The Sign Of Faith In God

This is the third post from Chapter 8 of Friends With God: God’s Friendship With Israel And The Church. The first post in this series showed that God had given the role to the Church of being his representatives on Earth, and removed this responsibility from the physical nation of Israel. (Matt 21:33-46)

Yet God has not totally rejected Israel, for they will play a very important part of the Kingdom of God on Earth after Christ returns. (Jer 31:35-37, Ezek 26:34-28, 37:21-28, 38:8-23, 39:27-29, Isa 11:11-16)

Since the Jews no longer have the role of representing the Kingdom of God on Earth, what is their status in relation to the New Covenant?

Is the Old Covenant totally removed and of no value at all, and if so, what does that mean for all scripture in the Old Covenant?

As discussed in the second post, the Old Covenant scriptures are considered God’s inspired words and are used to validate the New Covenant, so how can it be done away with?

Circumcision in the New Testament

In order to address these questions, there is no better place to start than to explore the one doctrine that is discussed in almost every book of the New Covenant: - circumcision.

While rarely mentioned in modern Christian preaching, circumcision was the doctrine of discussion in the first few years of the church, with variations of the term being used at least 50 times throughout New Covenant writings.

It’s a critical doctrine for Israel in the Old Covenant (Gen 17:10-17), but is apparently dismissed as being of no value for gentiles in the New Covenant. (Gal 5:2-4) This doctrine therefore is useful to study, as it clearly highlights the differences and similarities between the New and Old Covenants.

We therefore need to understand the history of this ritual, where it came from, and what it actually meant to God, and to Israel. But most importantly, we need to appreciate what circumcision means today, in a spiritual sense, to both Israel and the Church.

The Sign From God Of Abraham’s Faith

We first hear of circumcision when God gave it to Abraham as a sign of his faith. It was the sign of the Covenant God had with Abraham, and all his male descendants and servants, which included Israel. (Gen 17:10-17, Rom 4:11-12) When Moses recited the Old Covenant, circumcision was included in it as a physical sign in a national covenant. However, even before Moses, all Israel was to be circumcised as part of the Covenant with Abraham, discussed in this previous post.

In contrast, we see that gentiles in the New Covenant are not required to be circumcised. (Acts10:44-48, Acts 15:22-29, Gal 5:2-4) If this is all there was to know about circumcision, then the discussion would finish with these few scriptures. From these verses, many scholars state that circumcision has no relevance to modern Christian belief or practice.

The distinction, however, is not so clear-cut as assuming that circumcision is required in the Old Covenant, but not in the New. For we find that Paul, in one of his missionary journeys, actually required Timothy, a new convert, to be circumcised. (Acts 16:1-5) This is somewhat puzzling, particularly because the purpose of this missionary journey was to deliver a decree from Jerusalem stating that circumcision was not required of gentile Christians. (Acts 15:22-29)

Timothy, however, was not a gentile, he was a Jew. In this single incident we see that a clear distinction, over the issue of circumcision, is made by Paul between Jews and gentiles.

Pineapple Flower, Photo by Author

Paul And Timothy

We will now look at the events surrounding this incident in some detail:

Then came he (Paul) to Derbe and Lystra (towns in modern-day southern Turkey): and, behold, a certain disciple (a Christian) was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and (she) believed (in Christ); but his father was a Greek: He (Timothy) was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. (Therefore) Him (Timothy) would Paul have to go forth with him (on his missionary journey); and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in that locality: for they all knew that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities (they continued on Paul’s missionary journey), they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:1-5)

What this decree entailed is stated a few verses earlier:

The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain (men) which went out from us (came from Jerusalem) have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, You must be circumcised, and keep the (Oral) law*: to whom we gave no such commandment: (while they may have come from Jerusalem we didn’t tell them to say this)

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (which are) That you abstain from meats offered to idols, and (abstain) from blood, and (abstain) from things strangled, and (abstain) from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Fare you well. (Acts 15:22-29)

*what it means to Keep the Oral Law is explained in Friends With God: Appendix 6, which is to be published as post four in this series.

Not Necessary To Circumcise Gentiles

This decree from Jerusalem clearly stated that there was no requirement for Christian gentiles to be circumcised. Yet, Timothy (whose mother was a Jew, and therefore he also was considered a Jew) was required by Paul to be circumcised.

Was this just a weakness on Paul’s part “because of the Jews which were in that locality: for they all knew that his father was a Greek”? Was Paul scared of these Jews? Did peer pressure get to Paul?

It seems unlikely, as we see the courage of the man in many situations. At one time he even stood up to Peter (who was at that time with many other “Jews of the Circumcision”) in front of a group of Church members against the issue of segregation of gentiles at meals. (Gal 2:7-14)

Paul was not a person who was easily intimidated by peer pressure. In addition, as we will see in future posts, this was not the only time that Paul, and all the apostles and elders, agreed about the necessity for circumcision of all Jews, be they in the New Covenant or not.

God first revealed to Peter that circumcision of gentile Christians was not necessary. (Acts 10:1-48) This revelation from God to Peter happened a few years before Paul was given the task of delivering the Jerusalem decree to the gentiles. Please take the time to read these verses in Acts, as it’s pivotal in defining the New Covenant.

In summary of this section in Acts- Peter was on the coast of Israel, at a town called Joppa, when he had a vision from God:

And (Peter) saw heaven opened, and a vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet held at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein (inside this sheet) were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, saying “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”*

And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, “What God has cleansed, that call not you common.” … Now while Peter doubted (wondered) in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius … stood before the gate (of Peter’s house). (Acts 10:11-17)

*Friends with God, Appendix 7 addresses the topic of clean and unclean food, and will be published later in this series.

These men which were sent from Cornelius were uncircumcised gentiles, sent by their master to see Peter. Cornelius was a man who feared the God of Israel, and had sent his servants to Peter, because he had also seen a vision from God telling him to seek Peter. (Acts 10:1-8)

Through these two visions, God was directing a leading Apostle to visit the family of a God-fearing, uncircumcised gentile. In the process, as we will see, both were to learn a critical new understanding about the calling of Christ, which would impact upon how Jews and gentiles related to each other in the Church.

The Meaning Of The Visions From God

Peter was not certain about what the vision of the sheet with animals on it meant, which is why he wondered about it. However, after he had gone with these men to visit Cornelius, he realised that the vision, which said that he should kill and eat various unclean animals, was actually talking about classifying people as being clean and unclean. It was not a vision about eating unclean animals:

And he (Peter) said unto them (Cornelius and his family), You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto (the house of) one of another nation (gentile); but God has shown me (by this vision) that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts10:28)

Peter began to realize that this vision was an allegory about people, it was not about anything else.

God had brought Peter to teach Cornelius about Christ, and while Peter was doing this:

the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the words. And they of the circumcision (Jews who came with Peter) which believed (were Christians) were astonished…, because that on the gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. … Then said Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these (uncircumcised gentiles) should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord. (Acts10:44-48)

These gentiles were not required to be circumcised prior to, or after, baptism. After the Spirit was poured out on the household of Cornelius, Peter had further insight:

Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation (all gentiles) he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts10:34-35)

To fear God in awe, and to do the works of righteousness toward others, obviously means the same as loving God and loving your neighbour. (Matt 23:37-40) This is what God expects for all people of all nations, in order for them to be acceptable with him. Circumcision is clearly shown in this example to be unnecessary in the New Covenant, in order to receive the Holy Spirit. It was dramatic, undeniable proof that gentiles were acceptable to God, for nothing other than the simple reason that they feared God and worked righteousness.

Yet, circumcision was a critical aspect of the Old Covenant, and was instituted at the time of Abraham. Therefore, the Jews who came with Peter (identified as they of the circumcision) were astonished, for they could not deny the acceptance by God of these uncircumcised gentiles.

By orchestrating this meeting between Peter and Cornelius, God had shown to they of the circumcision that gentiles did not need to be circumcised, in order to enter the New Covenant.

The Oral Law Of The Jews

It is also very important to note that there isn’t any scripture saying that it’s an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto (the house of) one of another nation.

This was a just a commandment of the Jews at the time, yet Peter was caught up in it, at least until the Spirit told him to meet with Cornelius. Classifying having a meal with gentiles as an unlawful thing, was part of what the Jews today call The Oral Law, which is discussed in detail in Appendix 6, being the next post in this series.

The Oral Law of the Jews also excluded the gentiles from offering sacrifices to God. (Acts 21:27-29) This prohibition also was never the intent of scripture.

What we see in scripture is the egalitarian nature of God, where gentiles (called strangers in the Old Testament) were allowed to offer sacrifices according to the law. (Num 15:14-16, Isa 56:1-8) Strangers in the land of Israel were to be treated very much like anyone else who lived in the land, which was governed by the laws of the God of Israel. (Lev 19:33-34, Deut 10:17-19, 24:17, 26:12-13, 27:19)

The gentile’s exclusion by the Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders in the first century, is just another example of these authoritarian leaders distorting and perverting the law of God, as discussed by Jesus in Chapter 5 of Friends With God.

That is the background to the decree from Jerusalem that Paul was sent to give to the Gentiles, telling them they were not required to be circumcised. If you compare what Paul said in Acts 15 with Galatians 1:1-2, it seems that the debate in Antioch about circumcision occurred at least fourteen years after Peter met Cornelius at Joppa.

Paul was preaching to gentiles that circumcision was not required. Then he and Barnabas were confronted by some Pharisees in Antioch, who said it was necessary to circumcise gentiles. Due to this debate causing division in the Church in Antioch, the members determined to send a delegation to Jerusalem, in order to (yet again) make the point very clear that circumcision was, or was not, necessary for gentile converts.

Titus The Greek Convert

It is important to also note that when this delegation went to Jerusalem, Paul took a Greek convert called Titus, who was not compelled to be circumcised. (Gal 2:3) Yet, as discussed above, Timothy, who was a Jew was required to be circumcised.

Given that gentiles such as Titus were not required to be circumcised, we are left with the question:

As the New Covenant includes both Jew and gentile, why would Timothy, being a Jew, be required to be circumcised as if he was under the requirements of the Old Covenant?

This question is generally glossed over by modern Christian thinkers, yet when explored to its logical conclusion it clearly demonstrates the very important similarities and differences between the New and Old Covenants. Which is the subject we start to address in post five in this series, after we have looked at the important and relevant issue of the role of the Oral Law in post four.