The circumcision of the infant Jesus
- Thread starter Guest1
- Start date
- Status
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
As late as the 1990s, infant boys were not given anything for pain after routine circumcision.
Biblical circumcision was not nearly as extreme as what is done by hospitals. At a modern Jewish circumcision, the baby is given a couple of drops of wine (at least in my experiences).
Biblical circumcision was not nearly as extreme as what is done by hospitals. At a modern Jewish circumcision, the baby is given a couple of drops of wine (at least in my experiences).
A
Asinner
Guest
I don’t know anything about the procedure at the time, and I honestly prefer not to dwell on those details too much, haha.
Since I have absolutely no memory of mine, I would say that managing pain isn’t something that would really matter.
Since I have absolutely no memory of mine, I would say that managing pain isn’t something that would really matter.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
I do not think it was performed at the Jewish Temple. I think the Jewish priest and assistant came to the baby’s home and did it there. I do not recall any reference to some special section of the Temple for circumcisions. It would have been unreasonable for parents and baby to travel to the Temple and do this exactly on the eighth day.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
According to the old online Jewish Encyclopedia, in Biblical times the operation was generally performed by the baby’s mother.
While in Biblical times the mother (perhaps generally) performed the operation, it was in later times performed by a surgeon, רופא or אומן, also called by the specific name “mohel” (מוהל; see Josephus, “Ant.” xx. 2, § 4; B. B. 21a; Shab. 130b, 133b, 135, 156a) or “gozer” (גוזר). In the Codex Justinianus (i. 9, 10) physicians were prohibited from performing the operation on Roman citizens who had become converts to Judaism.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4391-circumcision
I
Inquiry
Guest
Pain management is definitely something that matters for infants. That they don’t remember it doesn’t mean it has no psychological or physiological effects on them.
Last edited:
I
Inquiry
Guest
I know that at a certain point in Jewish history there were two types of circumcision, one roughly similar to the modern American version and one much less invasive. The less invasive one came first, the more extreme one was intended to keep Jews from hiding that they were circumcised.
I don’t know offhand when the second one came into practice, but I think it was before Christ so He could have had either one.
I don’t know offhand when the second one came into practice, but I think it was before Christ so He could have had either one.
Last edited:
A
Asinner
Guest
I’m not convinced
I
Inquiry
Guest
If I may ask, what is this for? What I mean is, is this research?
Last edited:
I
Inquiry
Guest
Almost exactly like it. His circumcision is his connection to the old covenant. His crucifixion is where he sheds the blood of the new one.
Which is interesting because the parallel I usually hear is that baptism is the replacement for and the reason why God no longer asks for us to be circumcised.
Which is interesting because the parallel I usually hear is that baptism is the replacement for and the reason why God no longer asks for us to be circumcised.
Last edited:
So, it would be nice to know if infant Jesus was given anything after to soothe the pain.
or if jewish male babies typically were given something. I imagine He didn’t sleep too good possibly for a while, being in pain.
I
Inquiry
Guest
Aside from the potential few drops of wine, I doubt he got anything. Firstly because good painkillers are a recent invention. Secondly because it’s dangerous to give a baby enough to block the pain fully. So I would say he was in a lot of pain.
Of course that parallels his crucifixion as well.
Of course that parallels his crucifixion as well.
M
Mintaka
Guest
A lot of pre-modern medical procedures were a matter of a sharp knife and a fast, steady hand. If done correctly, there is not a lot of pain (ie, in comparison to big surgeries or common childhood injuries), and it is just another annoyance that a baby has to put up with.
If the mother used to do the procedure, that explains the Zipporah “bridegroom of blood” story.
If the mother used to do the procedure, that explains the Zipporah “bridegroom of blood” story.
I
Inquiry
Guest
Fast or slow it is still the amputation of a very sensitive structure. I am aware of the speed surgeries used to need to be performed with, but they still had to get people drunk and give them something to bite down on. Speed just kept the duration of the worst pain down, it didn’t stop it from being agonizing.
Last edited:
Precisely. Not all knowledge has to pertain to one’s own life and immediate circumstances. Sometimes I am taken to task on this forum to the effect of “what do you intend to do with this information?”. My own knowledge and edification, as well as raising consciousness that others may think on it and perhaps make changes in their lives, if they need to. I could afford to make a few changes myself.
Though it is not recorded in Scripture, the cutting of Our Lord’s umbilical cord could be viewed as His first shedding of blood, after a fashion.
I
Inquiry
Guest
In a modern genetic sense, yes, his blood was in the cord. However, note that Jesus was only named at his circumcision so I’m not sure any blood before that would be considered significant.
- Status