Circumcision was a major factor in Jewish identity. While the practice of circumcision itself is not unique to the Jews in the Ancient world, although some of the traditions based on the Hebrew Bible are specifically Jewish. Circumcision is given as a sign of the Covenant of Abraham in Genesis 17, yet the ritual itself did not confer “spiritual blessing” as a sign of the covenant. For this reason the prophets told the people that they needed a “circumcised heart – clearly a metaphorical use of the idea of circumcision (Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4; Ezek 44:7, 9).
There is strong evidence that during the intertestamental period and into the first century, at least part of the Jews thought that circumcision was required for the convert to Judaism. (See, for example, Schiffman in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 115-156, especially 125-127. Schiffman discusses Talmud Yebamot 46 and the importance of the Izates story in Josephus Antiq. 20.2.4, see this post for more details on this story).
For the Jew, circumcision was one of a handful of important boundary markers which set them apart from the rest of the world. For the Gentile, circumcision was a strange mutilation of the flesh. Greco-Roman writers who comment on Judaism usually ridicule the practice. Marital, for example, seems to find a great deal of (naughty) humor in the Jewish practice (Epigrams 7.35.3-4; 7,82, 11.94).
It is not the case that Paul’s rejection of circumcision for Gentile converts was motivated by practical missionary concerns. Paul did not consider circumcision such a road -block to Gentile mission that he rejected it so that his churches could reach the pagan world. As an analogy, the evangelical Christian church has more or less accepted rock-styled praise bands as necessary to appeal to the modern world. Most churches have (rightly) rejected the idea that worship music must be played only on a proper pipe-organ. In most cases , this shift in worship style is evangelistically motivated. Paul did more or less the same thing in rejecting the so-called strange elements of Judaism for his Gentile churches.
Such a view makes light of the practice of circumcision in the first century. If this is the sign of Abraham’s covenant given by God, how can it be rejected as inconsequential? Paul does not merely call circumcision for Gentiles meaningless, he says it is dangerous. If one allows himself to be circumcised, he is in danger of nullifying the grace of God! (See Gal 1:6-9, for example.) Paul arrives in Jerusalem in Acts 15 convinced that any Law added to the Gospel is no gospel at all, including circumcision. Whatever God is doing among the Gentiles in Asia Minor (Acts 14), there is no conversion to Judaism. Schnabel makes this point in Paul the Missionary in the context of the book of Galatians (126): “Paul insists that the Gentiles do not have to become Jews before they are accepted by God as followers of the Messiah” (emphasis added).
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 17, 2011 at 1:03 pm
anthonygallensr
My grandmother, a life long member of the Missouri Synod Flavor of Lutheranism, and I, have had a long standing discussion regarding the use of infant baptism as it pertains to the life and salvation of a Christian. Throughout my studies on the topic I came to an understanding that in some cases baptism is much like circumcision. A law added to the conversion process, some time years before the possibility of a conversion and acceptance of the Salvation of Christ. In the case of the Lutheran religion they hold the baptism, as an infant, as the proof of entrance into heaven. So said the Lutheran pastor who attended to my mothers funeral. “We can trust that she is in heaven because of her baptism” She was baptised at 8 days old, and I never heard her state, confess, or profess, Jesus Christ as Lord.
Baptism to me in some cases, has become like circumcision. A human “requirement” added to the salvation experience as a proof of conversion. I am confident that my grandmother is a “sister” in Christ because I believe she came to a place somewhere in her life where the Scandalon confronted her and she accepted the Gift of Christ. But my mother I am not so sure, and though I hope, part of me fully expects not to see her in eternity.
Do you think, then, that it is right of me to liken the human “Act” of baptism to the human “Act” of circumcision? That doing so, similarly risks the nulification of the Salvation experience?
March 17, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Phillip J. Long
“Baptism to me in some cases, has become like circumcision.” Yes, this is true. In fact, in some reformed traditions child baptism is a serious important practice since it make one part of then covenant, the way circumcision did at one time. I too have met people who had been baptized as an infant and assume they are saved, without ever making a real profession of faith in Jesus.
In my view, the reformation did not go far enough, since this is pretty much the same idea found in medieval Catholicism. Whatever baptism is, it cannot be considered an act which saves, justifies, gives grace, etc. I suspect Paul would write another Galatians to traditional denominations which demand Baptism for salvation.
I do not think that being baptized “nullifies” salvation, however. It might keep one from making a real profession of faith if they think participation in a ritual makes you saved. But if you have accepted Christ as savior, the ritual does not cancel out your salvation.
March 17, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Stephenie A.
I really like the section of chapter 15 that discusses how a person is really saved. This is verses 6-11. Paul and Barnabas make the argument that it is only through the grace of Jesus that we are saved. I am not trying to make any other theological arguments here besides circumcision, but I can understand that this would be something difficult for the people of this time period to understand. As noted in the post, it would be like refusing to play anything but old hymns on the pipe organ. However I’m not putting down the law of circumcision, but it does need to be noted that it does not save you. Only Jesus saves.
March 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Kimmy Haney
Anthony, I think you brought of a great point, and a good debate. It is such an interesting topic to think about, whether the act of baptism is like circumcision. To me, with my previous studies and views on my faith I think that it is entirely possible for those two to almost be in the same category. Yes many others will disagree with me but I do not see why ether or should be necessary to understand and have a complete relationship with Jesus Christ. I agree with Paul when he says it is not something we must do anymore, because God payed the price and was the sacrifice so performing ether baptism or circumcision are up to the person it pertains to. For me, if I feel led to circumcise my son(s) later in life and my husband agrees with that choice then I see no harm in doing it, and vice-versa same with baptism. I will conclude my post with agreeing with Stephanie in saying only Jesus saves, I will add on to that with what we chose to honor him, will not make a difference in where my relationship is with Him, unless my heart is in the correct place.
March 17, 2011 at 10:33 pm
ChristynBenjamin
I very much agree with where your headed in your post Kimmy.
To put circumcision and baptism in the same category is very much possible and may in fact be logical. The debate of whether baptism is meant for Christians today goes back to where a person stands with the dispensations and how far a person takes those dispensations into consideration for the Christian life today. But I do like what you said Kimmy, whether circumcision or baptism, neither one makes a person more “holy” or more “spiritual”. It’s a personal decision for each person (or their parent’s decision, in the case of circumcision). I feel like so many well meaning Christians use their personal baptism as a way of making themselves “feel” more spiritual, or they use it so that others perceive them as closer to God. The reality is that baptism is not about the person being baptized at all. It is about what Christ has done in that person’s life. Maybe circumcision isn’t about that person at all either. Maybe for some people it is about what they feel God leading them to choose for their child or they just feel it’s important. The reality is that neither one makes you a better person. It all goes back to the heart. Circumcision and baptism are not directly factors to where a person’s heart is at with God. 1 Samuel 16:7 says, “The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” God knows our motives and our heart and He is more concerned with our hearts and who or what we are loving our hearts with.
So to answer your question in the title P. Long, the physical act of circumcision isn’t that important.
March 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Cappon
In response to Anthony, I agree similarly with Kimmy and Stephenie. I think the act of circumcision and the act of baptism are completely different. Baptism is a symbolic act representing a burial into death (due to sin) and a resurrection into life with Christ. Baptism is also a message to the world that one is committing their life to Christ publicly. Circumcision represents an act of faith and obedience for the sake of faith in God’s command. If there is symbolism to Old Testament circumcision, I don’t want to know what it is. Furthermore, circumcision is not practiced publicly like baptism is (unless you’re Jewish). I don’t believe in infant baptism. I think baptism and circumcision are completely different faces of a vaguely similar coin, but I think that each are equally unnecessary ultimately for salvation based on the whole of the New Testament.
March 17, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Stefan
So good stuff here. I think a key concept to understand is what is your motivation for doing the activity. Paul states that if a gentile gets himself circumcised he is nullifying his salvation. Why? motives-if you think you have to be circumcised, you’ll get that done, and then go on to follow the rest of the Laws, never doing it out of worship to God but as a mandatory thing. Salvation is about repentance and a change of heart. People sometimes us Baptism as a way of to salvation, and again what is the motive. Is it done out of mandatory process, or is it done as a statement declaring that you are a Christian, and living for Christ and dying to your old lifestyle.
March 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm
michaelkozal
Anthony brings up a good point. i Can understand how Baptism could be seen as an act like circumcision. I attend a Church where infants are dedicated to the Lord per parents request, and adults are baptized as a profession of their walk with the Lord. I myself was baptized both as an infant, and again when i was in High School as an act of what i believe is out of obedience to God and to publicly profess my faith. Some may agree or disagree with that act and I don’t care. I did that because that was what i was brought up witnessing, and learning about. Now that i am a little more educated, i have different views of how Baptism should be looked at but that is a different topic. To me Circumcision comes off as a similar type of act.
March 17, 2011 at 8:07 pm
David
I find it interesting how circumcision isn’t really looked upon as having any spiritual significance anymore. It’s a commonality for those not raised in the church to be circumcised, but there’s also a “contingency” of those who aren’t circumcised simply because their parents made that decision. Before the teaching of Paul circumcision was used as part of the Abrahamic covenant. We’ve talked in class how it was another way to show that the Jewish people were “set apart” from the rest of society and those outside of the covenant with God. I liked what Stefan said about the Gentiles who were in Christ getting circumcised after joining in a relationship with him. Paul is trying to tell them that there is no need for more grace and that the act of circumcision doesn’t bring that anyway. This act was something that God had set up as a covenant with the Israelite people. It was no longer relevant after the death of Christ, especially with the Gentile people.
March 17, 2011 at 8:18 pm
CamCamSupDawg
Paul’s argument is, that circumcision is not a “road – block” issue when it comes to the Gospel. He realized that a Gospel with any added rules or regulations is not a Gospel at all and this is not when he wants. The act of circumcision was to physically separate the Jewish people and it was a sign of the covenant. Paul wants the people to see past the physical/legalistic religious rules and see the Gospel for what it is. In today’s culture there are many different “Circumcision” issues such as music like P. Long stated. People want to be able to control through rules and want to add their own things to the Gospel and salvation. Paul talking about circumcision here is also talking to us today when it comes to different issues that people add to the story of salvation. Churches legalistic views will only hinder the Body of Christ and drive people away.
March 17, 2011 at 8:28 pm
McPorter
I can see where the similarity can be found. I was raised with the idea that baptism was closer to the act of communion, something that is not required for salvation, but commanded for us to do. I agree with Cappon when he says it is more like a symbolic act that we use to declare to the world that we are changed. As I have grown up and developed my own ideas about it, I have never been Baptiste because I have never felt the conviction to. The people Paul preached to were not given a message of required baptism or circumcision for salvation, but they were given the message that Jesus had paid for their sins and if they believe they will be saved. Paul was not converting people to Judaism, he was converting them to the early church.
March 17, 2011 at 9:24 pm
tammydykstra
We would do well to keep in mind that Paul is demanding from the Jews a huge paradigm shift. As Jews, they were God’s chosen people. All over the Old testament we see God naming the Jews as His holy nation, set apart, a kingdom of priests. In a sense, they understand themselves to be the best. And now Paul comes preaching the Gospel of Jesus, which to many who accept Christ, this is all well and good. However, I understand that the challenge is the fact that Paul is now removing the title of “best” from the Jews and placing it on this new category of people who Paul now refers to as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…” (1 Peter 2) in which a person’s ethnicity and works are insufficient. So it seems that the Pharisees that follow the Gospel of Jesus are in a sense saying to Paul, “We can accept this Jesus as the Messiah and His sacrifice, resurrection, and righteousness, but don’t tell us that we are now equal with everyone else.” It is this classic and innate pride with which all men must wrestle if Christ is going to be supreme in our lives.
March 17, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Andrew Dunn
P. Long, I like that you pointed out that Paul says that by being circumcised you are in danger of nullifying the grace of God. I like what Stefan said about it being about the attitude in which you do it. Which I think is along the same lines as baptism, which has been brought up a lot in this post. If someone gets baptized because they think they can use it as a ticket out of hell, does it have the same meaning as someone who is doing it to profess their faith in Christ? Nope. It’s all about the heart. When I read the comment about being in danger of nullifying the grace of God, I thought about the book of Hebrews. Jewish Christians who believed Christ was who he claimed to be started going back to the Jewish customs, and putting so much value in that. In doing that, you are saying that you aren’t 100% sure that Christ was who he says he is. They were thinking, maybe we should do this just in case.
March 17, 2011 at 10:36 pm
CRudd
Wow. I love what Porter said about baptism and communion. These two acts are much more closely related than baptism and circumcision. The only thing I can think of that baptism and circumcision have in common is that they have both been misused and misunderstood to be requirements for eternal salvation at various points throughout history, including today. Baptism and communion, however, are very similar in that they are both acts commanded to be perpetuated by Jesus himself (target audience open for debate), and they are both primarily if not exclusively exercised by Christians. I do not know if some Jews still practice baptism for all the same reasons as they did back then, but other than that, I don’t imagine anyone else spends time dunking in water for any reason other than hygiene.
March 17, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Rick Ware
I really like what all is being discussed here. I find it quite interesting that “circumcision” is thought of as having absolutely no spiritual significance anymore. I think it is fairly logical to place circumcision and baptism in the same boat. Both are indeed rituals but neither one make you more spiritual than the one who did not take part in it. Like Chrissy said, it is a personal decision that one makes but in the case of circumcision, it is the parent’s decision. I do not see either one of these rituals as a nullification for salvation. In Ephesians 2:8 the Apostle Paul writes “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. The only way are saved here is by having a true proclamation with your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he was sent down to earth to bear the guilt and shame. In Galatians 2:16, Paul says ” know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. We are again justified freely by his grace and not by our works
March 18, 2011 at 12:15 am
jaredkusz
I didn’t read all of the responses her, but for whatever reason I paused my scrolling to read one response. I simply want to suggest to Cappon that nobody is suggesting that baptism and circumcision are the same, but it is unavoidable to see a connection. One must look at the history of the early church. Life then (much like today) was all about being in or out. That is what happens in any communal culture. The Jews used circumcision to create boundary lines. But, what were “Christians” to do. They were very Jewish and would have been circumcised. So, how did they create a way to be acknowledged as part of the group? Well, I would suggest baptism. And I think that idea has trickled down, or maybe even snowballed into today’s Christian culture.
Now, I would like to add that I do not disagree, necessarily, with your definitions of what the acts in themselves are. You make a clear distinction. But, to say that are unrelated (or completely different) is unthinkable to me. We must see that baptism isn’t a Christian thing. Or at least, its not in the Bible. Culturally, baptism was a Jewish thing. Just like circumcision. And I think that when we see Scriptural examples of gentile baptism post “salvation” that those are not “Christian acts” but culturally Jewish acts done because of the fact it was the messianic age.
Hmm… I really was hoping to avoid on this post. Oh shucks!
March 18, 2011 at 12:46 am
Danae
I agree with what Stephanie and others have already said. These Gentiles are converts to Christianity, not Judaism, they do not need to be circumcised as a sign that they are under the covenant,because they are not. Circumcision does not save anyways, as Paul was saying, it is only by faith, in Jesus’ death and ressurection, when he took up all our sins and guilt that we are justified in God’s eyes.Its always been about faith.It’s what PLong said about adding anything tothe the gospel makes it no longer the gospel…
March 18, 2011 at 8:32 am
katelynd
Referring back to the topic of baptism, I know that there are some religions who have taken the act of baptism and turned it into something like circumcision. However, there are still some religions that do not make it so. I know that in my church we do baptism, but it is more an act of faith. We believe it to be more like you are showing others you follow Christ. We do not believe if you are not baptised then you are not saved, becauase that is not true. As for the topic of baptism becoming circumcision, I have to agree again that there are religions out there that are making it so.
August 11, 2011 at 1:43 am
Intactivist Jew
………..It would be nice if some of the reporting on this subject focused on the many Jews who are opposed to circumcision.
Some Jews feel the time has come for a symbolic bris without surgery.
Jewish Groups for Genital Integrity
* Jews Against Circumcision http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
* Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ron Goldman, Ph.D. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org
* Beyond the Bris: Jewish Parenting Blog http://www.beyondthebris.com
* A Case for Bris without Milah. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
* Jews for the Rights of the Child http://www.jewsfortherightsofthechild.org/
………………………
August 11, 2011 at 9:10 am
Phillip J. Long
It would be nice, although you guys have posted four comments now on the topic. Seems like the word is out. This blog is not discussing the value of the modern practice of circumcision, but the theological meaning of the ritual in the Second Temple Period.
July 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Shaun
Phil, while I don’t remember reading Schnabel I must ask, did he really say that Paul believes Gentiles must become Jews in order to follow the messiah? This seems to be the complete opposite of what Galatians was about. Justified by Grace and Faith alone, not by following a law.
July 5, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Phillip J. Long
Well spotted, Shaun. That is a huge error in my quote of Schnabel. I double checked it and I have corrected by original post. The whole line is underlined and the word not is double-underlined in my copy of the book! Glad you asked the question!
December 29, 2012 at 2:03 pm
bobmacdonald
I am surprised that no one mentioned Colossians 2:11, a verse that joins circumcision to the death of Jesus. Through Colossians, one can see that circumcision is an ante-type of the cross, a death to self, (Romans 6:3) foreshadowing the death that was to come that completes the work of the day of creation and redemption.