Circumcision: Theology or Demonic Practice
Circumcision: Demonic Practice or Theological Covenant
Yigal Bin-Nun
The practice of foreskin removal likely originated in a popular belief rooted in the fear of harm caused by demons during journeys through the desert, and in the necessity of protecting uncircumcised adults from such magical attacks before their departure. A reference to this practice of demonic origin appears in the episode of the “bloody bridegroom,” recounted in the Book of Exodus (chapter 4, verses 24–26), where the author describes Moses’s journey from his father-in-law’s house in Midian toward Egypt to reunite with his kinsmen.
The rationale behind Yahweh’s decision to kill Moses becomes comprehensible when Zipporah, his wife, chooses to circumcise “his foreskin” (and not “the foreskin of his son”), thus saving her husband from imminent death. The use of the phrase spoken by a mother to her son—“for you are a bridegroom of blood to me”—appears nonsensical when addressed to a child. The term “bridegroom” clearly refers to adults, not children, and also evokes the idea of marriage, possibly even of nuptial blood. It follows that this term is associated with virility and that the ritual was originally performed prior to marriage.
Furthermore, the intervention of the “son” to save the father from death appears inappropriate and illogical. The solution I propose consists of removing the word “his” and adding the letter vav to the word “foreskin,” resulting in the phrase “and she cut his foreskin,” thereby rendering the narrative more coherent. The transformation from “his foreskin” to “the foreskin of his son” occurred much later, when infant circumcision was established on the eighth day after birth as a symbol of the covenant between Yahweh and his people, in accordance with a new ritual norm, despite the lingering textual inconsistencies. This also reveals the discomfort experienced by Judean society in the face of practices imbued with a demonic imaginary.
Stories involving demons, divine beings, or Satan were widespread in antiquity. The theme of a demon attacking uncircumcised travelers in the desert was so common that it persisted long after the biblical texts were composed, as evidenced by a passage in the Talmud (Nedarim 9b; Leviticus 32a): “Rabbi Yehuda bar Bizna said: When Moses, our teacher, neglected circumcision, the angels Af and Hema came and swallowed him up to his foreskin, leaving only his feet. Zipporah took a sharp knife, cut off her son’s foreskin, and drove them away. How did she know Moses’s life was at risk because of circumcision? In truth, the angel had come and swallowed him from head to foreskin. As soon as she saw that he was being swallowed only up to the foreskin, she understood that the threat was related to circumcision, so she cut off her son’s foreskin” (Midrash Shemot Rabbah). “And it came to pass on the way, at the lodging place, that Elohim met him and sought to kill him. Zipporah immediately took a sharp stone, cut off her son’s foreskin, and cast it at his feet, saying: You are a bridegroom of blood to me” (Midrash Aggadah). “The angel transformed into a serpent to devour the newborn up to the foreskin. Immediately, she understood that this was related to circumcision; she took a stone and cut off her son’s foreskin” (Midrash Hagadol).
In 1933, at the archaeological site of Arsalan-Tash (Haddatu) in northern Syria, two Canaanite amulets bearing seven inscriptions were discovered. These amulets, meant to be worn as pendants, bear inscriptions dating to the 7th century BCE, close to the period when the Book of Deuteronomy was written. One of them features a hybrid creature with a human body, scorpion legs, and a serpent’s head. The creature appears to be devouring a man down to his genital organ. The second amulet shows a crawling beast devouring a man, with only his legs protruding from its mouth. These two artifacts attest above all to the widespread diffusion of this popular belief and the means employed to ward off demons. The scene of a demon devouring a man from head to genitals was so widespread that it inspired European artists in the 13th and 14th centuries, including Coppo di Marcovaldo and Giotto di Bondone, in their depictions of the Last Judgment. These ancient visual representations, coupled with legendary accounts in the Talmud, reinforce the demonological interpretation of circumcision.
According to these accounts, there is a scholarly consensus that Zipporah’s act was intended to ward off demons inhabiting dangerous places, responsible for the death of an uncircumcised man. This narrative is likely of demonic inspiration and seeks to repel a deity—specifically Yahweh—who attempted to kill Moses in the desert between Midian and the land of Goshen in the Nile Delta. This source associates the practice of circumcision with the traditions of descendants from Egypt, Midian, and the Levites. Circumcision thus appears as an apotropaic action, comparable to the offering of a sheep to appease demons and ward off danger, as is often the case in West Asian cultures. This custom also evokes the ritual of applying the blood of a sacrificial offering to the doorposts of Israelite homes in Egypt to protect them from the death of their firstborns (Exodus 12:7).
Another tradition similarly links the desert journey to a demon or dangerous deity, capable of harming travelers unless a sacrifice is offered. A parallel occurrence can be found in the Israelites’ request to leave Egypt and go into the desert: “Let us take a three-day journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh our God, or He may strike us with plague or with the sword” (Exodus 5:3). To avert the threat of plague or the sword at the time of departure, a sacrifice was thus offered to Yahweh.
In the biblical texts, the phrase “she conceived and bore a son” appears sixty-five times. In none of these instances is circumcision mentioned. This absence is likely not coincidental and, in my view, it stems from a specific reason. The theological injunction found in the Abraham cycle of the Book of Genesis (chapter 17, verses 9–13) was probably only added to the original text at the end of the Persian period. It was only then that the circumcision of male infants on the eighth day began to acquire the status of a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and His people.
References to circumcision in other biblical texts are virtually nonexistent and pertain only to adults. In the Book of Joshua (5:4–5) and in the narrative of the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34), neither infants nor the concept of a covenant with Yahweh are mentioned. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that none of the kings of Israel and Judah—from David to Zedekiah, from Jeroboam to Hoshea—were circumcised. Nevertheless, throughout the monarchic era and into the early Persian period, it appears that the inhabitants of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah did not circumcise their children. Later, circumcision, along with dietary laws and Sabbath observance, likely began to distinguish Judeans from other peoples of the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire. This raises an important question: why did the Judeans persist in maintaining this act—both aggressive and potentially dangerous—as a marker of theological covenant, and how did this contribute to shaping their identity? Could Judaism not have abandoned male circumcision as it did blood sacrifices?
Although under the Hellenistic-Roman period circumcision became a defining principle of Judean identity vis-à-vis other peoples, the author of the Abrahamic cycle in Genesis emphasizes that the covenant with Yahweh extends also to members of the household who are not direct descendants, particularly foreigners and slaves: “He that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money must be circumcised. My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:12–13). This passage does not explain why the covenant with Yahweh must necessarily be expressed through the excision of the foreskin, but it underscores that this act is not based on ethnic distinction.
At the end of the monarchy, Jeremiah lists the nations among whom the practice of circumcision persisted. However, he makes no mention of the circumcision of newborns in Judah, nor does he refer to the idea of a covenant with Yahweh: “The word of Elohim: I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:24–25).
Here, circumcision is invoked in a negative context, and the prophet includes the Judeans among the circumcised peoples. The mention of the “inhabitants of the wilderness” among the circumcised, along with the fact that the story of the “bloody bridegroom” takes place near Midian, suggests that the northern Arabs, Midianites, and Ishmaelites also practiced the circumcision of their sons, which would link them to the descendants of Abraham: “Ishmael, Abraham’s son, was thirteen years old when he was circumcised. That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him” (Genesis 17:25–27).
Among the Mesopotamian peoples, circumcision was not practiced. The prophet Ezekiel lists Asshur, Elam, Meshech, and Tubal among the uncircumcised nations of his time (Ezekiel 32:17–32). The story of Samson in the Book of Judges repeatedly refers to the Philistines as uncircumcised (Judges 14:3; 15:18), while Ezekiel (32:6; Genesis 34:14–30) prefers to cite the Sidonians and the Canaanites among the uncircumcised, with the apparent intention of distinguishing these uncircumcised Hamites from the circumcised Semites.
As part of the post-monarchic reform, the authors reinterpreted the practice of circumcision—not as a sign of covenant, but as a marker of identity—to emphasize the distinction between the Israelites and the indigenous peoples of Canaan. The Book of Joshua, written during this period, asserts that the Israelites born and brought out of Egypt were circumcised, whereas those born in the wilderness were not and therefore had to undergo circumcision: “All the people who came out of Egypt—males, all the men of war—died in the wilderness along the way after they had come out of Egypt. For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised” (Joshua 5:4–5). Circumcision was then performed using flint knives, suggesting the antiquity of the custom: “Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath-haaraloth” (Joshua 5:3). In the account of Dinah’s rape, the sons of Jacob demand that the men of Shechem, indigenous Canaanites, be circumcised in order to conclude a matrimonial alliance (Genesis 34). In both narratives, circumcision concerns adults rather than infants, and it is in no way associated with a theological covenant with Yahweh.
A more explicit disapproval of circumcision is found within the Bible itself. The reformist authors of Deuteronomy, members of the circle of Shaphan ben Azaliah, criticize the practice, considering it demonic in origin, and propose replacing it with a circumcision of the heart: “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart,” “Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6). This substitution is spiritual rather than physical, aimed at eradicating the evil rooted in the human heart. It is not merely metaphorical but constitutes an explicit rejection of priestly ritual by the prophets, who also condemned blood sacrifices meant to atone for sin. Deuteronomy, compiled during the reign of Josiah, makes no mention of infant circumcision, nor of its role as a covenant with Yahweh, which may suggest that the reformist authors of the Shaphanite school rejected the practice as a theological marker. Thus, the earlier demonic interpretation was abandoned in favor of a moral justification, yet the Book of Genesis also provides no indication of a theological foundation for circumcision.
Up until the end of the Persian period, it remains unclear whether circumcision was practiced on most newborns or only on adults in exceptional situations, particularly as a means of warding off demonic threats. A revealing testimony is provided by Eusebius of Caesarea (339–265), who cites Philo of Byblos (140–65). The latter describes circumcision as an act intended to overcome calamity: when a plague decimated many individuals, Cronus decided to offer his only son to Uranus, his father. He circumcised himself and forced his allies to do the same to repel the pandemic.
In contrast, Philo of Alexandria (15 BCE – 45 CE), a major figure in Judean apologetics, presents circumcision as a hygienic practice that promotes health, stimulates fertility, and reduces sexual attraction. Herodotus (484–425 BCE) likewise views circumcision as a hygienic custom widespread in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, and Phoenicia. According to him, these peoples had learned the practice from the Egyptians, but the Phoenicians were the first to abandon it under Greek influence. Due to the effects of Hellenistic culture, many Western Asian peoples ceased practicing circumcision, which came to be preserved almost exclusively among the Judeans.
Unfortunately, rabbinic Judaism inherited the Levitical sacrificial ritual rather than the moral vision of the prophets and the Deuteronomist authors. It did not dare abolish this problematic practice, favoring popular beliefs instead. In contrast, it more readily discarded biblical laws that had become obsolete. Over the generations, the precepts of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and especially the codes of the Shulchan Aruch were developed, adapted to the realities of their time. In this sense, halakha constitutes a dynamic mechanism, designed to evolve in response to changing circumstances.
The current public debate on male circumcision has granted moral legitimacy to the questioning of this practice. In today’s world, voices are being raised with increasing force to denounce the harm inflicted on infants. This raises the question of whether contemporary Judaism is capable of evolving toward an enlightened rabbinic council, aware of modern concerns and able to transform the rite of circumcision into a moral commitment.
The ongoing public struggle against female circumcision has lent moral legitimacy to the idea of also prohibiting male circumcision. In enlightened societies, an increasing number of voices are condemning this violation inflicted on infants. Will contemporary Judaism be able to produce a rabbinic authority both wise enough and attuned enough to the spirit of the times to dare to enact a halakhic decision replacing the covenant of circumcision with an ethical covenant?
The image of Israeli Judaism has reached a low point, both morally and spiritually. It is widely tarnished by the criminal behavior of certain rabbis, some of whom have been convicted by the courts. Religious charlatans exploit practical Kabbalah, amulets, and magic to extort money, primarily from people in distress.
In my view, Judaism cannot survive in a post-ethnic world unless its rabbis voluntarily renounce the ceremony of foreskin removal, just as our sages of old were able to replace animal sacrifices with communal prayer. Nothing prevents Judaism from once again becoming enlightened and responsive to the changes of the times.
