"...This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised..."

Having previously believed that circumcision was obsolete under the new covenant. I was somewhat shocked to find out how exactly this act of faith was viewed through a Hebraic perspective. I would like to walk you through my current understanding of circumcision and show why I believe we should still be circumcising our sons.

The first misconception I had was that circumcision began with what most people call the “old covenant”. I say most because I do not think that they are defined the same as most.

Side note on the “old” versus “new” covenant (see my blog on this subject here: http://messianicmama.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-exactly-is-new-covenant-and-who-is.html ) - I consider the “old covenant” to be alive and in effect for anyone who has not, through faith, followed after the redemptive blood of our Messiah and therefore either remained on the tree or been grafted into Israel under the New covenant. In my opinion both have always existed and will always exist until the end when the old covenant will cease to exist as it requires being saved through following the laws and having perfect righteousness; while the new covenant is being saved by the blood of the redemptive lamb of God whether pre-Yeshua or post-Yeshua. For Scripture to back this up just read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and note who the new covenant is for and when it will come to completion. It is for the House of Israel and the house of Judah and it will only be completed when no one has to learn any longer and everyone knows YHVH. 

Now back to circumcision: When did the “old” covenant begin according to most Christians? At Sinai with Moses and the giving of the law right? Yet circumcision began way before that with Abraham.

Genesis 17:9-14 “God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.”This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.”And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cutoff from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Notice in this passage who is commanded to be circumcised, not only the relatives of Abraham, but his GENTILE servants and anyone else residing in his household. This was a covenant with all that followed the God of Abraham and for all generations to follow whether gentile or Jewish, it preceded Israel. In Galatians we are told that the law that came 430 years after does not annul a previous covenant. This passage is referring to the covenant made with Abraham which came exactly 430 years before the law was given on Mt. Sinai. 

Galatians 3:17: “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.”

So the law did not nullify the covenant God made with Abraham, this covenant included circumcision.  So why on earth would we think that the “new” covenant nullified the commandment of circumcision? Aren’t we saved the same as Abraham? Aren’t we considered the sons of Abraham?

Galatians 3:7-9: “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”

If you go back and read this entire passage you will see that Paul is discussing faith versus works. He points out that Abraham was saved by faith before being circumcised. Faith in the Messiah to come! In fact Abraham heard the gospel according to this passage. But I would like to point out that Abraham did go on to be circumcised as he was commanded by God to do. And Abraham was blessed because of his obedience to God’s laws.

Genesis 26:4-5 “I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

 Why are we any different than Abraham? In the verses above you can see that all Gentiles who follow after the God of Abraham in faith are saved before circumcision. The argument made by the Jews of Paul’s day was that the new Gentile believers needed to convert to Judaism BEFORE being saved. In order to convert one had to be circumcised, have a baptism (mikvah) and bring a sacrifice to the temple; this entire process was termed “circumcision” as a shortened way of saying conversion. Interestingly as a Gentile convert to Judaism came out of the water of the Mikvah after conversion they were actually considered to be “born again”. From that point forward they were part of Israel and saved along with the naturally born Israelites.  According to the Jews of Paul’s day circumcision, a mikvah, bringing a sacrifice and submitting to the ruling authority were ALL required to be saved as you were not considered part of Israel until you underwent this conversion process.  And until you were part of Israel there was no salvation for you. This is what Paul was fighting so adamantly against in his epistles. The Old Testament scriptures as well as Yeshua and Paul all taught that salvation was attained through faith alone with no works required. The current Jewish leadership was teaching that one could not be saved unless they became Jewish through the man-made conversion ceremony created by the leaders. Paul was not teaching that you no longer should undergo the physical act of circumcision; he taught that circumcision was indeed part of a person’s walk once choosing to follow the God of Abraham, yet not the initial thing that made one saved.  In fact Paul actually has Timothy get circumcised. Why would he do this if we were no longer to be circumcised?

Acts 16:3 ‘Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

Some will say that he doesn’t require Titus to be circumcised in the following passage.

Galatians 2:3 “But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”

Yet, does Paul actually say that Titus is justified in not being circumcised? Or does he say that Titus being a Gentile convert has not been compelled to be circumcised? You see we are not required to be circumcised in order to be saved, but we are expected to follow God’s commandments as we learn them and are convicted of them. I believe this is what Paul was referring to with Titus. He was saved and learning the commandments as a disciple under Paul, but he had not yet had a conviction to be circumcised in the flesh.

Some might also say that the circumcision of the heart has now replaced the circumcision of the flesh. Yet this just doesn’t really make sense in light of the fact that we are the sons of Abraham. If Abraham was commanded to be circumcised in the flesh and the commandment was for all of his generations, then that includes us as the sons of Abraham. And furthermore the circumcision of the heart was not a new thing; it was rooted and found in the Torah!

Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.”

So while circumcision of the heart is definitely important, and even more important as it is needed for salvation, circumcision of the flesh is still a commandment and should follow our circumcision of the heart.

So why is the church today so confused over circumcision? Why do they teach that it is obsolete and unnecessary under the new covenant? I personally think it stems from a misunderstanding of the term “circumcision” as used by the early leaders such as Peter, Paul and James, who were all very Jewish by the way! Circumcision was a term used by the Jews of that day to refer to the entire process a gentile must undergo in order to be accepted as Jewish by the rabbinic leaders of that day. When Paul states that “circumcision is nothing” he is not telling us that we should not circumcise our children according to the promise given to Abraham, which we inherit. He is telling us that being Jewish by blood does not save an individual. It is not enough to be born Jewish; you must have a circumcised heart to go along with your birth right. And if you are not born Jewish you must also have a circumcised heart to be adopted, or grafted, into Israel. No one gets a free pass because of their blood line. But just as James tells us, “faith without works is dead”, meaning that a true faith will produce good works. One of those works is circumcision.

In conclusion, I see no reason why we should not be circumcising our sons. Personally I think it should even be done on the 8^th day, just as commanded by God to Abraham and all of the generations to follow. If we are truly “sons of Abraham” then why wouldn’t we do the deeds of Abraham?

John 8:39 “They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.”

You see Abraham was saved by his faith but his faith produced obedience to God’s commandments, one of which is to circumcise your sons.

Shalom!