Abrahamic covenant: Difference between revisions

  I am a Jew and I question circumcision. I have been questioning circumcision ever since I learned of the rite as a girl. At that time I questioned circumcision because it seemed wrong to cause pain to infants and because it seemed strange to surgically alter a healthy God-given part of the body. As I grew into adulthood I added questions. I continue to add them. I question circumcision because of its risks. I question it because it is seen by many as a perfunctory act rather than a spiritual one. I question it because it seems to require parents to take advantage of their infant's dependence and weakness. I also question it because of the paradox that those who support infant circumcision often cringe at the idea of circumcision of an older child as a puberty rite. I am sure all of these concerns are familiar to health professionals, who also question circumcision.  

Jewish Professor [[Leonard Glick]] (2005) observes that Genesis contains two covenants between God and Abraham. The first is in Genesis 15:18-21. It does not mention circumcision. The second covenant in Genesis 17 is a later addition by Judean priests.<ref name="glick2005">{{REFbook

}}</ref> Child circumcision did not become firmly established in Israel until after [[Gilgal]] in 1604 {{#tip-text:BCE|Before Common Era, an alternative to BC}}, more than two centuries after the death of Abraham. According to Glick, the priests gained control after the Babylonian captivity, which ended in 538 {{#tip-text:BCE|Before Common Era, an alternative to BC}} and at that time the changes were made to Genesis Chapter Seventeen. Glick suggests that the choice to require [[circumcision]] of infant boys may have been because the boys cannot put up resistance.<ref name="glick2005"/> It is clear that the alleged covenant that required circumcision of male infants on the eighth day was a later fabrication by [[circumcised]] Judean priests and did not come from God.