King David's strange gift

[Birdpreacher]

I recently came across this gem in 1 Samuel 18:27:

Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife

I understand the significance that circumcision had in regards to the relationship between God and the Israelites, however I had no idea that foreskins were used as war trophies. Anyone have any info that sheds light on this ancient custom. It makes no sense to me, why take the foreskins of your enemies? What was the significance of the foreskin to the culture?

 

[Equites_Christi]

I think I’m gonna lose my lunch…

 

[InspiritCarol]

The foreskin is a physical sign of the Jewish covenant with God.
Therefore the fact that the men killed still had their foreskins meant that they were not “with God”.

It was the tantamount symbol to the fact that the men killed were the enemy.

… and yah, Ew.

 

[NotWorthy]

I recently came across this gem in 1 Samuel 18:27:

I understand the significance that circumcision had in regards to the relationship between God and the Israelites, however I had no idea that foreskins were used as war trophies. Anyone have any info that sheds light on this ancient custom. It makes no sense to me, why take the foreskins of your enemies? What was the significance of the foreskin to the culture?

Could it be:
a) Proof of David’s victory over the enemy?
b) Proof also that these were non-Israelites that they were fighting (un-circumcised)?

 

[Carolus_Martell]

I’m thinking that by that time Saul perceived David as a threat and hoped those 200 Philistines would put an end to him. Philistines weren’t part of the covenant so there was no reason for them to be circumcised. The skins were simple a war trophy perhaps much like the ‘labours of Hercules’ …a very difficult close to impossible task.

 

[TimothyH]

The foreskin is a physical sign of the Jewish covenant with God.
Therefore the fact that the men killed still had their foreskins meant that they were not “with God”.

It was the tantamount symbol to the fact that the men killed were the enemy.

… and yah, Ew.

This is good information. Thanks for posting this.

Later on, Greeks and Romans practiced public nakedness, at baths and such places. As the greco-roman world expanded, Jews would have been plainly visible.

And while Alexander the Great hellenized the known world, some Jews were willing to give up their identity as God’s chosen people and become like the surrounding communities, so much so that they practiced a procedure known as an epispasm, which was a surgical reversal of circumcision.

*The proposal was agreeable; some from among the people promptly went to the king, and he authorized them to introduce the way of living of the Gentiles. Thereupon they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the Gentile custom. They covered over the mark of their circumcision and abandoned the holy covenant; they allied themselves with the Gentiles and sold themselves to wrongdoing. (1 Maccabees1:12-15)

Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was an uncircumcised person called? He should not be circumcised. (1 Corinthians 7:18)*

A well researched article (with footnotes) on the culutural and historical aspects of circumcision and the use of epispasm to reverse circumcision at the time of Jesus - how the Greeks, Romans and Jews viewed it as well as the medical procedures - is at cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/.

-Tim-

 

[Birdpreacher]

Thanks everyone for the great responses!

 

[DaveBj]

I’m thinking that by that time Saul perceived David as a threat and hoped those 200 Philistines would put an end to him. Philistines weren’t part of the covenant so there was no reason for them to be circumcised. The skins were simple a war trophy perhaps much like the ‘labours of Hercules’ …a very difficult close to impossible task.

This is what I have always thought. Saul, at this point in his life, could probably have been described as insane, certainly where David was concerned, and he set this task hoping that David would be killed and would no longer be a threat. The foreskins were war trophies.

 

[patrick457]

This is good information. Thanks for posting this.

Later on, Greeks and Romans practiced public nakedness, at baths and such places. As the greco-roman world expanded, Jews would have been plainly visible.

And while Alexander the Great hellenized the known world, some Jews were willing to give up their identity as God’s chosen people and become like the surrounding communities, so much so that they practiced a procedure known as an epispasm, which was a surgical reversal of circumcision.

The proposal was agreeable; some from among the people promptly went to the king, and he authorized them to introduce the way of living of the Gentiles. Thereupon they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the Gentile custom. They covered over the mark of their circumcision and abandoned the holy covenant; they allied themselves with the Gentiles and sold themselves to wrongdoing. (1 Maccabees1:12-15)

Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was an uncircumcised person called? He should not be circumcised. (1 Corinthians 7:18)

A well researched article (with footnotes) on the culutural and historical aspects of circumcision and the use of epispasm to reverse circumcision at the time of Jesus - how the Greeks, Romans and Jews viewed it as well as the medical procedures - is at cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/.

-Tim-

As an aside:

Apart from the Israelites, circumcision was actually common, though not universal, among many other Levantine cultures, such as the Egyptians - who, according to Herodotus performed it for hygienic purposes, but is now interpreted as more of a rite of passage - and a number of neighboring West Semitic peoples, such as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Edomites, etc. (The Philistines, judging by the pejorative “uncircumcised” applied to them in the OT, seems to be an exception to this.) It seems that Israelite ritual circumcision (what some today call a bris, from the Hebrew word berith ‘covenant’) is not so much a sign to the outside world as a reminder to the individual of his covenantal obligations.

And yes, the Greeks disliked circumcision, thinking it to be a gross mutilation of the human body. This explains why the practice circumcision declined among many peoples that had previously practiced it throughout Hellenistic times, to the point that in Greek Egypt, only the priestly caste continued to perform it. As that 1 Maccabees passage shows, it also came dangerously close to extinction among the Israelites.

Eventually, by the 2nd century AD, only Jews, Jewish Christians, Egyptian priests and the Nabataean Arabs were the only circumcised peoples in the Roman Empire. It was at this point that being circumcised was considered conclusive evidence of Judaism or (in some cases) Christianity in Roman courts.

 

[Gorgias]

Hmm… I’m just thinking out loud here, but bear with me…

I’m wondering whether, as a field commander, David would be taking the field with thousands of soldiers. After all, the military organization was “in fifties and hundreds”. So, is it likely that David would be leading expeditions with thousands of men, or maybe a couple hundred?

This would mean that, if you needed to collect a hundred war trophies, you would need to do it over the course of a number of battles. Now, what would strike hatred in the hearts of an enemy more than the knowledge that their foe was mutilating the bodies of their comrades as they lay dead on the battlefield? Such a foe would be more likely to be hunted down, and more likely to be fought furiously on the field of combat when encountered. Remember, “Saul intended to have David fall into the hands of the Philistines” (1 Sm 18:25).

So, I’m thinking that what Saul had in mind was more along the lines of an impossible task… and then David not only succeeds, but doubles the number of trophies than was asked for! That’s why “Saul realized that the LORD was with David” (1 Sm 18:28), I’m guessing.