If you are a Christian, you are entirely free of any religious reasons for circumcision. In fact, historically, Christians have been specifically forbidden to practice circumcision. I suspect that when some misinformed Christians imagine they have a religious reason for circumcision their children, they are really just grasping for additional excuses to follow the false medical indoctrination they have received their entire lives.
Christians who mistakenly think that they have religious justification for circumcision ought to read the new testament. Here it is clear that the early Christian church, under the guidance of ST. Paul, abolished circumcision. Throughout his epistles, St. Paul took every opportunity to condemn circumcision, as the following quotations prove:
“Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you.(Galatians 5:2)
And even those who advocate circumcision don't really keep the whole law. They only want you to be circumcised so that can brag about it and claim you as their disciples. (Galatians 6:13)
For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This especially true for those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money(Titus 1:10-11)”
It is true that Jesus was probably circumcised, but this is because his parents were Jews. Jesus was denied any choice in the matter. Besides, Christians are hardly required to copy every thing that happened to Jesus. Jesus never advocated circumcision. After, all the earliest Christians-- ones who actually walked with Jesus-- abolished circumcision:
“His disciples said to him: is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget them from the mother (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.(2)”
The founders of Christianity believed that God himself condemned circumcision as a blasphemy invented by foolish men. The New Testament Apocryphal Book of Esra reports the word of God, which came to Esra, the son of Chusis, I the days of Nebuchadnezzar thus:
“when you bring offerings to me, I will turn my face from you; for your feasts and new moons and circumcisions of the flesh I have not asked(3)”
Early Christians took the abolition of circumcision very seriously, and the early Church quickly passed laws banning circumcision under the penalty of death. The original church laws against circumcision read:
“Roman citizens, who suffer that they themselves of their slaves be circumcised in accordance with Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment(4)”
There where the early Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine, who wrote:
“Accordingly, when you ask why a Christian is not circumcised if Christ came not to destroy the lay, but to fulfill it, my reply is that a Christian is not circumcised precisely for this reason, that what was prefigured by circumcision is fulfilled in Christ. Circumcision was the type of removal of our fleshy nature, which was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, and which the sacrament of baptism teaches us to look forward to in our own resurrection.(7)”
Biblical scholars, however, have known for a long time that genesis 17 as it is now was never in the original Bible. It was added about 500 B.C., over one thousand years after the time of Abraham. Scholars David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom have published a full translation of the original version of Genesis, which dates from about 950 B.C. Here, Chapter 17 is conspicuously absent. All we read is that
“it was that day Yahweh cut a covenant with Abram:”I gave this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt to the great river, Euphrates—of the Kenite, and Kenizzite, the Kadmonite; of Hittite, the Perizzite, the Rephaim; of the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Girashite, the Jubisite(23)”
As you can see, there is no mention of circumcision as a sign of this bargain. Along with biblical scholars, the only conclusion is that circumcision was never originally part of Judaism. Why, then, was circumcision incorporated into priestly Judaism?
Rabbi and historian Lawrence A. Hoffman explains that by the late fifth century B.C., at the time of the Jews from Babylonian captivity, the priest hood tried to confirm their status as the dominant political force among the Israelites.(24) they did this by instituting a temple-centerd sacrificial cult into which newborn males were initiated by circumcision. They created the Abrahamic circumcision myth and inserted it into the most important part of Genesis, pretending that it had been there all along.
2.Gospel of Thomas 53. In: Schneemelcher W, Wilson R. Mcl (eds). 2 vols. New Testament Apocrypha. Chambridge: J. Clkarke& Co; louisville, Ky: Westminister/John Knox Press. 1992-1992. Vol.2, pp.125
4.Paulus, Sententiar 5:22:3-4. In: Linder A. (ed). The Jews in roman Imperial legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University press; 1987. pp. 117-20.
7.St. Augustine. Reply to Faustus the Manichaean. Book XIX. Paragraph 9. In: Dods M (ed). The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop pf Hippo. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark. 1872. vol. 15, p. 334
23. Rosenberg D, Bloom H (trans and eds). The Book of J. New York: Grove Weidenfeld;1990. p.79.
24.Hoffman LA. Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press; 1996.