NOT required to be circumcised.

Circumcision is also common in Islamic communities, although it is not mentioned in the Koran. Not all Muslims circumcise. Muslims in China usually do not. Some Muslims in other countries also object to the practise on humanitarian grounds.

Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists have never practised any form of religious circumcision. Mandeists, a sect in the Middle-East that follow John the Baptist as their saviour, do not allow circumcison. Ba'hia followers are not required to be circumcised. Many traditional people following 'tribal' religious throughout the world also have never circumcised.

The vast majority of men and the vast marjority of Christian men are intact.

Female circumcision is also common in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle-East. Some people claim it is for their community tradition, to show religious devotion, or for 'cleanliness'. (The same arguements used to promote male circumcision.) Female circumcision comes in many forms, and varies according to place. Female circumcision is a crime in the UK, USA, Egypt, and other countries.

Male circumcision is NOT necessary for good health. Simply washing with clean (not sterile) water is all that is necessary. Soap and bubble bath should not be used on the genitals as it can cause irritation. No medical organisation in the world recommends routine circumcision for health reasons.

Circumcision become common in the United States in the Victorian era because people thought that it prevented masturbation and that masturbation caused all sorts of diseases. This was all based on extemely poor research. (This would be termed pseudo-science today.)

For more information on the religious issues concerning circumcision, as well as factual health information, please visit NORM-UK (http://www.norm-uk.org). If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to e-mail or telephone the office.

[FLTony]

Thanks Norm-UK. Fascinating info on the various religions & cultures! I know there are many movements on here in the US to prevent circumcision and or educate the general population on the unnecessary practice. From what I gather, many new parents are opting out of the circumcision routine for their sons - none to late I might add. I'm just glad that I do not remember going through that trauma as an infant!

[NORM-UK]

Hi FLTony,

Thanks for your kind reply.

You should know that non-surgical restoration is possible for circumcised men, should they wish it. This works by a tissue expansion technique (gentle stretching over time). The nerve endings lost during circumcision, which are significant, are gone forever but a restored foreskin protects the glans (or head) and the appearance is the same as an intact man. Jim Biglelow, PhD, wrote 'The Joy of Uncircumcising!' that explains the process in detail.

Best wishes.

[Rex]

I went, on a scholarship, to a school with a very strong Methodist tradition. We were taught that "Love your neighbour as yourself" was the second greatest commandment and the parable of the Good Samaritan was used as an illustration.

This makes good sense, regardless of one's attitude to any form of religion. Just imagine how the world would be if we all tried to follow this piece of wisdom. No wars, no cheating, no unfortunate person left to fend for themselves.

Contrast this with some ruthless person, circumcised or intact, who goes through much of his life abusing others for his own gain or satisfaction, but who visibly follows the dictates of his chosen religion. And when he feels it's time to cover himself "just in case", he reads the fine print on his "salvation insurance" and suddenly goes through the motions of piety.

A journalist friend did an in-depth study some years ago into Catholic Church child abuse in Western Australia and I asked him how the perpetrators could live with the belief that they would one day have to account for their conduct. He told me that they believed that, as long as they confessed before they died, they would be OK.

What a cop-out!

[Boomhousedriver]

Fresh Air
In the bible, God (Yahweh) have given us instruction that we are to follow.
Most people do not have the will power to follow God's word, so they look to interpret what is stated to mean that they can do whatever they feel like doing.

The following are the words of yahshua (jesus) from the Gospel of Matthew:
21 "Not R237 everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many R238 will say to Me on that R239 day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' F134 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART R240 FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' 24 "Therefore everyone R241 who hears these words of Mine and acts F135 on them, may F136 be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 "And the rain fell, and the floods F137 came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act F138 on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 "The rain fell, and the floods F139 came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." 28 When R242 F140 Jesus had finished these words, the R243 crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

As stated, you must do the will of the Father.

[nunne]

A little off the subject, but since baptism was mentioned a little earlier, and particularly the belief of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Church of Christ, I feel constrained to respond.

I am a member of the Disciples of Christ, and generally agree with the interpretation of our belief and practice as set forth by Trailscout. But since both denominations are strictly congregational, it is a little hard to make categorical statements about them. Most Disciples do accept other forms of baptism, but will not practice any except immersion, and most Churches of Christ accept only immersion by them.

Disciples do require that some form of baptism be received by the person before they can be accepted into membership. But one who has been baptized in accordance with their belief at the time of the baptism is acceptable to us.

Why? Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized, will be saved;..."

Peter told those who wished to accept Christ in Acts 2: 38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of your sins."

Jesus told Nichodemus in John 3: 5 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

There are other scriptures which I could cite as well, but one other is the Great Commission in Matthew 28: 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."

We're pretty fundamentalist in a lot of respects, and this is one of them. Immersion appears to have been the earliest form of baptism, but as I understand it, it was always done in the nude. Haven't seen that happen in any Disciples church or Church of Christ.

[Nude in the North]

"as long as they confessed before they died, they would be OK."

That only works if you truly give yourself to Christ.
To commit sins knowingly, and trying to trick God by planning to confess later, just ain't gonna work.

Man cannot judge your thoughts.

God can.

Steve

God does not forgive confessed sin when the person is planning on going out and doing it again. Confessing sin does not give anyone a free license to sin again, confess again, sin again, etc, etc.

[Rex]

"To commit sins knowingly, and trying to trick God by planning to confess later, just ain't gonna work."

"Confessing sin does not give anyone a free license to sin again, confess again, sin again, etc, etc."

Thank you, Steve and Jon-Marc, my thoughts exactly, but then I don't claim to be an orthodox Christian or indeed an orthodox anything.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by melissastarr:
...are there maybe different beliefs among baptists?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"I'm not a member of any organized religion. I'm a Baptist!" /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(I can say that; I actually am a Baptist. Seventh Day Baptist, to be precise.)

I heard tell that there are over 40 different kinds of churches with the name Baptist.

[sawdust]

There was a time when you could say, "I'm a Baptist.", and every one knew what you stood for and what you believed. You were a bible believing, strightline,fundamentalist Christian. Gone are those days! Baptist, like 31 flavors icecreams, now come in all verieties. It is to a point I am not sure that saying your a Baptist actually identifies you as anything. Sawdust

I've thought about changing to a non-denominational church that believes as I do.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sawdust:
There was a time when you could say, "I'm a Baptist.", and every one knew what you stood for and what you believed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There really wasn't. My group, the Seventh Day Baptists, have been around since about 1650 and have always worshipped on Saturday, not Sunday. And there have been other Baptist associations, some conservative, some liberal, some in the middle.

We have a long tradition of freedom of conscience. The Seventh Day Baptist statement of belief begins, "Seventh Day Baptists cherish liberty of thought..." However, it is unfortunately true that many individual Baptist churches have become authoritarian and rigid. I look at such groups as the Southern Baptist Conference and see that, insofar as their leaders try to impose doctrine from above, they have left their Baptist heritage for a more authoritarian way. Very sad.

[David77]

Jochannan,
You are correct. The historical Baptist tradition is to honor freedom of thought. Most Baptists do not realize how fortunate they are to be part of this particular tradition, as they do not know or compare their tradition with the tradition of other denominations which require doctrinal correctness. Baptists require no doctrinal correctness, and have no official doctrines that must be believed. (Thus they do not recite in unison, the Apostle's Creed to reaffirm their (many) identical doctrines or beliefs each Sunday).

However, in recent years, the Southern Baptist Convention has formed a brief "Statement of Faith", and, in my opinion, try to dictate or dominate, so a number of Baptists are leaving the Southern Baptist Convention. A famous example, is that of (former U.S. president) Jimmy Carter who pulled out and joined another less rigid Baptist group.

[Trailscout]

sawdust, I don't mean to throw rocks at your opinion, but there have been different kinds of Baptist for a long time. The Amish and Mennonites are of the Anabaptist family, from which sprang the Baptists of Rhode Island during colonial days.
Early in US history, the Primitive Baptists split with the Missionary Baptists over foreign missions, eternal security and other issues. As others have mentioned, the Northern and Southern Missionary Baptists split over slavery and remained divided because the Northerners were more liberal. We have independent Baptists called "Hard Shell" who say that the Southern Baptists are way too liberal! And Southern Baptists themselves are in a struggle between conservative and very very conservative elements. Then there are the Free-Will Baptists who seem to have some elements of Arminian thought about predestination. The Presbyterians share Calvinist roots with the Baptists and have many teachings in common with them.

[Trailscout]

David, many conservative Southern Baptists would consider leaving the Southern Baptist Convention because, as you have already affirmed, they have an undying committment to the autonomy of the local church, an extension of their belief in "the priesthood of the believer". It is somewhat a moderate vs. conservative issue, but many outsiders are unaware of the autonomy vs. central control issue.

[sawdust]

Trailscout,
Perhaps I did not elaborate enough to get my point across as concerns the "historic, traditional baptist stand." My point was that beliefs such as the vergin birth, the diety of Jesus Christ, the salvation of humanity through the death and blood attonement of Jesus, His resurection and the belief in His return to rule and judge the world; these things were foundational to all the Baptist denominations. None other then the revered So. Baptist biblical teacher J. Vernen McGee, commented on this very point I made. "There was a time when baptist all thought pretty much alike on these issues." Many now have taken exception to all or any number of beliefs that were traditional to those who once called themselves Baptist. I hope that this clarifies my stand on this issue. Sawdust

[sawdust]

To get back on track with the original question of circumcision as God's Covenant and how this applies to nudism; in reality, it dose not imply nudism any more then any other surgery on the male genitalia. The covenant is with the Jewish males, and no one else. Why a covenant of this particular item of flesh? I have no idea other then to say God in His wisdom chose it. Expectedly there would be a required time of surgical healing. Once that had taken place though, there was no expectation of continued nudity on the part of the male who had recieved the surgery. "To be or not to be" nude, that is indeed a secondary question having nothing to do with God's Covenant. People in general, when considering to be nudist or not, are making a personal decision of their own and not mandated by God. Nudism may indeed be condoned (accepted) by God, but I have never read where in modern (current) times it was mandated. Sawdust

[Trailscout]

Sawdust, the teachings you describe were not only foundational truths for Baptists, but for all evangelical Christians. You might enjoy visiting CRI Web page (http://www.equip.org)

As for circumcision being evidence of frequent social nudity. That's probably not a real persuasive argument. It is common knowledge that 1st Century Jews were a bit on the prudish side, but not as bad as we are today. Peter fished nude on his boat in the Sea of Galilee. People had trouble accepting this until they found ancient tile murals of fishermen in that area fishing totally nude. Now folks would dress to go to the town square, but the evidence seems to be that a man was sometimes nude when he was outdoors fishing or plowing a field with other guys. Early Christian baptisms were done in the nude to better symbolize rebirth.

To me, nudism is more like taking the vow of a Nazirite, optional but blessed by God. I can elaborate on it if you like.

[sawdust]

Trailscout,
I believe we both agree that those beliefs I previously mentioned are, or were, indeed basic to most christian churches. The times have changed though, and much of what was traditional and accepted in christians churches is being today questioned and challanged. There are revisionist not only in world history but in church history as well. I say this just to gets back to what I said originally, "There was a time..."
As concerns circumcisions, we again agree. It is as concerns the Jewish male, a religious requirement in keeping with God's covenant with them. It is not seen as an part of an obligation to be nude and is not for a Jewish male a thing of choice. The examples of fishermen and farmers at the time of Jesus being nude at their labor was a choice on their part based on a practical necessity. They could have stayed clothed but that would not have been practical.
As for earily baptisms being in the nude you are very right. Yet, again it was a thing of choice by those being baptized. They made the initial choice to accept Christ as their savior. They then made another choice which was to declair this first choice by being publicly baptized. The fact that they were nude was actually secondary to the act of their being baptized itself.
As for the Nazirite vow and your committment to nudism, you most certainly have a right to your interpertation. My understanding though of the inflexabe nature of their vows would mean that you then could never put on clothing because your vow to be a "full time nudist" would not allow it. John the Baptist and Samson both had taken Nazirite vows. John held to his vows, where as Samson did not. Sawdust

[Trailscout]

Sawdust, we are both on the same page here.

I think there is a danger for us to assume that every facet of First Century Jewish culture was in the perfect will of God and should be emulated by people today. I have heard the argument made that because there were no nudists in Jesus day, that it is obviously wrong today. Well that same argument could be used to say because there was no Baptist church in Jesus' day, no Kiwanis, no Civitan, etc. that the existence of these groups is against God's will. Of course not!

In addition just because Jewish society was prudish (but not as much as American society) doesn't mean that we must match their lack of body acceptance point for point. The Jews did a lot of things that were not pleasing to God and we must turn to the commandments in the Bible alone for guidance on our deportment. Even there we must keep in mind that some commandments are ceremonial in nature and cannot be applied literally by Christians living in a secular gentile nation. The Torah moral commandments have a timeless element and we must prayerfully find the timeless portion of all that God said through Moses and the prophets. My analogy of the vow of a Nazirite is an imperfect one. Where the comparison is helpful is in the voluntary nature of nudism when done to honor God. God does not command nudity, but if nudity is observed in the proper setting, then it is clearly a way of honoring our Creator. Of course climate and social conditions render perpetual nudity impossible, but I do not cease to be a nudist when conditions are not condusive to nudity.

[sawdust]

Trailscout,
Every exchange with you is a learning experiance which I much appreciate. I am sure that we are indeed on the same page for what are the basics of our faith. As often happens, one question leads to another in these exchanges. Which only goes to show that we can indeed be on the same page, but not necessarily in the same place on that page.
Your comment that some of the commamdments given by "God are cerimonial" would for me fall into the above catagory. I have always understood the word of God to be binding on His believers. The Ten Commandments which most people, believers or not are familiar with, was given to mankind by God as proof that they would be unable on their own to live up to these commandments of God. If mankind were able to totally live up to the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need for Jesus and His blood sacrifice on the cross. Men by their own works would have been able to earn their way into heaven. Such is not the case though. My point of reference is with the NT church and its believers. The NT scriptures note that, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." It also states, "There are none rightious, no not one."
I will have to admitt to having only a basic knowledge of the Torah, so perhaps you are making an OT reference to somthing I am totally unaware of. (Would not be the first time my friend) So, teach on "Rabboni". Sawdust

[Trailscout]

Sawdust, here's a little bone for you to chew on:
There is a commandment in the Bible about when to gather manna. Well sir, I checked my lawn this morning and there weren't airy a nugget of it out there? What am I to do with commmandments about manna? If you would be so kind as to consider the method of gathering, you would see that there is some insight we can gain even though the Lord now expects us to work for our daily bread. People who gathered more manna than they needed would discover that the excess rotted. People who went out looking for it on the Sabbath could find none. God wanted them to rest and give worship priority over our earthly cares. I could go on...

Jesus referred to manna and called himself the "Bread of Life".

Nothing from God ever passes away, if it seems to, it merely changes form. Even the commandments about manna have been absorbed (not destroyed) by the provision of our Messiah.

Shalom!

[sawdust]

Trailscout,
As I suspected, your example is applicable to the Jews of the OT and not directly applicable to we of the NT church. To the best of my knowledge there has not been any manna around for some time.
Taking the concept of Jesus as New Church Manna as you did, I can only agree that He and His word will never pass away. Also to be said, is that as natural bread provides food for us to grow physically on, so too dose the word of God provide spiritual food for our growth. Sawdust