The Problem of Circumcision

The idea of Torah Observance is pretty simple at first glance: the commands God gave in the Torah are still applicable and binding upon believers today. When you dig deeper, however, you encounter a problem. There are several self-contradictions and logical errors that are very difficult to reconcile. I grew up Torah Observant myself, and I am very familiar with the common Biblical citations used to defend this belief system. However, when I began studying the topic of this article, namely circumcision, it was as if I pulled the thread that unraveled the sweater. As I aim to demonstrate in this article, I found that circumcision has a certain prominence in the Old Testament which is completely foreign to the early Christian Church, and the implications this has upon modern Torah Observance are devastating.

The Torah Observant Perspective: Matthew 5

I first want to set the stage by providing the basic Biblical case for the Torah Observant perspective. Although this is by no means the only verse cited in its defense, from my experience Matthew 5:17-19 seems to be the most common. Here’s what it says: 

Mt 5:17-19

The argument mostly hinges on the contrast between “abolish” and “fulfill”. Here‘s how the Torah Observant group “119 Ministries” puts it (emphasis mine):

Interpreting fulfill as meaning that the law is no longer applicable makes absolutely no sense in light of the next two verses in which it is stated nothing will change until heaven and earth disappear. Then, Jesus, His Hebrew name being Yeshua, even goes on listing consequences if anyone practices and teaches even the least of the commandments are no longer applicable…

This means that“fulfilled” in Matthew 5:17, the Greek word “pleroo,” must mean to fully preach or fully teach the law of God and cannot teach that any part of the law of God is no longer applicable because it would then render verses 18 and 19 as irrelevant or even contradictory.

119 Ministries, “Pleroo the law” (3:13 second mark)

If they are correct about what Christ is saying, then many of the practices commanded in the Torah that Christianity has abandoned remain obligatory for us. This would include the necessity to avoid ritually unclean meat such as pork or shellfish, as well as keeping the Biblically commanded feasts such as Passover and the Feast of Booths.

Now I want to make one point clear at the beginning: in this article, I am not going to be focusing on Matthew 5:17-19. I won’t be presenting a different interpretation of those verses, nor will I try to prove how Torah Observants have misunderstood them. That is simply not the point of this article.

While it is true that I disagree with their interpretation, I am willing to grant the Torah Observant reading for the purposes of this discussion. My intention is to demonstrate that this reading leads to unavoidable contradictions between what the Torah commands and the practice and teachings of the apostles, particularly concerning circumcision.

What the Torah says: Circumcision

So without further ado, let’s look at the Biblical teaching on circumcision, starting at the beginning. A quick word search reveals that the first passage that deals with the topic of circumcision is Genesis 17:10-14:

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” — Ge 17:10-14

The important verse to note is verse 14. We can learn from this verse that circumcision is by no means an optional practice. Anymale who is NOT circumcised is “cut off” from the covenant people. But what exactly does it mean to be “cut off”, and is this all that important?

The hebrew word used in Genesis 17:14 is “venichreta”, which is the verb form of the word “karath” (Strongs 3772), which literally means “to cut off”. This is the same root word that is used when the Bible talks about “making a covenant”, due to the ritual of cutting up and sacrificing an animal in the process of making a covenant (an example of this would be Genesis 15). So God is essentially using a pun here: if you refuse to cut a small part of yourself off (to join the covenant), you will be cut off entirely (and excluded from the covenant).

But what did it mean to be “cut off” on a practical level? Well, the Bible doesn’t explicitly tell us. However, there are some clues, both in the Torah and in ancient Rabbinic sources, that can help give us some idea of what this consequence truly meant.

First, it is helpful if we can get a picture of what sort of actions would cause an individual to be “cut off”. Using a concordance, I compiled a list of all the situations where the word “karath” is used, (The Strongs number is 3772 if you wish to check it for yourself). As you can see, this consequence was variously applied to…

• Eating leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:15,19)
• Using the sacred anointing oil as perfume or body ointment (Exodus 30:33,38)
• Profaning the sabbath (Exodus 31:14)
• Eating of the flesh of a sacrifice while in a state of uncleanness (Leviticus 7:20-21)
• Eating the fat of any animal that can be sacrificed (Leviticus 7:25)
• Eating any blood (Leviticus 7:27; 17:10,14)
• Sacrificing an animal away from the tabernacle (Leviticus 17:3-4,8-9)
• Committing incest, sodomy, child sacrifice, cultic prostitution, etc… (Leviticus 18:29; 20:3,5-6,17-18)
• Eating of a sacrifice three days after it was offered (Leviticus 19:8)
• Coming near the “sacred donations” (i.e. food given by the Israelites to be eaten by the priests) in a state of uncleanness (Leviticus 22:3)
• Failure to practice self-denial on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:29)
• Failure to keep the Passover when one is in a state of cleanness and not on a journey (Numbers 9:13)
• Acting “high-handedly” and “affront[ing] the LORD” (Numbers 15:30-31)
• Touching a corpse (or anything else that causes uncleanness) and not purifying oneself (Numbers 19:13,20)

This is quite a variety of offenses! So what exactly is this punishment?

Well, let’s look at a few possibilities.

1. The death penalty.
   • While at first glance this might seem plausible, I don’t think this is the case. In Leviticus 20:1-4 we read about the consequences of child sacrifice. The first consequence is the death penalty. However, God says that if the people do not put the offender to death, then God will set his face against them and “will cut them off from among their people”. If karath is the death penalty, this wouldn’t make very much sense, unless God is administering the death penalty, which I admit is an (albeit improbable) possibility.
2. Dying before a certain age.
   • While this doesn’t seem obvious from the text, this is a possibility proposed by many Rabbinic sources. For instance, Moed Katan 28a:8 says “If one dies when he is fifty years old, this is death through karet, the divine punishment of excision, meted out for the most serious transgressions. If he dies when he is fifty-two years old, this is the death of Samuel from Ramah. If he dies at the age of sixty, this is death at the hand of Heaven.”
     I’ll leave it to you to decide whether you think this seems a likely fit.
3. A form of “excommunication” from the group.
   • This seems plausible given the phrase “cut off from his people”, however, I was not able to find any other sources putting forward this idea, so I’m hesitant to assert that this is definitely the correct view.
4. Divine punishment in the afterlife or “loss of salvation”
   • This is the option that I lean towards the most. The message of the Bible is God’s plan for eternal salvation, and even though the Torah does not overtly mention an afterlife, it is reasonable to assume that it alludes to it. Since we know from the New Testament that sin leads to loss of salvation, it would make sense that the same would be true in the Torah. Additionally, this view is supported by Rabbinic sources as well.
     For instance, Maimonides says ‘The reward of the righteous is that they will merit this pleasure and take part in this good. The retribution of the wicked is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die.
     Whoever does not merit this life is [truly] dead and will not live forever. Rather, he will be cut off in his wickedness and perish as a beast. This is the intent of the meaning of the term karet in the Torah as [Numbers 15:31] states: “That soul shall surely be cut off.”‘
     And Nachmanides (a Jewish sage from the 13th century) combines this idea with #2 in his commentary on Leviticus 18:29, which you can read here.

So where does this leave us? Can we know exactly what karath means?

I don’t think that we can, but what is certain is that it is not a desirable punishment, and if an action merits it, then we can be pretty certain that action is an grievous offense to God.

Later, I will examine the approach some members of the Torah Observant movement take to circumcision, and show how it does not take into account the fact that “failure to be circumcised” is an action which, according to Torah, is worthy of “karath”.

Moving on from Genesis 17, we find several more instances confirming the importance of Circumcision. Abraham circumcises Isaac at 8 days old in Genesis 21:4, Moses has his son circumcised in Exodus 4:25, and in Exodus 6 when Moses is trying to convince God that he is unworthy of speaking on behalf of the Israelite slaves, he describes himself as being “of uncircumcised lips”. Clearly, circumcision is of such importance that not only is it the physical way by which one enters the covenant, but it is also used as a metaphor to describe whether one is set apart for God.

Circumcision and Passover

The next passage of importance is Exodus 12:43-48:

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it; but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No sojourner or hired servant may eat of it. In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of the flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. — Ex 12:43-48

This is the passage where God lays out the instructions for how to keep the Passover. What is interesting is that we are told in no uncertain terms that “no uncircumcised person shall eat of [the Passover lamb]”. So not only is circumcision a prerequisite for being a member of the covenant people, but it is also a prerequisite for partaking in what is arguably the most important Old Testament feast.

Which Passover?

Now at this point, I want to address an objection I anticipate. Some have claimed that these instructions are specifically for the first Passover, and do not necessarily apply to any future Passovers. This cannot be the case, because God gives these instructions AFTER Israel has left Egypt. The specific instructions for the first Passover were given earlier in the chapter, in verses 1-28. Then, after the story of the Israelites leaving Egypt, we are told God’s instructions for how to observe the Passover going forward.

We can also know that these are instructions for future Passovers because of how verse 48 is worded. The Israelites are told that “when a stranger shall sojourn with [them]” they must require him to be circumcised, and then he shall be “as a native of the land”. What land? Well, the promised land of Canaan, which the Israelites were obviously not dwelling in at the time of the first Passover.

What does the New Testament say?

So I think I’ve established pretty well what the Old Testament position on Circumcision is. Genesis 17:14 tells us that a man who is not circumcised is “cut off from his people” and “has broken [the] covenant”. Exodus 12:48 tells us that “no uncircumcised person may eat of [the Passover]”.

But what does the New Testament say? If the Torah Observant movement is correct, there should be no passages in the New Testament that contradict this. We should see the apostles requiring men to be circumcised in order to enter the covenant and partake of the Passover sacrifice.

Is this what we see, however? The answer is an unequivocal “NO!” Not only do the apostles not require circumcision, but there are several passages where it is actually discouraged.

The Acts 15 Controversy

To begin our examination of the New Testament, let’s look at Acts 15. Here are verses 1-5:

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” — Ac 15:1-5

Now the first thing I want to emphasize is the contrast between verses 1 and 2. First, we see that some men from Judea are teaching the brethren (i.e. the early Christians) that it is impossible to be saved without the circumcision taught by Moses. Then we see that Paul and Barnabas encounter them and disagree with them. There seems to be such a fundamental disagreement that Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem to ask the apostles and settle the dispute.

Now at the bare minimum, we can conclude that Paul and Barnabas disagree with the statement that “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” But this should make no sense from a Torah Observant standpoint because this is EXACTLY what the Torah teaches. Let’s look at Genesis 17:14 again:

Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” — Ge 17:14

How exactly can someone be saved even though he has “broken [the] covenant” and is “cut off from his people”? The obvious reading of Genesis 17:14 perfectly matches with what the men from Judea were teaching in Acts 15:1. And yet somehow, Paul and Barnabas disagree with this.

Now in verse 5, we see that there is a group of Pharisee Christians, and they take a position similar to, if not exactly the same as the men in verse 1. They say that “It is necessary to circumcise them [the Gentiles], and to charge them to keep the law of Moses”.

Let’s keep reading Acts 15:6-11:

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” — Ac 15:6-11

Peter’s Perspective

Now let’s examine the passage and determine which position Peter takes in this debate. He begins by noting that God put upon him the responsibility to preach to the Gentiles, and then points out that God made no distinction between the Jewish believers and the Gentiles, by pouring out His Holy Spirit upon all of them alike. Then, in verse 10 he asks a question:

“Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?”

Acts 15:10

So whoever he is addressing is:

1. Making trial of God, and
2. Putting a yoke upon the neck of the new Gentile believers

So who is he addressing? Well, it must either be the group in verse 1 or the group in verse 5. However, it wouldn’t make sense for it to be the group in verse 1, because Peter seems to be addressing a group that is present (for instance, he uses the second person pronoun “you” as opposed to the third person “they”). Also, according to the narrative flow of the chapter, the group in verse 5 speaks, and then Peter stands up, making it most likely that Peter is responding to the group in verse 5.

So if the group in verse 5 is putting a yoke on the necks of the new believers, then what is that yoke? Well, the obvious reading is that it is circumcision and the law of Moses. This would make sense of the last half of verse 10. The ancient Jews were certainly required to observe circumcision and the law of Moses, and the New Testament is replete with verses telling us that it was unable to make anyone perfect (Hebrews 10:1), to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4), or to justify (Romans 3:20).

Now one of the most common Torah Observant objections to this interpretation of Acts 15 is the claim that the yoke is not the Law itself, but the teaching that you must be circumcised to gain salvation. But this is a distinction without a difference, because the Torah does teach that one must be circumcised to be saved. As I pointed out earlier, Genesis 17:14 tells us that anyone who is uncircumcised is cut off from the covenant people. As I pointed out earlier when we looked at karath, this is most likely a reference to the loss of salvation.

James’ Judgment

Now to conclude our examination of Acts 15, let’s find out what the apostle James has to say:

And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.” — Ac 15:12-21

As we can see, James agrees with Peter, and in verse 19 he emphasizes that they should not “trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God”. What could possibly trouble the Gentiles? The teaching that they must be circumcised to be saved, which as we’ve established, is the teaching of the Mosaic Law.

Now, many Torah Observant commentators like to point to verse 21 and claim that this proves that their reading of the passage is correct. They will say that James is pointing out that the Gentiles already hear the Torah in the synagogues every week, and so even though the Jerusalem Church doesn’t require them to start keeping the entire law all at once, they will eventually grow in their Christian walk and learn to keep all that the Torah requires. Now, I don’t believe that this is actually what this verse is saying, but I’ll save that discussion for a different article.

For now, it’s enough to say that if they were expected to gradually start keeping the Torah, then we would expect circumcision to be one of the FIRST things they would pick up, not one of the last things. Circumcision was essentially the gateway to the entire Torah. According to the Torah, you weren’t even a member of the covenant community until you were circumcised, and it would be very strange if the Jerusalem Church was willing to permit a fairly large segment of believers to intentionally withhold themselves from entering God’s covenant for an indefinite period of time.

Paul’s Point of View

Now there are many more things that could be said about Acts 15, and I will probably revisit it in future articles to further address some of the objections raised by members of the Torah Observant community. Still, I would like to shift gears and examine some of the things that the Apostle Paul says about circumcision in his Epistles. Although there are numerous passages I could have chosen, I will stick with the three that I believe are the most damaging to the Torah Observant position.

1. Romans 2:25-29

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. — Ro 2:25-29

In this passage, Paul discusses the relationship between circumcision and the law and begins by addressing Jews who were already circumcised. To them, he says that if they fail to keep the law, their circumcision is worthless. This statement alone does not contradict anything a Torah Observant person believes, but in the next verse, Paul says something curious. In verse 26 Paul flips it and says that if the uncircumcised person keeps the law, he will be treated as if he IS circumcised!

What’s so interesting about that? Well, Paul seems to believe that someone can keep the precepts of the law without being circumcised, otherwise his statement would make no sense. However, that would mean that when Paul refers to “the law” he is not including everything in the Torah, because circumcision is required by the Torah.

In verse 29 Paul clearly states that he believes true circumcision is a matter of the heart, not of the flesh. However, if the Torah were still binding upon Christians, then Paul would be at odds with Genesis 17:14, which states that men MUST be circumcised “in the flesh”.

2. Galations 5:2-6

Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. — Ga 5:2-6

Now right out of the gate, Paul comes out swinging. He explicitly says to those who want to be circumcised that “Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Additionally, if they persist in seeking to be justified by the law, they will be “severed from Christ” and will have “fallen away from grace.”

These are harsh words. The obvious interpretation of what Paul is saying is that these men should NOT be circumcised.

According to Paul, circumcision is IRRELEVANT to salvation. Whether you have been circumcised or not has no bearing on where you end up in eternity. What matters is “faith working through love”. Paul is not telling the Galatians that circumcision itself will damn them; what he is saying is that circumcising oneself out of any sense of obligation is tantamount to severing oneself from Christ.

There is no qualifying statement. There is no clarification that these men will be circumcised later after they have learned to keep the law better. Paul is clear: if you are circumcised because you believe circumcision is spiritually superior, you have fallen away from grace and are severed from Christ.

3. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19

Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. — 1 Co 7:18-19

This is the big one. Frankly, I don’t know how one can read this and conclude that Paul approves of circumcision in any way, shape, or form. He explicitly tells those who are uncircumcised at the time they come to believe, “Do not seek circumcision.” He doesn’t merely tell them to delay circumcision, or to make sure they aren’t viewing it as a means to salvation, but to avoid it entirely.

This completely destroys the Torah Observant worldview. I have already shown that the Torah requires men to be circumcised, and yet here is the Apostle Paul directly contradicting that. So this means we have three choices: either the Torah is still binding and Paul is wrong, or some parts of the Torah (in this case circumcision) are not still binding, and Torah Observance is a false teaching. I will leave you to decide for yourself which of those is the case

The Trouble with Titus

Now, I think I’ve made a pretty good case to show that the Torah takes a completely different approach to circumcision than the apostles, and I could leave it there, but I want to examine one final instance to further justify my argument: the situation regarding Titus.

In Galatians 2 Paul tells us about a time when he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage— to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. — Ga 2:1-5

To me, this sounds like Paul is relaying the story of what happened in Acts 15, but whether it was that situation or something completely different, we see in action what Paul believes about circumcision. Apparently, there were “false brethren” who wanted Titus to be circumcised, but because Paul believed that was equivalent to bringing him “into bondage” he refused to let that happen. Titus was not circumcised.

But let’s once again look at the implications this has for Titus if the Torah is still binding:

1. Titus is “cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14)
2. Titus has “broken [God’s] covenant” (Genesis 17:14)
3. Titus is unable to partake in the Passover (Exodus 12:48)

Now, it is specifically that last one that I want to expand on for a moment. Many Torah Observant people today will not require men to be circumcised to partake of the Passover Seder, and they have a solid Biblical reason for that. No one today has a real Passover lamb, because there is no Temple in which to sacrifice it. Therefore, the injunction from Exodus 12:48 does not apply to anyone today.

This objection doesn’t apply to Titus, though, because the Temple was still standing at the time the events in the book of Galatians took place. Therefore, according to Torah Observant beliefs, the Church at this time would have still been celebrating Passover with a valid Passover lamb sacrificed at the Temple. But since Titus wasn’t circumcised, he could not have taken part.

Does this make sense? If the apostles believed that the Torah was still binding, would they have allowed Gentile converts to remain uncircumcised, and to abstain from the most important feast commanded in the Torah? Personally, I think that is too far-fetched to believe.

Now, some will claim that Titus was eventually circumcised, but where does the Bible say this? The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t say this. This is simply projected onto the text to satisfy a pre-existing bias. It is not supported by any Scriptural or historical source.

What is supported by the Bible is the fact that Titus wasn’t just a simple layman, but was in fact appointed a leader of the church by the apostles. In Titus 1:5 we see that Titus is commanded to appoint other church leaders, which implies that he is a fairly important figure in the church.

Given what the Bible says on the subject, it is reasonable to conclude that Titus is a leader in the church, appointing other elders, still uncircumcised, and still not keeping Passover. Once again, I am unsure how this can be reconciled with the belief that the Torah is still binding.

But What About Timothy?

Now before I close, I want to address one final objection. Despite all the evidence I have just provided, there will be some who think that the situation with Timothy in Acts 16 completely changes what the Apostles and specifically Paul believe about circumcision.

In Acts 16:1-3 it says:

And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. — Ac 16:1-3

So if Paul was against circumcision, why did he circumcise Timothy?

Well, first of all, remember what I said when I discussed Galatians 5. It’s not that circumcision itself is always wrong, it’s that it is IRRELEVANT to salvation, and can be spritually detrimental if one does it out of obligation. Paul did not believe that circumcision was ALWAYS wrong, however, and if there was some other reason to get circumcised, then Paul would have had no reason to oppose it.

What might that other reason have been? Well, the passage actually tells us. It was “because of the Jews that were in those places”. Timothy was circumcised because he and Paul were getting ready to go on a missionary journey where they were going to be dealing with very zealous Jews. These Jews would not have even let Timothy “in the door” if he wasn’t circumcised, since they “knew that his father was a Greek”. He wasn’t circumcised to be saved, and he wasn’t circumcised out of “obedience to the Torah”. He was circumcised for purely pragmatic reasons.

Summary

So to wrap up, let’s review the argument I’ve made step-by-step:

1. The Torah teaches circumcision is required (Genesis 17:14, Exodus 12:48)
   • If you disagree with this, then you have to show using the Torah why those verses don’t mean what they clearly mean.
2. In Acts 15, the Apostles clearly repudiate the notion that circumcision is necessary for salvation.
   • If you disagree, then what is the “yoke” mentioned in Acts 15:10?

3. The Apostle Paul is clearly against Gentile converts being circumcised in 1 Corinthians 7.
   • If you disagree, how do you explain verse 18?

Concluding Thoughts

Lastly, let’s return to Matthew 5:17. The Torah Observant interpretation believes that Christ is explaining that the whole Torah is still applicable to Christians, and “not an iota, not a dot” has been removed from the list of requirements. If this interpretation is correct, we should expect to see the Apostles agreeing with the Torah on the subject of circumcision. But we don’t, and this leaves us with only two options:

1. Either the Torah Observant reading of Matthew 5 is correct, and therefore the Apostles are false teachers, or
2. The Apostles are right, and the Torah Observant interpretation is wrong.

There is no third option. No matter what position you take on circumcision as a Torah Observant, you will either be at odds with the Old Testament, or at odds with the New Testament. The only way to agree with BOTH Genesis and the Apostles is to admit that Christ came to “fulfill” the Torah, bring it to its natural conclusion, and usher in the New Covenant.

For myself, that is what I believe He did, and that is why I can no longer be Torah Observant.

I hope this article has challenged you, and I urge you to study the Scripture and pray about the evidence I have presented.

May God bless you!