The Torah, the Gospel and Circumcision
A Radical Proposal, A Radical Solution to an Ancient Problem
Religious stubbornness is only second to religious blindness. It happens to the very people who think they are exempt from it. One might think I am talking about Jewish people here, but in this case I am not. The fault lies with the Christian, who believes they have understood the Apostle Paul. And if Christians are the seed of Abraham, then they too are a stiff-necked people always resisting the spirit of the LORD. The chief requirement for escaping the blind fate of the majority is to diligently seek the truth on every important matter. Where does the fault lie when men cannot or will not discover the truth? Does it lie in their reason or logic? Not really. The problem lies in their unwillingness to submit their assumptions to examination and then to live with the reasonable result. The reason that assumptions are not questioned when they should be is that man is an emotional being.
Yes, human beings have emotional prejudices that keep them from thinking down paths that might lead to the truth. They are actually afraid to question the assumptions that are keeping them enslaved in a lie. Circumcision is an issue of the highest prejudice and knee jerk reaction. The Church is so militantly against the idea that even Messianic Jews have had to watch their words and mind their own business lest the Church lash out and knock them down. Circumcision in the Christian mind is equivalent to damnation. It is a palpable taste-able fear that emanates from the pulpit. When I was sixteen, I remember hearing all the negatives on circumcision. I asked myself, "What's wrong with circumcision?" The Spirit told me nothing is wrong with it. After that I kept an open mind on the issue, and it probably helped that I had the routine hospital circumcision most American's got in the 1960's. I knew it didn't feel 'heretical'. I did not give in to the propaganda I was hearing, and I examined the issue in depth because of it. It was enough for me to keep an open mind, but it took many years to come to the right formal conclusions, and then to be able to prove them. Recently, after reading an article by Dr. Gershon Nerel, an Israeli Messianic Jew, I was able to cogitate the final piece of the puzzle.
Did Paul exempt the Gentiles from circumcision? Yes, he did, with the support of the Jerusalem Council. There is no way to translate your way out of this conclusion. Gentiles would not be required to be circumcised for salvation. That still leaves the question of whether circumcision was considered an obligation, though non-salvific. There are obligations that are non-salvific. Perfection is a requirement, but it is not a salvation issue, for in this age no one reaches perfection. So there are obligations that are not salvation issues. But again, the answer seems to be that circumcision is not an obligation for Gentiles. The question then is why? And on what basis can this be justified from the Law and Prophets?
The answer requires understanding Torah precedents and allowing yourself to think that the Apostolic Writers were actually following these precedents and not just dismissing the law out of hand. Further, we must understand the Apostolic authority to bind and to loose. What they bound is bound, what they loosed is loosed, and what they did not rule on remains as it was before. So with that I will outline my thesis and prove it.
Circumcision is the sign between the God of Israel and his people concerning physical inheritance of the land of Israel (Genesis 17:8-10). The penalty for uncircumcision is, "that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:14). Exactly what "cut off" means is open to some interpretation. Probably the more merciful interpretation is that it means banishment from the land of Israel. Does the Scripture bear this out? We must actually examine the one major case where circumcision was neglected on a mass scale among the sons of Israel. This was after the sin of the golden calf and then the refusal of the ten spies to encourage the people to obey the LORD and conquer the land. The LORD said they should wander in the wilderness for 40 years until everyone age twenty and over died out, save only Joshua and Caleb were spared. The LORD condemned them all for their idolatry and lack of faith in his promise. Moses told them they were disobeying again when they went up to conquer the land after the LORD had passed his sentence. We know that they continued this rebellion as long as they had sons for 38 years after that. The Scripture points out the sons born after this were not circumcised on the way through the wilderness (Joshua 5:5). But it was not the children's fault. The LORD planned to redeem them. It took the example of their parents perishing to teach them.
And the LORD was with them when the conquest began, and all of the Transjordan was conquered and possessed by the sons of Israel, even though the men of war were not circumcised.
It appears then that the LORD was willing to overlook the fact that they were uncircumcised for a time, that is until they crossed the Jordan into Israel. Then, he chose a place at Gilgal to have them circumcised, and to celebrate the Passover in the land of Israel. Why did he permit uncircumcision up to this time? And why did He insist on it after that time? Because he could not violate his covenant concerning circumcision and the inheritance of the land. Also, according to the new regulations in Deuteronomy, the Passover could only be sacrificed in the land of Israel at the chosen place. Therefore, it was now more closely connected with the inheritance.
The Gentiles are in a similar situation. Their ancestors rebelled against God at the tower of Babel, and they were dispersed taking their idols with them. They were not circumcised on the 8th day because they were not part of Israel. Yet they joined themselves to Israel through Messiah Yeshua. When, then, does circumcision become an obligation? According to the precedent set with the sons of Israel who should have been circumcised on the 8th day --- According to the precedent set by God, the circumcision law was only enforced when they came to take possession of the land of Israel.
This then is Paul's precedent for not insisting on circumcision as an obligation for Gentiles, meaning Gentile believers in Yeshua who were not going to receive their physical inheritance in Israel in this age. Yet Paul calls the nations who have joined Israel the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29). Paul proposed the Halakah that Gentiles in the dispersion do not have to be circumcised at this time, and the Jerusalem council agreed with it. So the imperative obligation to be circumcised is lifted for those outside the land of Israel. On the other hand, the nations who have joined themselves with Israel must understand that that the law of circumcision for the possession of the kingdom of God has not been removed. It is still written in Ezekiel the Prophet:
Thus saith the Adonai YHWH; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel" (44:9).
The "sanctuary" spoken about here is the one not yet built, which will be constructed by Messiah himself in the age to come (Zech. 6:12-13). So a Christian who desires to receive the full inheritance with all the physical promises must also come fully into the covenant before receiving them.
Christians who
hold fast to the good news of Yeshua will be saved, but they will not
receive their possession in the Kingdom of God until they come into the
bond of the covenant (Ezekiel 20:32-36). That means the Sabbaths, the feast
days, circumcision, immersion, and clean and unclean, and all the Torah
that Yeshua will write on the hearts of His people when he returns (Jer.
31:31-34).
The Apostolic exemption from circumcision was therefore a temporary
ruling, based on Biblical precedent. Further, this temporary
exemption was only meant to last during the times of the Gentiles.
When the kingdom is restored to Israel, the exile of Israel ends.
And like those Jews that did not go back to Israel before the Second
World War, Christians who do not join the covenant and seek refuge in
Zion will find themselves in the midst of their own Holocaust.
Christians who believe in Yeshua need to understand that the
"pre-tribulation" rapture is not going to save them from the
Anti-Messiah if they choose to stay behind in the nations.
Now, it is usually assumed that the Jerusalem council also exempted the nations from the rest of the Torah. This misunderstanding was created by the Christian Scholars who did not understand the above reason for the exemption. So when they got to Acts 15:5, they mistranslated it: *"KJV 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." This is not what the text says. It says, "... saying, That it was needful to circumcise them BESIDES to command them to keep the law of Moses". No you cannot find this correction in Strong's Concordance, or in any other popular translation. It can be found in the Concordant Greek Text. Only a Scholar would know about this, so I will provide you with a snapshot of the text. And Yes, this text is strictly speaking correct.
That the nations were instructed to observe the Torah is clear from Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 28:18-20. They were to obey all of Messiah Yeshua's teaching. We may therefore conclude that the Apostles already were instructing the nations who believed to observe the seventh day Sabbath, the feast days, and the kosher laws. The text of Acts actually implies that this was the case. Further, James pointed out in Acts 15:21 that the Law of Moses was being taught to the nations. So it was not a concern. The Gentiles were only told that circumcision was not a salvation matter, with the implication that they were not them obligated to it. The council did find it necessary to mention some things they might be tempted to neglect in Greco-Roman culture, namely things sacrificed to idols, blood, and sexual immorality, which indeed could endanger their receiving eternal life. In fact, because of the way Judaism was taught in the dispersion, the Gentiles had more awareness of the Sabbath than basic immorality.
Now Paul did not oppose circumcision at this time either. In fact, he circumcised Timothy because his mother was a Jew, and so he was a Jew (Acts 16:4). What does this tell us. Did Paul teach the Gentile believers not to circumcise their son's on the eighth day? No. There is no evidence that he told them not to do this. His situational directives on circumcision are always aimed at adults. He was charged by Jews with teaching Jews not to circumcise their sons, but like all the other charges, we may simply regard this as a false charge. Yet, Christians suppose that Timothy was circumcised purely as a mission to Judaize him so that he could work in converting Jews to Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul had him circumcised because the Jewish community rightly knew he was a lapsed Jew. Yes, it can be blamed on his Greek father, but his mother was a woman of faith. Timothy ought to have been circumcised on the eighth day. If Timothy had been a pagan convert like Titus, then Paul would have exempted him. We may regard Paul's circumcision of Timothy as a very conservative interpretation of the allowance that the Jerusalem council was giving. Timothy was a grey area, a borderline case. Paul errors on the side of obligation. Further, the text in Acts 16:3 reads "circumcised him through the Jews" most literally, and not "on account of the Jews", although it was in part on their account, because they knew it was a border line case too. What "on account of" does not mean, though, is that Paul did it purely as a missionary maneuver to get Jews to listen to him. Paul was acting in all sincerity of personal piety.
Now first century Judaism did not come to the same conclusion as the Apostles on circumcision for the Gentiles. Why is this? Is it because they were better interpreters of the Torah than twelve men who knew Yeshua? This is not likely. Yeshua anointed them with the Spirit of God, and the mantle of the Prophets when he gave them the power to bind and loose. These were men whose understanding was opened up by the Ruakh (Spirit of God). Further, Paul himself had a divine encounter with Yeshua, and when they were all together they were able to agree on this issue.
Heretofore, it was not as necessary for Gentiles to understand any of this. Even if they had the wrong reasons, the land of Israel was after all to become a desolation for 1800 years. The second exile of the house of Judah was coming. Yeshua knew this. The Spirit knew it, and the Father planned it. But Paul warned them not to be haughty against the tree that bore them. Now the times again are changing. The tribulation is not the next phase in the prophetic program. War is coming, but it is not the last war. And like the Second World War, out of this Third World War will come a renewal for the kingdom of Israel. Damascus will be turned into a burnt heap, and Islamic militancy will be pushed far away from the borders of Israel. There will be a second harvest of Judah (Hosea 6:11), but the survivors will seek the LORD (Isaiah 17).
Those Orthodox Jews who oppose Messianic Jews and Christians Gentiles who want to join Israel will be put out of power. A free state will be reconstituted on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. Now I am addressing the Christian Gentiles, those Zionists who seek to join with Israel. That is your right, and the prophet Joel did say there will be deliverance in Zion (Joel 2:32). However, if you want to inherit with the Jewish believers in Yeshua, then you too will have to be circumcised. You will have to learn to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath, and the feast days. You will have to accept the Torah and kosher laws.
We will probably not be able to stop the fifth column of Christians who have no intentions of honoring God's covenant with Israel from coming too. However, Yeshua will deal with them in the wilderness of the nations (cf. Ezekiel 20:36-37). And if the law should be enforced, then circumcision should only be required for the one who wants to settle in the land. Those with the short term visa can be exempt.
Now I will briefly address the issue of why Paul was so against voluntary circumcision in the book of Galatians, with a few hints elsewhere. In order for the Christian to understand this issue, it will be necessary for him to recognize the Catholic heresy of baptism. Catholics consider baptism the instrument that removes the guilt of original sin. At least that is what the Council of Trent said, and so also the Catholic Catechism. If baptism does this, then it replaces the sacrifice of Messiah Yeshua. That is why it is heretical. Nothing can replace the sacrifice of Yeshua for the forgiveness of our transgressions. If baptism is relied on, then Messiah will mean nothing.
The Baptist Christians rightly recognized this heresy, and corrected it by teaching that baptism is merely a sign of salvation. It is not the instrument of conversion or the instrument of forgiveness and cleansing from sin. It is merely a sign of the justice which we have by the sacrifice of Messiah.
Again, there is yet another heresy going around that you may be familiar with. I mean the Sacred Name heresy. These teachers teach that one must correctly say the sacred name in order to be saved. While I agree the ban needs to be lifted, I oppose the false doctrine. There is a commandment to remember the holy name (Exodus 3:15). Likewise, we have a command to immerse converts (Matthew 28:18-20). And there is a command to circumcise (with a temporary exemption for Gentiles). Where the problem comes is when teachers teach that circumcision is the instrument of salvation. Paul's opponents taught that circumcision symbolized all the self effort that one might make to appease God so that he would forgive your sins and accept you into his kingdom. Their teaching effectively made circumcision the gateway to earning salvation by works. So it is plain why Paul opposed this sort of voluntary circumcision, with some very rough words. I'm sure he would have similar words for Catholic baptism and Sacred Name heresies.
None of this, of course, invalidates the proper place of circumcision. And I think that Christians who truly have a deep understanding of the gospel can understand my point. But the majority does not. In fact, the majority of Christians has fallen into that sort of error that Paul was opposing. They think that they will get to heaven by being good. Since they have no spiritual perception here, their notion of what is good will follow their culture without discernment, and so it goes without saying that they will neither see nor sympathize with my argument.
There is, of course, much more to say about Torah, and misunderstandings of Paul and the law. I certainly have not covered all the problem texts in one paper! After all, heretical scholars have been busy trying to translate Torah out of the Apostolic Writings for 18 centuries. Much of that is covered or hinted at on www.torahtimes.org. If we did not have the Ruakh to rescue us from the web of lies Christians have believed for the last 1800 years, then the situation would be hopeless. Gladly it is not. Yeshua knows how to fix things up.