Circumcision
The Church teaches that Acts Chapter Fifteen is when the Apostles decided that physical circumcision was no longer required. This is not what Acts Chapter Fifteen says at all. However, unless one understands that Acts Chapter Fifteen was written using first century Jewish religious terms, it would be very easy to misunderstand even the first verse:
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” [Acts 15:1] The issue here is not circumcision according to the Torah of Moses, but the Custom. As we will see, the Torah of Moses and the Custom of Moses are not synonymous terms. The term Custom of Moses refers to the set of rabbinical rulings governing circumcision as part of the process of Gentile conversion to Israelite worship. Therefore, when The Circumcision came to Antioch, they attempted to teach that the returning Hellenized Jews and Gentiles had to follow the traditional rabbinic rulings with regard to Gentile conversion. What they were saying, in other words, was that the rabbinic decrees were still ‘binding’ on these Gentile converts; and that these decrees had to be followed to the letter if the Gentile converts were to become ‘saved.’
In contrast to this involved rabbinic procedure, the process outlined in the Torah is very simple. One puts away all foreign worship, becomes circumcised, and then learns the Torah. That is the extent of the ‘ritual conversion process’: 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to YHWH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born, and for the stranger who dwells among you.” [Shemote (Exodus) 12:48-49]
The Church teaches that the reason Shaul and Bar Nabba disputed with The Circumcision is because Shaul and Bar Nabba knew that physical circumcision was no longer required:
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Shaul and Bar Nabba had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Shaul and Bar Nabba and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and elders, about this question. [Acts 15:1-2]
While this may sound good at first, we will see it does not hold up under scrutiny. We already know (both from earlier in this article and from the writings of the Church Father Epiphanius) that the Nazarenes continued to practice physical circumcision right up until the Fourth Century, when the Roman Christians finally stamped them out.
Shaul also told us in Galatians Two that The Circumcision had been sent by Ya’akov (or James), the head of the Jerusalem Assembly: 12 For before certain men came from Ya’akov, he [Kefa] would eat with the [Ephraimites]; but when they came he withdrew and set himself apart, fearing those who were of The Circumcision. [Galatians 2:12]
The Church tells us that Acts 15 is just one more piece of evidence that physical circumcision was done away with at the Cross. However, if the Church dogma is correct (and physical circumcision was done away with) then the head of the Jerusalem Assembly sent out emissaries to teach a doctrine that Shaul no longer believed, and Shaul successfully rebuked them.
This, however, is impossible, because we have already seen that both Shaul and the Nazarenes (in general) continued to teach physical circumcision. Christians are taught to believe that the New Covenant developed in a vacuum, but this was not the case. The New Covenant was written primarily by first century religious Jews; and for this reason, the New Covenant is filled with slang terms that most Christians misunderstand.
With that in mind, we must interpret the New Covenant from a first century Jewish angle. Is it possible that the argument between Shaul and Ya’akov’s emissaries was not about whether physical circumcision was still valid; but that instead it was about some technical point-of-doctrine regarding just exactly how physical circumcision had to be carried out, in order to be considered valid?
The Jews are well known for arguing endlessly over the finer details of their rabbinical rulings and procedures. According to Orthodox Judaism (and also its forerunner, Phariseeism), unless one performs the Commandments precisely in accordance with the rabbinic ordinances, one has not properly performed the Commandments (and by extension, one has not performed them; and therefore one is not ‘saved’).
Could it be, then, that The Circumcision argued not that the Gentiles had to be physically circumcised (for Shaul would have agreed with that); but that the Gentiles had to be circumcised exactly in accordance with the rabbinical ordinances and decrees governing Gentile conversion to Israelite worship (and that Shaul disagreed)? As we will see this is exactly what the dispute was about.
The Church teaches that Acts Chapter Fifteen is when the Apostles decided that physical circumcision was no longer required. As we will see, this is not what Acts Chapter Fifteen says at all. However, unless one understands that Acts Chapter Fifteen was written using first century Jewish religious terms, it would be very easy to misunderstand even the first verse:
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” [Acts 15:1]
The issue here is not circumcision according to the Torah of Moses, but the Custom. As we will see, the Torah of Moses and the Custom of Moses are not synonymous terms.
The term Custom of Moses refers to the set of rabbinical rulings governing circumcision as part of the process of Gentile conversion to Israelite worship. Therefore, when The Circumcision came to Antioch, they attempted to teach that the returning Hellenized Jews and Gentiles had to follow the traditional rabbinic rulings with regard to Gentile conversion.
What they were saying, in other words, was that the rabbinic decrees were still ‘binding’ on these Gentile converts; and that these decrees had to be followed to the letter if the Gentile converts were to become ‘saved.’
Shaul and Bar Nabba, of course, knew that the Gentile converts had already been saved because they had seen the Spirit poured out on them. Yahshua also had said nothing about having to keep the rabbinic decrees, and so Shaul and Bar Nabba could see no good reason why the salvation of the Gentile converts was invalid: 2 Therefore, when Shaul and Bar Nabba had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Shaul and Bar Nabba and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and elders, about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the assembly, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.
The phrase ‘conversion of the Gentiles’ in verse 3 tells us that the Apostles considered that the Gentiles were (in fact) being ‘converted’ to Israelite worship. This, however, brings up another interesting point. By the time of the first century, the rabbis had developed a highly involved procedure for Gentile conversion; and this process has continued to develop until this day. In the modern day, then, before the rabbis will officially accept a convert into the Jewish nation, one must become circumcised, be immersed (‘baptized’) and then attend official conversion classes, where one learns to obey the precepts of Orthodox Judaism.
In contrast to this involved rabbinic procedure, the process outlined in the Torah is very simple. One puts away all foreign worship, becomes circumcised, and then learns the Torah. That is the extent of the ‘ritual conversion process’: 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to YHWH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born, and for the stranger who dwells among you.” [Shemote (Exodus) 12:48-49]
Here was the extent of Ruth’s ‘conversion’: 16 But Ruth said: "Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your Elohim (shall be) my Elohim.” [Ruth 1:16]
Both Acts Chapter Fifteen and Acts Chapter Twenty-One show us that the Apostle Shaul continued to teach physical circumcision. However, since Shaul’s writings are so easily misunderstood (2 Kefa 3:15-17), some readers will still wonder what certain passages of Shaul’s writings actually mean.
While we do not have space to address all of the common misunderstandings about Shaul’s writings here, one of his more commonly misunderstood passages is found in Romans Chapter Four: 9 For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while (he was) uncircumcised! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal (or sign) of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are (as yet) uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also; 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while (he was) still uncircumcised. [Romans 4:9-12]
Does this passage suggest that physical circumcision is no longer required? No, it does not.
What it says is that Avraham was brought into Covenant before he became physically circumcised. YHWH only required him to physically circumcise himself as a seal (or a sign) of that Covenant. Notice verse twelve: 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while (he was) still uncircumcised. [Romans 4:12]
Avraham is the father of physical circumcision not only to those whose forefathers were physically circumcised (i.e. the Jews), but also to those whose forefathers were uncircumcised (i.e. the Gentile Ephraimites). Avraham is the father of the requirement of physical circumcision to both of these parties. What Shaul says is that no matter whether one’s parents were circumcised or not, as long as one begins walking in Avraham’s footsteps (by believing, as he did), then one can be brought into the Covenant (as Avraham was). Then, once one has been brought into the Covenant, one can physically circumcise oneself (as Avraham did); and thereby receive the seal (or the sign) of righteousness.
Next we should look at Galatians, one of Shaul’s most misunderstood letters. In this letter, Shaul uses the term ‘circumcision’ as a poetic reference to the House of Judah (and the term ‘uncircumcision’ as a reference to the House of Ephraim): 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the Good News for the uncircumcised (meaning Ephraim) had been committed to me, as the Good News for the circumcised (meaning Judah) was to Kefa 8 [for He who worked effectively in Kefa for the apostleship to the circumcised (meaning Judah) also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles], 9 and when Ya’akov, Kefa, and Yochanan (John), who seemed to be pillars, perceived the favor (or grace) that had been given to me, they gave me and Bar Nabba the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles (meaning Ephraim) and they to the circumcised (meaning Judah). 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. [Galatians 2:7-10]
Messiah hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage
This passage does not say that the Apostles intended that Shaul’s students were to remain physically uncircumcised. Rather, Shaul was to go to those whose forefathers had been historically uncircumcised (i.e. Ephraim), and bring them back into the Covenant (which calls for physical circumcision). Then, three chapters later we come to Galatians Five, which is perhaps the most misunderstood of all of Shaul’s writings: 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Messiah hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I, Shaul say to you that if ye be Circumcised, Messiah will profit you nothing! 3 For I testify again to every man that is Circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. 4 Messiah is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from Grace. [Galatians 5:1-4]
Does Shaul say that if we become physically circumcised, Messiah’s sacrifice will profit us nothing? No, he does not. Both Scripture and the writings of the Church Father Epiphanius tell us that the Nazarenes continued to practice physical circumcision. Therefore, there must be another meaning. The secret to understanding Galatians Five is to remember that the word Circumcised is a reference to The Circumcision; that group of ‘believing Pharisees’ (i.e. believing Orthodox Jews) who thought that the works of their own hands saved them.
If The Circumcision believed that Yahshua was the Messiah, but still they believed that they were justified (i.e. ‘saved’, verse 4) by works of the Law, then they were not trusting in Yahshua’s sacrifice; and if that was the case, then yes, it literally profited them nothing. Remembering also that The Circumcision (i.e. the believing Pharisees/Orthodox Jews) believed that the rabbinical rulings also constitute ‘Torah Law’, Galatians Five might well be paraphrased:
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty (from rabbinic additions to the Law) wherewith Messiah hath made us free; and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (meaning needlessly restrictive rabbinic traditions). 2 Behold, I, Shaul say to you that if ye be Circumcised (meaning believing Orthodox), Messiah (’s sacrifice) will profit you nothing! 3 For I testify again to every man that is Circumcised (meaning believing Orthodox) that he is a debtor to do the whole Law (which, to the Orthodox includes the rulings of the rabbis). 4 Messiah (’s sacrifice) is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you (believe you) are justified by the (works of your own hands with regards to the) Law. You are fallen from (the King’s) favor (or grace, as you have not accepted the sacrifice that His Son made for you). [Galatians 5:1-4]
Does this passage say that we should never become physically circumcised? No it does not.
Rather, it says we must be careful not to trust that it is the works of our own hands (with regard to the Torah) that leads to justification (Salvation). Salvation comes only by accepting Yahshua’s sacrifice.
Another commonly misunderstood passage is Romans Two. The key here is the same as before:
Shaul uses the term ‘circumcised’ as a euphemism for the Jews, and the term ‘uncircumcised’ as a euphemism for the Ephraimites and Hellenized Jews: 17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the Law, and make your boast in Elohim, 18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the Law. 21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the Law (as a Jew), do you dishonor Elohim through breaking the Law? 24 For "the Name of Elohim is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written. [Romans 2:17-24]
The Church then suggests that the next two verses (twenty-six and twenty-seven) justify remaining physically uncircumcised; but we already know that this is impossible.
Remembering that the Orthodox Jews descend directly from the Pharisees, and that the Orthodox Jews reckon genetic lineage of the utmost importance, Shaul is only trying to say that since uncircumcised Ephraim is being brought back by the Messiah, family history is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not one keeps the Commandments right now.
In verse twenty-six, the ‘righteous requirements of the Law’ entail physical circumcision:
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man (an Ephraimite) keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, will not his (prior) uncircumcision (now) be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the (historically) physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Law (which requires him to become circumcised), judge you, who even with your written code (Talmud) and (physical) circumcision are a transgressor of the Law (in other ways)? [Romans 2:26-27]
This next passage confuses many people, because Shaul is trying to be poetic (or perhaps ironic). What he really means is that the heart condition is the main thing; which is absolutely correct: 28 For he is not a Jew (a Hebrew) who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from Elohim. [Romans 2:26-27]
However, even while the heart condition is the main thing, physical circumcision profits:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew, or what is the profit of (physical) circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them (the circumcised Jews) were committed the oracles of Elohim.
3 For what if some (of them) did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of Elohim without effect?
4 Certainly not! Indeed, let Elohim be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged.” (Ps. 51:4) [Romans 3:1-4]
Note clearly: Shaul says that even though the heart condition is the main thing, there is still an advantage to becoming physically circumcised. Then in verse nineteen: 19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are ‘under’ the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before Elohim.
Yahshua clearly said that He did not come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. Words do not get much plainer than these. The Church, however, tells us that Acts Chapter Fifteen is where the Apostles ruled against the need for physical circumcision; and that in Galatians Five, Shaul tells us that physical circumcision denigrates Yahshua’s sacrifice to the point that it profits us nothing. However, if Shaul actually taught that physical circumcision denigrates Yahshua’s sacrifice to the point that it profits us nothing, and if the Apostles actually ruled against physical circumcision in Acts Chapter Fifteen, then why did Shaul circumcise Timothy in Acts Chapter Sixteen? It was almost the next thing he did: 1 And behold! A certain disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a certain believing Jewish woman – but his father was Greek(meaning, a Hellenized Jew, who may not have been physically circumcised). 2 This one was being testified of the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Shaul desired this one to go forth with him, and taking him he circumcised him (physically), because of the Jews being in those places – for they all knew his father, that he was a Greek(meaning an uncircumcised Hellenized Jew). [Acts 16:1-3]
The Church teaches that Shaul denigrated Yeshua’s sacrifice for Timothy immediately following the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’ because Shaul was afraid of the Pharisees. This is ludicrous. Shaul had been raised as a Pharisee (an Orthodox Jew), and had shown himself more than willing to contend with the Pharisees on a number of occasions. He did not fear death, and he did not fear the Pharisees.
But if Shaul was not really the coward that the Church says he was, then what was Shaul’s true motivation for circumcising Timothy immediately after the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’ of Acts Chapter Fifteen? What probably happened was that although the Apostles and elders had ruled that those coming closer to the Covenant technically had until the Passover to become physically circumcised, Shaul chose to circumcise Timothy right then and there, because he hoped to use Timothy in a ministerial capacity. If Timothy was going to minister Elohim’s Word, then he needed to be in compliance with that Word.
Furthermore, while the Jews (that Shaul hoped to reach) might listen to a formerly uncircumcised Greek Jew who was now in full compliance with the Torah, they would almost certainly have refused to hear any Good News coming from an uncircumcised man. Therefore, in order to make Timothy more effective as a minister, the best thing to do was just to go ahead and circumcise him. But then, what about Titus? Does not Shaul tell us that not even Titus was compelled to become Circumcised? Yes, he does; but once again we must remember that the word is used as slang here. Not even Titus was compelled to join The Circumcision:
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek (Jew), was compelled to be Circumcised (meaning a believing Pharisee). 4 And this (question only) occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (The Circumcision), who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty (from Talmud) which we have in Messiah Yeshua [Yahshua], that they might bring us into bondage (to the Talmud), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you.[Galatians 2:1-5]
Remember that the Book of Galatians is all about The Circumcision: those believing Pharisees who continued to believe that the rabbinical rulings were inspired. These tried to convince the returning Greeks (such as Titus) that Salvation depends upon keeping the rabbinical laws. However, even though Titus had Jewish blood, not even he was convinced that the rabbinical injunctions were required. But then, what does Shaul mean in Colossians Two, about the ‘circumcision made without hands’? Does he mean that physical circumcision is no longer required? No, he does not. Notice the phrase ‘tradition of men’ in verse 8: 8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men (Talmud), according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Messiah. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Messiah, 12 buried with Him in immersion, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of Elohim, who raised Him from the dead. [Colossians 2:8-12]
This passage is commonly used to suggest that the supposedly ‘new’ rite of immersion (or baptism) has done away with the need for physical circumcision. There are multiple problems with this thesis. In the first place, immersion has long been a part of the Torah lifestyle. Yochanan HaMatbil’s (John the Immerser’s [Baptist’s]) mission was not so much to immerse people, as it was to get them to repent, and to turn their hearts back to Elohim. Since the Torah requires one to become ritually clean before coming before YHWH, Yochanan (John) used this as a symbol of repentance. The main thing, though, was the repentance itself. In like manner, physical circumcision is only a seal (or a sign) of the submission of the flesh to Elohim. Physical circumcision itself is nothing: The only thing that is important is the keeping of Elohim’s Commands: 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of Elohim is what matters. [1st Corinthians 7:19]
The Church uses this passage to suggest that since circumcision is nothing, the only Commandments that one should keep are the Two Great Commands, to love the Father, and to love one’s neighbor. However, as we have already seen, the Apostles kept all of the Bridegroom’s Torah. We should take a look at the whole passage in context, remembering that the words ‘circumcised’ and ‘uncircumcised’ are used in a poetic sense; first as euphemisms for Judah and Ephraim, and then as symbols of the callings of the Two Houses:
18 Was anyone called while circumcised (meaning Jewish)? Let him not become uncircumcised (meaning, an Ephraimite). Was anyone called while uncircumcised (an Ephraimite)? Let him not be circumcised (Jewish). 19 (Physical) Circumcision (Judah) is nothing and (physical) uncircumcision (Ephraim) is nothing, but keeping the commandments of Elohim is what matters. [1 Corinthians 7:17-19]
We do not have room to detail all of Shaul’s misunderstood and misapplied writings here. However, it should be clear that while Shaul taught that the heart of the Law was the main thing, never did he suggest that the letter of the Law was unimportant. Neither did he teach against the customs and traditions of the Patriarchs, which have always held a place of central importance in the Patriarchal Hebrew mind.