The prevalence of circumcision in America stands at an exceptionally high rate of about 75%, surpassed only by the State of Israel at 90%, when compared to other Israelite nations. In contrast, much lower prevalence rates are observed in Canada at 32%, Australia at 30%, France at 14%, Finland at 2-4%, Denmark at 1.6%, and New Zealand at a mere 0.3%. Adjusting for non-Israelite populations who generally do not practice circumcision, such as many Asians and Latinos in California, the prevalence rate for Israelites in such areas would likely be higher than the reported 23%. Neonatal circumcision rates in America have seen a dramatic decline, dropping from an incidence of 56% in 2007 to only 30% in 2009, marking a steep decrease of 26 percentage points over just two years. This rapid fall raises questions about the underlying causes of such a shift. Additionally, 18 states have defunded neonatal circumcision through Medicaid, with California initiating this trend in 1982, and about eight of these states making the change between 2002 and 2007. A unique phenomenon in America is the significant regional variation in circumcision incidence. The Midwest reports the highest rate at just over 76%, covering areas from the southern border of Missouri to the Canadian border, including states like Wyoming, Kansas, and Ohio. The Northeast follows at 64.5%, the South at 56.3%, and the West at the lowest rate of about 30%, encompassing states like Montana, Colorado, and those further west. These regional differences persist despite high mobility among Americans, which might be expected to homogenize such statistics over time. The bundling of circumcision practices into specific regions, particularly the Midwest, appears to be a pattern not evident in other Israelite nations like Canada or Australia. This regionalism in circumcision incidence prompts speculation about whether such patterns could align with potential geopolitical divisions or reflect a deeper significance in the eyes of the sovereign God who governs the distribution of peoples.

Circumcision, as introduced in Genesis 17:4-14, is presented as a sign of God's covenant with Abraham. God establishes the proper time for circumcision as the eighth day after birth, and He declares that any uncircumcised Israelite shall be cut off from his people for breaking His covenant. This Abrahamic Covenant circumcision underscores its significance, though it does not always occur on the eighth day, as seen with Abraham himself, who was circumcised at 99 years old. Other instances in Scripture also show Israelites receiving circumcision after the eighth day, yet the connection to the Abrahamic Covenant remains recognized. Beyond this, there are shadow forms of circumcision that lack connection to the Abrahamic Covenant. Neonatal circumcisions, circumcisions for medical reasons, and rite-of-passage circumcisions associated with puberty, practiced by groups such as Muslims, Tongans, and Samoans, are performed without knowledge of the covenant God ordained for Israelites in Genesis 17. In the context of New Zealand, neonatal circumcision, generally a shadow form unlinked to the Abrahamic Covenant, saw significant shifts in prevalence. In the 1940s, about 85% of men and boys were circumcised, peaking in 1945 with approximately 950 out of every 1,000 boys undergoing the procedure. By 1995, this rate plummeted to only 3 in 1,000, marking a dramatic decline. Initially, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, religious groups supported neonatal circumcision, believing it prevented moral failings, leading to its widespread adoption, including mandates in Catholic hospitals. However, as New Zealand's leadership grew more secularized after World War II, the government, leveraging control over a socialized medical system, reversed policies supporting circumcision. Without public input, neonatal circumcision was defunded, resulting in its near disappearance among the Ephraimite population. This shift reflects the power of a socialist state to alter long-standing practices rooted in religious values, effectively diminishing even a shadow of Abrahamic Covenant circumcision.

In the discussion of biblical laws and their spiritual significance, circumcision emerges as a pivotal issue within the early church, particularly highlighted in Acts 15. This council addressed the intense debate surrounding circumcision, which often represents a broader body of religious regulations and theology. Some insisted that salvation depended on being circumcised according to the manner of Moses, implying a specific formula for salvation. However, circumcision can also simply refer to the physical act of cutting a small portion of skin as a sign of entering the Old Covenant with God, or it can signify a circumcision of the heart, indicating spiritual repentance and conversion that truly affects the mind, character, and conduct. The decision of the Acts 15 council was clear: circumcision, whether as a rite or as representing a set of laws and theology, is not necessary for spiritual salvation. The key determination was not to trouble the Gentiles turning to God with these requirements, emphasizing that they are not absolute for acceptance before Him. This ruling did not abolish the laws but clarified that they are not essential for salvation. Paul, even after this decision, continued to observe the laws, demonstrating that they were not deemed obsolete or without use. Further insight reveals that the burden or yoke associated with circumcision, as discussed in Acts 15, was not the law of God itself but rather the extensive, perverted regulations and theology developed around it by the Pharisees. This combination of God's law with thousands of additional rules created an unbearable yoke, separating individuals from righteous judgment and fellowship, and ultimately from God Himself. The council's decision set aside these burdensome additions, focusing instead on establishing peace among Jews and Gentiles within the church, allowing for the gradual teaching of God's law in its proper context. Additionally, circumcision under the Old Covenant served as a sign and seal, representing all associated laws and the basis for a relationship with God. Without it, there was no covenantal connection. Yet, under the New Covenant, even a rite as significant as circumcision holds no effect on spiritual holiness or one's relationship with God, as it does not enter into the heart. In contrast, keeping the commandments is paramount, touching the core of true conversion and spiritual life.

Circumcision, as instituted by God as the sign of the covenant with Abraham, predates the Old Covenant and was a command given to Israel to circumcise male babies, identifying them as physical descendants of Abraham and setting them apart from other nations. Under the New Covenant, initiated by Christ, Gentiles entered the church through repentance and baptism, becoming Abraham's spiritual progeny through faith in Christ's sacrifice and receipt of the Holy Spirit. A significant controversy arose over whether Gentiles should be circumcised, leading to a ministerial conference where it was decided that Gentiles do not need to be physically circumcised. God revealed to the apostles that under the New Covenant, He makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile, extending salvation to all based on repentance and faith in Christ, not physical descent from Abraham. Physical circumcision's purpose has been superseded by the New Covenant, as it typifies putting off the old man of sin through baptism, and spiritual circumcision of the heart and mind fulfills its symbolism. Therefore, there is no need for the physical act, as justification by faith completes the spiritual meaning of circumcision. In contrast, the act of deleavening homes during the Days of Unleavened Bread retains its purpose, symbolizing the ongoing struggle to purge sin from our lives, a process that will not be fully complete until we are transformed and inherit the Kingdom of God.

Circumcision, as discussed, holds a significant place in understanding God's covenant, though its application and meaning evolve across the biblical narrative. At the council in Acts 15, it was determined that a person could make and keep the New Covenant without being physically circumcised. This decision reflected broader issues beyond theology, including cultural and national implications, where circumcision was seen as a step obligating one to the whole Old Covenant law and as a cultural form making one a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel. Additionally, it was theologically out of sync with the New Covenant reality of access to God and justification by grace through faith in Christ's sacrifice. Circumcision also represented more than a theological issue, carrying racial and cultural ramifications that exacerbated separation between Jews and Gentiles, especially when compounded by Jewish codes of law rather than God's law. Despite pressures and cultural significance, Paul emphasized in I Corinthians 7:19 that what is important is the keeping of God's commandments, not the physical act of circumcision. Paul himself demonstrated this nuanced understanding by circumcising Timothy as a concession to the Jews, showing he did not consider circumcision a curse nor was he against God's law, but rather saw practical ramifications that should not be cast aside. Historically, circumcision was the sign of the covenant Abraham made with God, authenticating an unseen reality and ensuring acceptance with God under the Old Covenant as proof of being an heir to Abraham's promises. However, even in the Old Testament, God gave intimations that circumcision pointed to something greater than a physical act, emphasizing an inward, spiritual significance over mere outward mutilation. By the time of Jeremiah, God declared punishment on all, whether physically circumcised or not, indicating that true circumcision was of the heart, a concept unchanged in the New Covenant. This spiritual dimension is further illustrated by references to uncircumcised ears, lips, and hearts, symbolizing resistance to God's will. An uncircumcised heart is closed and impervious to God's influence, while circumcision made without hands cuts away hindrances, opening the heart to submission to God's will. This cooperative effort between God and the individual underscores that circumcision, far from being done away, remains a vital spiritual aspect of the New Covenant, designed so that God's laws are written in the heart, transforming resistance into obedience.