Circumcision controversy in early Christianity: Difference between revisions
Editor2020 (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Amand Keultjes (talk) to last version by Addbot |
Undid revision 546781802 by Editor2020 (talk) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
According to the [[Gospel of Luke]], Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, in accordance with [[613 Mitzvot|Mosaic Law]].<ref>{{bibleverse||Luke|2:21-24|NIV}}</ref> |
According to the [[Gospel of Luke]], Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, in accordance with [[613 Mitzvot|Mosaic Law]].<ref>{{bibleverse||Luke|2:21-24|NIV}}</ref> |
||
But closer study of the depiction of the events indicate that Jesus had no foreskin and was therefore considered to be ''a son of God'': |
|||
Simeon and Anna were quite certainly the bris couple who witnessed this fact. It is known from the Talmud (Talmud Ned. 31b; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlvi) that this birth defect als occurred with Moses and Zerubbabel and there are textual indictions in Hebrew scripture that this was the reason for the election of Jephtah and King David as Israelite leaders. This element of faith also relates to the ancient Egyptian cult of Osiris: the losing of part of Osiris' phallus explained the (rare) birth defect. |
|||
It is known from archaeology that King Hezekiah of Judah used seals showing pharaonic emblems liked winged solar disks and scarabs. |
|||
==Circumcision controversy== |
==Circumcision controversy== |
||
Revision as of 21:17, 24 March 2013
| Part of a series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
There is evidence of a controversy over religious male circumcision in Early Christianity. A Council of Jerusalem,[1] possibly held in approximately 50 AD, did not include male circumcision as a requirement for Gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[2] and may be one of the first acts differentiating Early Christianity from Judaism.[3] At roughly the same time Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement for Jewish boys even stricter.[4]
According to the Columbia Encyclopedia,[5] "the decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in Acts 15;[6] there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is practiced by Coptic Christians."
Jewish background
There are numerous references in the Hebrew Bible to the obligation for circumcision among Jews. For example, Leviticus 12:3[7] says:
- On the eighth day a boy is to be circumcised.
And the uncircumcised are to be cut off from the Jewish people - Genesis 17:14:[8]
- Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on circumcision of proselytes:[9]
The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times [1st and 2nd centuries]; R. Joshua asserting that the bath, or baptismal rite, rendered a person a full proselyte without circumcision, as Israel, when receiving the Law, required no initiation other than the purificative bath; while R. Eliezer makes circumcision a condition for the admission of a proselyte, and declares the baptismal rite to be of no consequence (Yeb. 46a). A similar controversy between the Shammaites and the Hillelites is given (Shab. 137a) regarding a proselyte born circumcised: the former demanding the spilling of a drop of blood of the covenant; the latter declaring it to be unnecessary. The rigorous Shammaite view, voiced in the Book of Jubilees (l.c.["in the place cited"]), prevailed in the time of King John Hyrcanus, who forced the Abrahamic rite upon the Idumeans, and in that of King Aristobulus, who made the Itureans undergo circumcision (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, xiii. 9, § 1; 11, § 3). According to Esther 8:17, Septuagint,[10] the Persians who, from fear of the Jews after Haman's defeat, "became Jews," were circumcised.
Circumcision of Jesus
According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, in accordance with Mosaic Law.[11] But closer study of the depiction of the events indicate that Jesus had no foreskin and was therefore considered to be a son of God: Simeon and Anna were quite certainly the bris couple who witnessed this fact. It is known from the Talmud (Talmud Ned. 31b; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlvi) that this birth defect als occurred with Moses and Zerubbabel and there are textual indictions in Hebrew scripture that this was the reason for the election of Jephtah and King David as Israelite leaders. This element of faith also relates to the ancient Egyptian cult of Osiris: the losing of part of Osiris' phallus explained the (rare) birth defect. It is known from archaeology that King Hezekiah of Judah used seals showing pharaonic emblems liked winged solar disks and scarabs.
Circumcision controversy
Disputes over the Mosaic Law or Old Covenant generated intense controversy in Early Christianity. This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore. Alister McGrath, a proponent of Paleo-orthodoxy, claimed that many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.[12] As such, they believed that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic Law were required for salvation, if one equates fully faithful religious Jews with Legalism (theology); for a counterview, see Covenantal nomism. Those in the Christian community who insisted that biblical law, including laws on circumcision, continued to apply to Christians were pejoratively labeled Judaizers by their opponents and criticized as being elitist and legalistic, besides other claimed sins.[13]
Council of Jerusalem
The Council of Jerusalem[6] of about 50 AD was the first meeting in early Christianity called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new community. Specifically, it had to consider whether new Gentile converts to Christianity were obligated to undergo biblical circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, but it was conscious that the issue had wider implications, since circumcision is the "everlasting" sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.[14] Jewish culture was still trying to find its place in the more dominant Hellenistic culture which found circumcision to be repulsive.[15]
At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish proselytes.
Peter led the discussion:
“Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”[16]
No one could answer him and the assembly fell silent.
The decision of the Council came to be called the Apostolic Decree[17] and was that most Mosaic law,[18] including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement.[19] However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship".[20] Beginning with Augustine of Hippo,[21] many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars[22] reject the connection to Noahide Law[23] and instead see Lev 17-18[24] as the basis. See also Old Testament Law directed at non-Jews and Leviticus 18. In effect, however, the Jerusalem Church created a double standard: one for Jewish Christians and one for Gentile converts. See Dual-covenant theology for the modern debate.
The Decree may be a major act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots,[25] the first being the Rejection of Jesus.[26] Although the outcome is not inconsistent with the Jewish view on the applicability of Mosaic Law to non-Jews, see also Jewish background to the early Christian circumcision controversy, the Decree created a category of persons who were members of the Christian community (which still considered itself to be part of the Jewish community) who were not considered to be full converts of the wider Jewish community. These partial converts were welcomed, a common term for them being "God fearers" (similar to the modern movement of B'nei Noah), but there were certain rituals[27] and areas in the Temple from which they (Gentiles) were excluded, just as, for example, only the Kohen Gadol could enter the Kodesh Hakodashim of the Temple. This created problems especially when the Christian community had become dominated by new Gentile members with less understanding of the biblical reasons for the dispute.
Teaching of Paul
While the issue was theoretically resolved, it continued to be a recurring issue among Christians. Four years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. There was a burgeoning movement of Judaizers in the area that advocated adherence to traditional Mosaic laws, including circumcision. According to McGrath, Paul identified James the Just as the motivating force behind the movement. Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.[29][30]
Paul, who called himself Apostle to the Gentiles, attacked the practice, though not consistently. In the case of Timothy, whose mother was Jewish Christian but whose father was Greek, he personally circumcised him "because of the Jews" that were in town.[31][32] He also appeared to praise its value in Romans 3:1-2.[33]
Two interpretations exist of Paul's comment on those wanting to force circumcision on Gentile Christians in Galatians 5:12. The KJV reading "I would they were even cut off" suggests cut off from the church, but most modern versions, following scholars such as Lightfoot, R. C. H. Lenski and F. F. Bruce, read as the ESV "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" - due to a reading of the Greek text apokopsontai[34] "be cut off" as Paul wishing that the circumcisers would castrate themselves.[35] This parallels κατατομή katatomē. Eusebius reported that the early Christian Origen did in fact castrate himself, though following Matthew 19:12.[36]
Paul argued that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice.(Romans 2:25–29) And in that sense, he wrote: "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised" (1 Corinthians 7:18) - probably a reference to the practice of epispasm[37]
Later Paul more explicitly denounced the practice, rejecting and condemning those who promoted circumcision to Gentile Christians. Paul warned that the advocates of circumcision were "false brothers".(Gal 2:4) He accused Galatian Christians who advocated circumcision of turning from the Spirit to the flesh: "Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3) He accused advocates of circumcision of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh (Gal 6:12) and of glorying or boasting of the flesh (Gal 3:13). Some believe Paul wrote the entire Epistle to the Galatians attacking circumcision and any requirement for the keeping of Jewish law by Christians, saying in chapter five: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." (Galatians 5:2). However, no Christian denomination today is known to reject members who are circumcised.[citation needed]
In a late letter he warned Christians to "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision," (κατατομή, katatomē)[38] saying that Christians were the true circumcision because they worshipped in the Spirit of God (Phil 3:2–3).
Florentine Bechtel (1910) The Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers[39] notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26)."
Later views
Simon Peter, who later came to be called the first Pope, condemned required circumcision of converts.[40] When the various passages from the New Testament regarding circumcision are gathered together, a strongly negative view of circumcision emerges, according to Michael Glass.[41] Some Biblical scholars think that the Epistle of Titus, generally attributed to Paul, but see Authorship of the Pauline epistles, may state that circumcision should be discouraged among Christians,[42] though others believe this is merely a reference to Jews. Circumcision was so closely associated with Jewish men that Jewish Christians were referred to as "those of the circumcision"[43][44] or conversely Christians who were circumcised were referred to as Jewish Christians or Judaizers. These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominate, however it is an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who were not circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who were.
A common interpretation of the circumcision controversy of the New Testament was, that it was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism. However, the Halakha of Rabbinic Judaism was still under development at this time, as the Jewish Encyclopedia[45] notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakha was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." This controversy was fought largely between opposing groups of Christians who were themselves ethnically Jewish, see section Jewish background above. According to this interpretation, those who felt that conversion to Judaism was a prerequisite for Church membership were eventually condemned by Paul as "Judaizing teachers".
The source of this interpretation is unknown; however, it appears related to Supersessionism or Hyperdispensationalism (see also New Perspective on Paul). In addition, modern Christians, such as Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox still practice circumcision while not considering it a part of conversion to Judaism, nor do they consider themselves to be Jews or Jewish Christians.
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah[46] notes the following reconciliation:
R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.
Contemporary practices
Today, most Christian denominations are neutral about ritual male circumcision, neither requiring it nor forbidding it. The practice is customary among the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, and also some other African churches.[47] Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose circumcision, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya,[47][48] require circumcision for membership. Some participants in focus group discussions in Zambia and Malawi said that Christians should practice circumcision because Jesus was circumcised and the Bible teaches the practice.
The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the Circumcision of Christ on 1 January,[49] while Orthodox churches following the Julian calendar celebrate it on 14 January. The Orthodox Church considers it one of the twelve "Great Feasts". In the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches it has been replaced by other commemorations.[50]
See also
- Christianity and Judaism
- Relations between early Christianity and Judaism
- Expounding of the Law
- Religious male circumcision
- Circumcision controversies
References
- ^ A description is found in Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15, but see also Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
- ^ Florentine Bechtel 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers: Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 50 OR 51): "But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. ... By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Galatians 2:2–5)."
- ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a "seal" (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
- ^ "peri'ah", (Shab. xxx. 6)
- ^ Entry on "circumcision", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-05.
- ^ a b Acts 15
- ^ Leviticus 12:3
- ^ Genesis 17:14
- ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision" Circumcision of Proselytes
- ^ Brenton's translation of Esther in the Septuagint 8:17: "in every city and province wherever the ordinance was published: wherever the proclamation took place, the Jews had joy and gladness, feasting and mirth: and many of the Gentiles were circumcised, and became Jews, for fear of the Jews."
- ^ Luke 2:21–24
- ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1. Page 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1)."
- ^ McGrath, page 174: "Paul notes the emergence of a Judaizing party in the region — that is, a group within the church which insisted that Gentile believers should obey every aspect of the law of Moses, including the need to be circumcised. According to Paul [reference is made to Galatians, but no specific verse is given], the leading force behind this party was James ... the brother of Jesus ..."
- ^ Genesis 17:9–14
- ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: "Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; , Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons."; Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ ESV, Acts 15: 7-11.
- ^ Acts 15:19–21
- ^ Jewish law or Halakha was formalized later, see Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus of Nazareth: Attitude Toward the Law: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."
- ^ Acts 15:19
- ^ Karl Josef von Hefele's Commentary on canon II of Gangra notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third 731 forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuser, like other laws."
- ^ Contra Faust, 32.13
- ^ For example: Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0-300-13982-9, chapter V
- ^ Genesis 9
- ^ Lev 17–18
- ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a "seal" (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
- ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing,(2006), ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, Page 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1)."
- ^ See, for example, Exodus 12:48.
- ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316-320. Harris cites Galatians 6:11, Romans 16:22, Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Philemon 19. Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: "At this point [Galatians 6:11] the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries... In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois grammasin), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."
- ^ Galatians 3
- ^ McGrath (2006). Pp 174-175.
- ^ Acts 16:1–3
- ^ McGarvey on Acts 16: "Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this 'on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters.'"
- ^ Romans 3:1–2
- ^ ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμ
- ^ Thomas Marberry, Robert E. Picirilli, Daryl Ellis Galatians through Colossians 1988 p90 "The main problem concerns the meaning of the phrase "I would they were even cut off. ... often used to describe some type of bodily mutilation such as castration (Lightfoot 207; Lenksi 272; Bruce, Galatians 238; Arndt and Gingrich 92)."
- ^ "Origen of Alexandria". ReligionFacts. 2006-02-20. Retrieved 2008-10-03.
- ^ SOURCE?? "making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18;, Tosef.; Talmud tractes [[Shabbat (Talmud)|]] xv. 9; Yevamot 72a, b; Yerushalmi Peah i. 16b; Yevamot viii. 9a; [1]; Catholic Encyclopedia: Circumcision: "To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcision St. Paul alludes, me epispastho (1 Corinthians 7:18).") Paul was circumcised when he was "called." He added: "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.", and went on to argue that circumcision didn't matter: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts" (1 Cor 7:19).
- ^ Strong's G2699
- ^ Bechtel, Florentine. Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
- ^ Acts 15:7–10
- ^ The New Testament and Circumcision
- ^ Titus 1:10–16
- ^ Colossians 3:20
- ^ cultural/glass1
- ^ article on Jesus Jesus article on Jesus
- ^ Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah
- ^ a b Customary in some Coptic and other churches:
- "The Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians— two of the oldest surviving forms of Christianity— retain many of the features of early Christianity, including male circumcision. Circumcision is not prescribed in other forms of Christianity... Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose the practice, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya, require circumcision for membership and participants in focus group discussions in Zambia and Malawi mentioned similar beliefs that Christians should practice circumcision since Jesus was circumcised and the Bible teaches the practice."
- "The decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in Acts 15; there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is practiced by Coptic Christians." "circumcision", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-05.
- ^ Mattson CL, Bailey RC, Muga R, Poulussen R, Onyango T (2005) Acceptability of male circumcision and predictors of circumcision preference among men and women in Nyanza province Kenya. AIDS Care 17:182–194.
- ^ Greek Orthodox Archdiocese calendar of Holy Days
- ^ For example, "The Calendar of the Church Year" in The (Online) Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), http://www.bcponline.org/ retrieved 11 October 2006.