Graphic Imagery
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your hearts, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else My wrath will spread like fire and burn with no one to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.” Jeremiah 4:4 NASB
Foreskins – As I read this verse I was reminded of the sexual imagery found throughout the prophets. Ezekiel 16 and 23 are notorious examples comparing Israel’s action to those of a prostitute. The verses are graphic, speaking of male suiters with organs the size of donkeys. But it isn’t just Israel’s idolatry that enlists sexual imagery. Jeremiah once complained that God had raped him by forcing him to become the spokesman for the divine. Isaiah was commanded to walk naked in the streets for three years. God told Hosea to marry a prostitute and produce children. Even before the prophets, figures like Rahab played important roles in Israel despite shady pasts. Then there’s Esther who gains her new role as queen after spending the night with the king and Ruth who seems to have engaged in sexual activity with Boaz on the threshing floor (at least the vocabulary hints at something). Of course, we can’t forget Judah and Tamar or the daughters of Lot. All of this raises some embarrassing questions. Why does the Bible put such emphasis on sexuality? Why is circumcising the penis a mark of the covenant, of all things? It’s no wonder that ancient Christian theologians believed sin was passed through humanity by sexual intercourse, and demanded celibacy as a sign of spirituality.
The outrageous language of the prophets is in stark contrast to the muted sexuality of most of the Tanakh. Typically sexual encounters are dealt with in inuendo, double-entendre, and word-plays. Ruth and Boaz on the threshing floor is a perfect example. Song of Songs is an erotic poem almost entirely written in hints and suggestions, nothing explicit. For the prophets to be so brazen, something else must be involved.
Perhaps all this graphic sexuality in the prophets is just attention-grabbing. If you want to make a point with the most impact, why not use language that chafes against societal expectations? Use vocabulary that borders on pornographic. People might be shocked, even offended, but they will remember, especially if the imagery is of donkey-sized penises and horse semen. But I suspect more than shock value is involved here. In the strongest possible language of revulsion, the prophets portray Israel’s apostacy with terms that simply can’t be diminished or dismissed. “You whore, how could you act this way,” shouts Ezekiel with God’s voice. A fundamental institution of societal cohesion has been violated. God’s relationship with Israel is a covenant marriage. There is hardly a more important societal bond. Violation of this mutual promise isn’t just adultery. It’s idolatry. It’s apostacy. And it requires the strongest possible sexual imagery to convey just how damaging it is.
This explains why the language of the prophets is so brutal while most of the Tanakh takes a very muted perspective. But it doesn’t really tell us why circumcision is a covenant marker. When you think about it, it’s rather odd that this mark can only occur with males. What about all the women who are followers? Or is it just a cultural ritual where women were considered property of males? At least this much seems clear. Circumcision was practiced by other tribes as a sign of transition from child to adult. In those tribes, it was a sexual marker. But not so in Isreal. A male child circumcised on the eighth day is certainly not a sexual marker. But it is a permanent one. Once circumcised, always circumcised in the ancient world. For Isreal it seems to be a sign of belonging, not a sign on sexual transition. Maybe that’s why šopkâ, the Hebrew word for “penis,” is a feminine noun. J
Topical Index: circumcision, covenant, sexuality, šopkâ, penis, ʿorlâ, foreskin, Jeremiah 4:4
