Question about circumcision

[xBGx]

Hi everyone!

Excuse me for I am new to the faith, but I have a few questions and was hoping to clear some things up for my understanding.

I understand that the Gentile converts were to learn Torah gradually, and not have it forced on them at once. That said, was it expected of the Gentile converts to eventually become circumcised, after declaring their faith in the Messiah? Paul speaks about not becoming circumcised, but is he only dealing with the conversion rituals of the Pharisees, or never becoming circumcised?

Yeshua said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall disappear, so I want to make sure I get a consistent understanding of what Paul is saying; keeping in mind 2 Peter 3:15-16.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Hi everyone!

Excuse me for I am new to the faith, but I have a few questions and was hoping to clear some things up for my understanding.

I understand that the Gentile converts were to learn Torah gradually, and not have it forced on them at once. That said, was it expected of the Gentile converts to eventually become circumcised, after declaring their faith in the Messiah? Paul speaks about not becoming circumcised, but is he only dealing with the conversion rituals of the Pharisees, or never becoming circumcised?

Yeshua said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall disappear, so I want to make sure I get a consistent understanding of what Paul is saying; keeping in mind 2 Peter 3:15-16.

I am going to circumcise my son because circumcision is the only way to be saved.

Or



I am going to have my child circumcised when he is born because I believe it the right thing to do for him.




There is a difference between telling a person that they NEED to be circumcised to be saved, and a person who would circumcise his son because it is a culture we want to teach, follow, because it is physically the right thing to do.

Getting a Tattoo is against the law, but if I get a tattoo, I have no fear of my salvation.

But I don't get a tattoo because it makes me smile that I can keep just any little law, but not out of fear.

You had Jews going around telling gentiles to keep things in order to be saved, and that is just wrong.

But the gentile who wants to keep the laws out of love is different than one keeping the laws out of fear and dread.


There is nothing wrong with circumcision, no reason for a gentile to not circumcise his son, but he shouldn't do it out of fear of salvation, it would not mean anything to his salvation.

That's what Paul was addressing.

 

[xBGx]

That said, was it expected of the Gentile converts to eventually become circumcised, after declaring their faith in the Messiah?

Is that a "No, it was not expected" then?

There is nothing wrong with circumcision, no reason for a gentile to not circumcise his son, but he shouldn't do it out of fear of salvation, it would not mean anything to his salvation.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Is that a "No, it was not expected" then?

If I were a gentile living at that time, I certainly would not have had myself circumcised, no chance.

But I would certainly have my sons circumcised.


There would have been nothing wrong with a gentile circumcising himself because he had that much passion to do so, but to teach a gentile that he must be circumcised late in life to be saved is still wrong.

It's the heart of the matter, it's why you are doing the thing.


We are to keep as much as the law as possible because in doing so is to learn who God is, and to learn what the law really means.

But what those Jews were teaching gentiles at that time was that THEY MUST be circumcised.

Anyone who keeps the laws and teaches others to keep the laws will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, but even the ones who don't keep the law and teach others not to keep the laws are still saved.

They are just the least.


The Jews that Paul was speaking about were telling gentiles that they wouldn't make heaven at all.

 

[xBGx]

If I were a gentile living at that time, I certainly would not have had myself circumcised, no chance.

But I would certainly have my sons circumcised.


There would have been nothing wrong with a gentile circumcising himself because he had that much passion to do so, but to teach a gentile that he must be circumcised late in life to be saved is still wrong.

It's the heart of the matter, it's why you are doing the thing.


We are to keep as much as the law as possible because in doing so is to learn who God is, and to learn what the law really means.

But what those Jews were teaching gentiles at that time was that THEY MUST be circumcised.

Anyone who keeps the laws and teaches others to keep the laws will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, but even the ones who don't keep the law and teach others not to keep the laws are still saved.

They are just the least.


The Jews that Paul was speaking about were telling gentiles that they wouldn't make heaven at all.

Thank you for responding. I have been trying to understand the context and what kind of pressure was on Gentile converts at the time. You helped me understand a little better

 

[visionary]

It takes conviction, for without it, it means nothing and with conviction it means everything.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

..

 

[CherubRam]

Hi everyone!

Excuse me for I am new to the faith, but I have a few questions and was hoping to clear some things up for my understanding.

I understand that the Gentile converts were to learn Torah gradually, and not have it forced on them at once. That said, was it expected of the Gentile converts to eventually become circumcised, after declaring their faith in the Messiah? Paul speaks about not becoming circumcised, but is he only dealing with the conversion rituals of the Pharisees, or never becoming circumcised?

Yeshua said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall disappear, so I want to make sure I get a consistent understanding of what Paul is saying; keeping in mind 2 Peter 3:15-16.

There is covenant circumcision, and non-covenant circumcision. Covenant circumcision is the old covenant. Circumcision is not a requirement under the new covenant. As for learning, everyone one learns at a different rate.

 

[xBGx]

It takes conviction, for without it, it means nothing and with conviction it means everything.

Hi Visionary

Can you explain a little more what you are trying to say?

 

[visionary]

Hi Visionary

Can you explain a little more what you are trying to say?

Why does someone get circumcised? Is it because they think it helps keep it clean from germs and such? Is it because it is religiously required? Is it because God convicted them to do so in a covenant relationship with Him?

 

[etZion]

Hi everyone!

Excuse me for I am new to the faith, but I have a few questions and was hoping to clear some things up for my understanding.

I understand that the Gentile converts were to learn Torah gradually, and not have it forced on them at once. That said, was it expected of the Gentile converts to eventually become circumcised, after declaring their faith in the Messiah? Paul speaks about not becoming circumcised, but is he only dealing with the conversion rituals of the Pharisees, or never becoming circumcised?

Yeshua said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall disappear, so I want to make sure I get a consistent understanding of what Paul is saying; keeping in mind 2 Peter 3:15-16.

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Two things should stick out when you read this verse. Circumcision is a commandment of God, thus how could it mean nothing, when Paul tells us that what matters is keeping the commandments? Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised, problematic, if this is referring to the commandments, contradicting what he just said...

But there really is not a problem if we understand what Paul is saying here, he is using circumcision as a short hand for status before God, not the actual command. Like he does elsewhere the "Circumcision Party" or the "Uncircumcised"...

Thus circumcision is included in what matters of keeping the commandments of God, but circumcision or uncircumcision does not represent status before God.

We know this because Abraham was in covenant with God before being circumcised... The idea that circumcision was entrance into the covenant is not found in the Torah, it is a much later invention.

Conclusion: Circumcision matters as a commandment, and thus should be kept.

 

[xBGx]

Conclusion: Circumcision matters as a commandment, and thus should be kept.

Very rarely do I see someone actually answer the question after their explanation. Thanks for not leaving your opinion out in the air!

 

[faroukfarouk]

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Two things should stick out when you read this verse. Circumcision is a commandment of God, thus how could it mean nothing, when Paul tells us that what matters is keeping the commandments? Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised, problematic, if this is referring to the commandments, contradicting what he just said...

But there really is not a problem if we understand what Paul is saying here, he is using circumcision as a short hand for status before God, not the actual command. Like he does elsewhere the "Circumcision Party" or the "Uncircumcised"...

Thus circumcision is included in what matters of keeping the commandments of God, but circumcision or uncircumcision does not represent status before God.

We know this because Abraham was in covenant with God before being circumcised... The idea that circumcision was entrance into the covenant is not found in the Torah, it is a much later invention.

Conclusion: Circumcision matters as a commandment, and thus should be kept.

I don't see that anywhere Paul commands people to be circumcised. Indeed, Peter in Acts 10 and Acts 11 makes it clear that trying to compel Gentile convert to circumcize is to impose an unnecessary burden on them; it would mean imposing law-keeping on them.

Paul circumcised Timothy more as a pragmatic, cultural thing; because by it Timothy would have a greater hearing for the Gospel if Jews knew he was circumcised.

 

[etZion]

I don't see that anywhere Paul commands people to be circumcised. Indeed, Peter in Acts 10 and Acts 11 makes it clear that trying to compel Gentile convert to circumcize is to impose an unnecessary burden on them; it would mean imposing law-keeping on them.

Paul circumcised Timothy more as a pragmatic, cultural thing; because by it Timothy would have a greater hearing for the Gospel if Jews knew he was circumcised.

You are not understanding the dilemma of the times... Paul was not opposed to the commandment of circumcision, in fact in Galatians 5:11 he states that he still teaches circumcision. Also in Acts 21, he takes a Nazarite vow, to prove that he does not teach against circumcision or the Law of Moses, which was a false accusation being laid against Paul.

Thus, in no way did Paul ever teach against the commandment of circumcision, if you think he did, you do not understand the historical context and it is time to rethink your paradigm.

The other point you are trying to make is in Acts 15, not Acts 10-11...

Your understanding of the burden referred to in Acts 15 is also inaccurate... the burden cannot be circumcision or the commandments of God, as the scriptures clearly state, these are not too hard for you, God did not deliver Israel from bondage in Egypt, only to put them back into bondage in the Wilderness, making the Law a burden is a faulty belief. Understanding the history and context of the time helps understand what is actually being said.

Circumcision in the 1st century was not simply cutting the forskin and fulfilling the commandment. It was covenant status and social status, we witness this in Acts 15:1

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

The Law of Moses certainly does not teach this, instead this is the teaching of what Paul terms "the False Circumcision"...

Philippians 3:2
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;

The first question you have to ask, is what does he mean by the false circumcision, is it done by the wrong guy, maybe it needs to be a certified rabbi, maybe they only chopped off some of the skin... Clearly, Paul is referring to a group who holds to this bogus doctrine... Knowing this, when you see Paul oppose what you think is simply the commandment of circumcision, remember he proved he was not opposed to circumcision, even claimed he continued to teach it, and second, we can see another issue all together was at play.

So when you read in Gal 2:3 about Titus not being compelled, it is not referring to having some skin chopped off, it is referring to the bogus doctrine of the false circumcision group... Which was in reality, a false gospel.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You are not understanding the dilemma of the times... Paul was not opposed to the commandment of circumcision, in fact in Galatians 5:11 he states that he still teaches circumcision. Also in Acts 21, he takes a Nazarite vow, to prove that he does not teach against circumcision or the Law of Moses, which was a false accusation being laid against Paul.

Thus, in no way did Paul ever teach against the commandment of circumcision, if you think he did, you do not understand the historical context and it is time to rethink your paradigm.

The other point you are trying to make is in Acts 15, not Acts 10-11...

Your understanding of the burden referred to in Acts 15 is also inaccurate... the burden cannot be circumcision or the commandments of God, as the scriptures clearly state, these are not too hard for you, God did not deliver Israel from bondage in Egypt, only to put them back into bondage in the Wilderness, making the Law a burden is a faulty belief. Understanding the history and context of the time helps understand what is actually being said.

Circumcision in the 1st century was not simply cutting the forskin and fulfilling the commandment. It was covenant status and social status, we witness this in Acts 15:1

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

The Law of Moses certainly does not teach this, instead this is the teaching of what Paul terms "the False Circumcision"...

Philippians 3:2
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;

The first question you have to ask, is what does he mean by the false circumcision, is it done by the wrong guy, maybe it needs to be a certified rabbi, maybe they only chopped off some of the skin... Clearly, Paul is referring to a group who holds to this bogus doctrine... Knowing this, when you see Paul oppose what you think is simply the commandment of circumcision, remember he proved he was not opposed to circumcision, even claimed he continued to teach it, and second, we can see another issue all together was at play.

So when you read in Gal 2:3 about Titus not being compelled, it is not referring to having some skin chopped off, it is referring to the bogus doctrine of the false circumcision group... Which was in reality, a false gospel.

Paul saw that compulsory circumcision meant law-keeping.

This is a denial of salvation by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2.8-9).

Galatians 6.15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

One is not made a new creature by circumcision; it is rather at the new birth when one exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[etZion]

Paul saw that compulsory circumcision meant law-keeping.

This is a denial of salvation by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2.8-9).

Not correct, you need to review what I wrote to you before. Salvation and the Law of God are not opposing issues... this is a false dichotomy. It would mean that Jesus did not come to deliver us from our sins, but instead to deliver us from Gods big bad law... Jesus vs God, Jesus won, nonsense.

Galatians 6.15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

Paul is saying that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision give salvational status before God... what he is not saying is that circumcision means nothing, he is not saying that. In Romans 3:1-2,

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect.

Physical circumcision itself has value, however it never had or ever will have value in regard to salvation.

Your view is contradictory and raises many false dichotomies.

One is not made a new creature by circumcision; it is rather at the new birth when one exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Correct, this however does not mean that circumcision has no value. As a commandment it is still to be observed. Jesus did not do away with God's commandments, just think how absurd that sounds anyways, lol.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Not correct, you need to review what I wrote to you before. Salvation and the Law of God are not opposing issues... this is a false dichotomy. It would mean that Jesus did not come to deliver us from our sins, but instead to deliver us from Gods big bad law... Jesus vs God, Jesus won, nonsense.



Paul is saying that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision give salvational status before God... what he is not saying is that circumcision means nothing, he is not saying that. In Romans 3:1-2,

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect.

Physical circumcision itself has value, however it never had or ever will have value in regard to salvation.

Your view is contradictory and raises many false dichotomies.



Correct, this however does not mean that circumcision has no value. As a commandment it is still to be observed. Jesus did not do away with God's commandments, just think how absurd that sounds anyways, lol.

Acts 15.5:
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Acts 15.24: "we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment".

 

[visionary]

Acts 15.5:
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Acts 15.24: "we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment".

Find me somewhere in the law of Moses the need to circumcise to be a part of the faith.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Find me somewhere in the law of Moses the need to circumcise to be a part of the faith.

Clearly it used to be part of the old economy: Philippians 3.5.

But it's not part of the new economy, under grace.

 

[pat34lee]

Find me somewhere in the law of Moses the need to circumcise to be a part of the faith.

Exodus 12:48

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised , and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
​

What if the person wants to join but not keep the Passover?

Numbers 9:13

But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.

​