Gentile Circumcision?

by Avram Yehoshua

www.SeedofAbraham.net

   

Tim Hegg, a proponent of physical circumcision for the male Gentile believer in Jesus, bases his theological position on the Apostle Paul’s young assistant, Timothy. Hegg sees Timothy as a Gentile that Paul circumcised, and builds upon this fanciful and false understanding of Acts 16:1-3 to present his very dangerous and heretical theology—that Gentiles should be circumcised for the right reason (in order to keep Torah1 i.e. Gen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:43-49), but of course, not for salvation purposes. Yet, why would Paul circumcise a Gentile man when he expressly taught against it?2 Hegg writes,

“Is Timothy an example of a non-Jew who, for reasons unknown to us but acceptable to Paul, underwent circumcision as the appropriate measure for a Torah submissive Gentile? Is is possible that Paul was convinced of Timothy’s genuine understanding of justification by faith alone, so much so that receiving circumcision was permissible as a Torah observant act without any sense of gaining status with God?”3
Aside from the obvious problems (Hegg makes Gentile circumcision a matter of subjectivity—Paul saw that Timothy had a genuine understanding of justification alone; and speculation—for reasons unknown to us, which means that Hegg has no New Testament Scripture to support his position), he is greatly mistaken when he teaches that male Gentile believers should be circumcised. Timothy was not an example of Gentile circumcision. Timothy was seen by Paul as a Jew, and the Apostle circumcised him because he wanted Timothy to minister alongside him among the non-believing Jewish people. Timothy hadn’t been circumcised as an infant and this would have been a major Gospel hindrance for Paul among the Jews. Acts 16:3 states,
‘Paul wanted this man to go with him and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.’
Why would Paul need to circumcise a Gentile man for the Jews in the area?! The unbelieving Jews could have cared less about a Gentile being circumcised, and actually, they would probably have been offended. They would have said to Paul, ‘We don’t believe in your Jesus, and therefore, your circumcision of Gentile Timothy isn’t valid!’ Paul’s circumcision of a Gentile Timothy would have raised more problems than it solved. With Luke writing, though, that the Jews ‘knew that his father was a Greek,’ the unbelieving Jews in the area would have realized that Timothy’s belief in Messiah Yeshua had caused him to walk in Torah the way that he should have been walking all along. Timothy was seen as a Jew by those Jews, as well as by Paul and Luke, even though he hadn’t been circumcised when he was eight days old (Gen. 17:10-14), hence, the phrase, ‘his father was a Greek,’ which reveals the reason why Timothy hadn’t been circumcised as an infant. The mother of Timothy was Jewish (Acts 16:1) and this is the criteria that Paul went by, despite a passing reference by Hegg to S. Cohen’s work on Timothy allegedly being a Gentile.4 (In Orthodox Judaism if the mother is Jewish the child is, also.) Ben Witherington III dismantles Cohen’s arguments by stating:
’S. Cohen has argued at some length that Acts 16:3 implies that Timothy was a Gentile, and that even if he had a Jewish mother he would still have been viewed by Paul (and Luke) as a Gentile because the matrilineal principle that the son of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father did not come into Judaism before the second century A.D. Neither of these arguments is compelling. The very reason for mentioning first in v. 2 that Timothy was the son of a Jewish women is to prepare for what is said in v. 3—Paul has him circumcised. Had this information been omitted in v. 2, v. 3 would have been inexplicable. There is obviously some connection between the two facts in the author’s mind. Furthermore, we are told that Timothy was circumcised because of the Jews in Lystra’ (his hometown) ’and Iconium (v. 3). The assumption is surely that they would assume he should have been circumcised.5 Whether they would have or not, in Luke’s narrative outline this story prepares for the remarks in 21:21 and makes clear to Theophilus in advance that there was no basis for the complaint that Paul was insisting that Jews forsake Moses, in particular that they not circumcise their 'sons'.6
Witherington further takes the theological foundation out from under Cohen, and therefore, Hegg, by saying that ’the key anonymous ruling found in m. Qidd. 3:12 is admitted by Cohen’ to be earlier than the second century AD, and that,
’Cohen’s reading of Acts 16:1-3 makes no sense in light of Acts 15. The decree made clear that circumcision was not expected or required of Gentiles.’7
Intermarriage with non-Hebrews (pagans) was forbidden by the Law of Moses8. Obviously, Timothy’s mother hadn’t followed that commandment. Yet, rabbinic thought stated that where the mother was Jewish, the children were to be regarded as Jews. By Paul’s day, as Witherington has stated, any child who had a Jewish mother was considered Jewish according to the Rabbis. Witherington also adds that “Lüdemann is right to conclude…’Timothy was a Jew by rabbinic law.’9 David Williams also confirms this by saying,
’the children were regarded as Jews (j. Yebamoth 2.6). Clearly, in Timothy’s case the Jewish influence was predominant (2 Tim. 3:15). But for some reason—his pagan father may have prevented it—he had never been circumcised.’10
I. Howard Marshall believes that Timothy was Jewish, too. He writes:
’Timothy ranked as a Jew’ and ’it was absolutely essential to give him good standing in the eyes of the’ non-believing ’Jews among whom he would be working.’11
R. J. Knowling says that if Timothy had remained uncircumcised,
’he would have been unacceptable to them, since with a Jewish mother and with a Jewish education’ (2nd Tim. 3:15) ’he would be regarded as’12 an apostate, but since he ’thus submitted even in manhood to this painful rite,’ it ’afforded the clearest evidence that neither he nor his spiritual father despised the seal of the covenant for those who were Jewish according to the flesh, while the Christian Jews would see in the act a loyal adherence to the Jerusalem decree.’13
Acts 16:3 implies that Timothy was a Jew, not a Gentile. Hegg is wrong to interpret it the way he does, and also, he has no ’second witness’ in the New Testament to support his position on Timothy being a Gentile. His interpretation is seriously flawed. Timothy wasn’t a Gentile; he was a Jew.

An interesting phenomenon, and not without theological significance, is where Timothy’s story of circumcision is presented—sandwiched right in-between Acts 15:1-32 (the very decision that the Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised) and Acts 16:4-5, which states that Paul and Silas, etc., took the Decree of Acts 15 to many congregations! It’s hard to imagine that Luke would have written of a Gentile man being circumcised, with these two theological bookends acting as staunch pillars against it. Obviously, Timothy was not a Gentile that Paul circumcised ’for the right reason’ and/or ’to obey Torah’ and/or ’to keep the Passover,’ etc., but a Jew who had come to Messiah and fulfilled his Torah obligation of circumcision. Luke writes of Paul and his companions,
’And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. So, the congregations were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.’ (Acts 16:4-5)
The decrees spoke of the Gentile not being circumcised in order to be saved and the four rules they needed to implement immediately in order for their faith in Messiah Yeshua to be seen as genuine.14 The Greek word for decrees is dogma,15 which means, ’a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed.’ Acts 15 authoritatively determined that Gentile circumcision, in order to be saved, was not the will of God, and never gave any reasons why Gentiles should or could be circumcised at a later time ’for the right reason,’ as Hegg wrongly teaches.

Nowhere does the book of Acts, nor the entire New Testament, even hint at, let alone address, the issue that a Gentile (or his eight day old son) should receive physical circumcision if he understood that he wasn’t doing it in order to be saved, or to save his son. The New Testament neither speaks of it, nor authorizes it. In other words, if Hegg is right about Gentile circumcision, why doesn’t the New Testament teach or affirm it? Seeing that Gentile circumcision for salvation is negated it would be imperative that Gentile circumcision ’for the right reason’ be written in the New Testament, but Luke doesn’t write anything about Gentiles being circumcised ’for the right reason,’ nor does Paul, nor does anyone else. One would think that if it were part of God’s will, someone in the New Testament would have endorsed it, taught it, and/or perhaps even shown us a living example of a Gentile who had been circumcised ’for the right reason.’ The New Testament, though, explicitly states that the Gentile wasn’t to be circumcised for biblical (theological) reasons.16

With Timothy being circumcised, it also reveals that boys born to a Jewish woman should be considered Jewish and physically circumcised, but even if ’only’ the father is Jewish, the boy should still be circumcised.17 This transcends rabbinic tradition, where only the mother’s lineage determines if the child is Jewish, but Tamar wasn’t a Jewess, yet who would say that Perez wasn’t a Hebrew or part of the covenant that God gave to Abraham (Gen. 38:29; 46:12)? Asenath was an Egyptian woman (Gen. 41:50-52), but both her sons, Efraim and Manasseh, literally became two of the 12 Tribes of Israel (Gen. 48:1-5; Num. 1:10), and Moses married a Midiante woman named Zipporah, who bore him two sons (Ex. 18:6) and their heritage has always been considered Jewish. Therefore, sons born to any parent who has any Jewish lineage should be seen as Jewish and circumcised on the eighth day because Jews are still part of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants through physical lineage.18

Tim Hegg has no biblical (nor rabbinic) foundation to call Timothy a Gentile, and therefore, his theological position, that Gentile circumcision ’for the right reason,’ is God’s will for the Gentile, is a major heresy because it goes against the very Word of God and negates Yeshua’s sacrifice.

Acts 21:25—Observe No Such Thing!

Acts 21 reflects the Decree of Acts 15 and non-circumcision of the Gentile. Paul has come to Jerusalem and it has been heard that he teaches Jews not to circumcise their sons (Acts 21:20-21). So, Yakov (James, or rather Jacob in English), tells Paul to take the Nazarite Vow to dispel that false and malicious rumor (vv. 22-24). Then Yakov said that the Gentiles weren’t to observe something (KJV) and then speaks of the four rules of Acts 15:20. Paul walks into the purification rite and before the seven days are over he’s beaten by a Jewish mob who wrongly think that he had defiled the Temple by bringing a Gentile to a place which was off limits. He is then arrested by the Roman commander of the garrison on the Temple Mount (vv. 26f.).

Acts 21:25 is the third of three places where the four rules of Yakov appear (15:20, 29). The KJV states that the Gentiles ’observe no such thing.’ There are two possible Hebraic interpretations of what Yakov meant, and neither one of them negates the Law for the Gentile, which is a standard interpretation of the text. The first interpretation is that the Nazarite Vow, which Paul was entering into (v. 23f.), wasn’t to be taken by a Gentile. The second is that the Gentile was not to be circumcised.

Due to the two different Greek texts there are also two different English translations for the verse. Only the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV) has the phrase observe no such thing. Without discussing which Greek text might be the one that Luke actually wrote, I’ll deal with both of them.

First, the two texts will be written out in English and then I’ll comment about the NASB, which doesn’t have the phrase. After that the KJV translation will be explained because this translation seems to point to the Law’s demise. These two Bibles reflect the differences in the Greek texts. The meaningful differences of the KJV are placed in italics.19:

NASB—Acts 21:25: ’But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’

KJV—Acts 21:25: ’As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.’
The NASB doesn’t have the Greek phrase ’observe no such thing, save only’ that the KJV (and basically the NKJV) has. The New Revised Standard Version reads much like the NASB and makes it clear that there was a letter sent. This will figure into the proper understanding of the verse:
NRSV—Acts 21:25: ’But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’
In both the NASB and the NRSV there’s no phrase that seems to be saying that the Gentiles have only four rules (’save only’); James is just reiterating the decision of Acts 15:20. There’s nothing in the verse in the United Bible Societies’ Greek text that lends itself to coming against a Torah lifestyle, except a false interpretation of the text.

With the KJV’s ’observe no such thing, save only’ the term save only seems to be saying that the four rules are the only rules that a Gentile has to keep.20 The problem with this is the translation of the Greek phrase for save only. It means except or but, not save only. The Greek words translated as save only are ει μη (ae may). Walter Bauer says it means except, if not or but.21 Placing if not into the sentence doesn’t make any sense: ’that they should observe no such thing, if not that they keep themselves from things offered to idols.’ Placing except within the verse alters the understanding of it:
’As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, except that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication’ (Acts 21:25).
Both Berry’s Greek Interlinear translation (for the Textus Receptus) of the Greek phrase22 and the New King James Version use except in their translation of v. 25. Using except changes the tone of the verse for the KJV from ’these are the only commandments a Gentile needs to do’ to ’even though the Gentile can’t observe this (’observe no such thing,’ v. 25), they can and should do the four rules.’ That’s a major shift in thinking from the Gentiles having only four rules. Placing but within the verse further drives home the point that James wasn’t speaking of only four rules. He was reiterating what the Gentiles could do in relation to what he had just said to Paul:
’As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, but that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication’ (Acts 21:25).
Inserting but presents a completely different thought from save only. It seems that James wanted the Gentiles to know that even though they couldn’t do whatever it was that he was speaking about (’observe no such thing’) they could keep the four rules.

As for the longer phrase, that the Gentile observe no such thing, F. F. Bruce uses this to come against the Law. He writes,
’The elders added the assurance that they had no thought of going back on the terms of the apostolic decree, and imposing legal requirements on Gentile believers. So far as they were concerned, said the elders, all that was required of them was that they should abstain from eating flesh that had been sacrificed…As for the Gentile believers, of course, we have already agreed that nothing is to be imposed on them apart from the abstentions detailed in the apostolic letter.’23
Bruce is certain that no other legal requirements (i.e. the Law) were necessary for the Gentile. All ’that was required of them’ was that they keep the four rules. I. Howard Marshall takes a similar position, saying,
’the fact that Paul was being asked to behave in this way in no sense implied that similar demands would be made of the Gentiles. The fundamental freedom of the Gentiles from the law had been established at the meeting described in chapter 15 whose decision is now reaffirmed. It seems strange that the Jerusalem decree should be repeated verbatim (cf. 15:20, 29) to Paul who was well aware of its contents.’24
Paul’s ’behavior’ meant that he was entering into a Nazarite Vow, but according to Marshall, Bruce insists that Paul couldn’t have taken the Vow because it lasts for at least 30 days. Bruce wrongly thinks that the vow of the four men was going to be complete in seven days. 25 He suggests that the four men had contacted some ’ritual uncleanness during their vow’ and that Paul was going to pay for those expenses, but as Marshall counters,
’Bruce apparently assumes that Paul could share in the rite although he had not shared in the defilement. This view does not explain the preliminary visit to the temple for’ (Paul’s) ’purification in verse 26.’26
Great point! Why would Paul need to be purified with them if he hadn’t been defiled or taking the Vow? If he was just paying the expenses for their purification he wouldn’t have needed to be purified, but Paul says to Felix in Acts 24:18 that he was purified. Of course, even if Paul wasn’t taking the Vow he would still be seen as supporting the Law and sacrifice because the men were involved in both. If Paul had thought that the Law and sacrifice were done away with, his compliance with the suggestion to pay for the men and their sacrifices and be purified with them would certainly have gone against his theology, not to mention his conscience.

If Paul had thought that the Law had been done away with, this would have been the perfect place for a showdown. Wouldn’t it have been much better for Paul to tell the truth to James and all the Jewish believers, that Jesus had done away with sacrifice and the Law? If Jesus wants believers to walk in His Truth, 27 and these Jewish believers were walking in falsehood about the Law, why wouldn’t Paul have addressed the issue here in Acts 21:20-26? Paul wasn’t shy when it came to standing up against Peter in Antioch when he thought Peter was wrong (Gal. 2:11).

Most people today don’t see Peter as Paul’s equal, but in his day Peter was the chief Apostle, and recognized as such by all the believers in Jerusalem and beyond. Paul had enough fortitude with Peter in Antioch, so why not with James in Jerusalem if he thought that the Law had ended?

The men were under a Nazarite Vow, as no other vow included the shaving of the head (Num. 6:18; Acts 21:24). Although Marshall lines up with Bruce in the ’only four and no more’ Camp, he says that for Paul to take the Nazarite Vow was not out of line. He sees Paul as having kept the Law! In relation to the Vow, Marshall states that Paul’s action,
’would make it clear that he lived in observance of the law, but many scholars have doubted whether the historical Paul would have agreed to this proposal.’28
It seems very strange for Marshall to speak of a Law-free Gospel, base it on Paul’s writings, and then turn around and say that Paul kept the Law. Be that as it may, many scholars disagree with ’the Paul’ presented in Acts 15 and 21, saying that their Paul would never have done such things, but the authority of James, the integrity of Luke, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit all stand behind the facts of Acts: the historical Paul kept the Law and he gave the four rules and more ’to his Gentiles.’ He also took the Nazarite Vow, which meant that he was going to offer animal sacrifices to God in the Temple at Jerusalem 25 years after the resurrection.

After centuries of the Church teaching against the Law, many are shocked when they learn that Paul took a Nazarite Vow. The observance of the Vow meant the sacrificing of three animals for each man (Num. 6:14-21). Paul agreed to pay for all the sacrifices for him and the four men (Acts 21:23-24) at the conclusion of the purification rite and the Nazarite Vow.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary also believes that Acts 15 meant that the Gentiles were ’free from the Law,’ but should keep only the four rules so that no offense would be given to the Jewish believers. They say that the four rules in Acts 21 were meant to emphasize that. 29 Williams writes that it’s odd and out of place that James would repeat the four rules verbatim, but he says it may simply have been a literary device of Luke’s, or done for the benefit of those present with Paul. 30

R. J. Knowling, though, cuts to the heart of the problem by saying that the Gentiles were ’on a different footing’ from ’the born Jews who became Christians’31 because they couldn’t observe something the Jews could. The repetition of the rules by James, he says, emphasized his commitment to the Decree and Yakov expected Paul to show that he had ’no desire to disparage the law.’32

Stern rightly says that the accusation against Paul (Acts 21:21) was a baseless lie. Paul was accused of teaching Jews not to circumcise their sons and to stop observing the Law. Obviously, others were misinterpreting Paul’s letters, too. Stern says that Paul kept the Law: he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), he observed the Feasts (20:16), he said that he believed in the Law (24:14) and that he had ’committed no offense against the Law’ (25:8), and at the end of his life he stated that he had done nothing to offend the Jewish people or the Traditions of the Fathers (28:17). 33

Those that don’t want to see Paul like this, tacitly proclaim Luke to be a liar. As there’s no indication that Luke was a liar, Acts plainly reveals that the Apostle Paul kept the Law as a follower of Messiah Yeshua. 34

Actually, this was Paul’s second Nazarite Vow recorded in Acts. 35 With all the Jerusalem believers keeping the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20), many would sacrifice and take the Nazarite Vow on a regular basis to honor Jesus because the Nazarite Vow pictures a special consecration and devotion to God, such as only the High Priest of Israel had (Lev. 21:10-11; Num. 6:6-7). Of course, anyone taking the Vow was seen to hold God’s Law in the highest esteem. This is the reason why James had directed Paul to take the Vow—to prove to all the believers (and providentially to us today!) that what they had heard about Paul was a slanderous lie, and that he still walked ’orderly, keeping the Law’ (Acts 21:24).

The phrase observe no such thing doesn’t refer to the nullification of the Law, but theoretically to the Nazarite Vow that Paul was about to take. Yet, if the Gentiles were to walk in the Law of Moses, why would James tell them not to observe the Nazarite Vow? Why shouldn’t the Gentiles be able to observe the Nazarite Vow and sacrifice if the Jewish believers did? Biblically they could have. The Gentiles should have been able to keep the Vow and to sacrifice animals. God had ordained it from the days of Moses (Lev. 22:17-19; Num. 15:14-16; Is. 56:3-9), but in Paul’s day the Temple was in the hands of a wicked High Priest and Sanhedrin. They were extremely anti-Yeshua36 and they certainly wouldn’t have recognized any believing Gentile as part of the House of Israel. As a result of this the Gentile wasn’t able to take the Nazarite Vow.

Upon completion of the Vow each person was to sacrifice three different animals at the Altar of the Temple (Num. 6:13-20). This is something that the Gentile would not have been able to do, but not because sacrifice had been ’done away with.’ It’s obvious from this very passage that sacrifice was still taking place among all the Jewish believers, including the Apostle Paul, at least twenty-four years after the resurrection. 37

The Nazarite Vow is one possibility as to what James meant when he said that the Gentiles should observe no such thing because he had just directed Paul to take the Vow. The Gentiles weren’t able to observe the Vow at that time, but in Yeshua’s Kingdom of a thousand years on this Earth in Jerusalem, both Jew and Gentile will be able to sacrifice in His Temple (Ezk. 43–48; Zech. 14:16-21; Rev. 20:1-10). 38

In this case, observe no such thing may point to the Nazarite Vow, but certainly not to the Law being invalid for the Gentiles. This understanding, coupled with the fact that ’save only’ should be translated as ’except’ or ’but,’ reveals that Yakov didn’t mean that the Gentiles had only four rules. The emphasis shifts to the Nazarite Vow that the believing Gentiles couldn’t observe. James wouldn’t have directed them to the synagogue to learn the Law in Acts 15:21, only to reverse himself in 21:25 and not indicate why.

Having said all that, the correct interpretation of what James meant when he said observe no such thing refers to the prohibition against Gentile circumcision. The context, as well as the way the sentence reads, points directly to this. The first indicator is the slander against Paul, that he was teaching Jews not to circumcise their sons (Acts 21:21). That, along with the fact that James says that they had sent a letter (NRSV), reveals that Gentile circumcision is the subject of what the Gentile shouldn’t observe. The KJV affirms the letter:
’As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing…’ (21:25 KJV).
Written and concluded refers to the letter of Acts 15:29 that James wrote to the assembly at Antioch and which was circulated in the believing assemblies or synagogues (Acts 16:4-5). The letter laid to rest the question of Gentile circumcision for salvation. Yakov’s phrase we have written and concluded, as well as his reiteration of the four rules, and also, the slander against Paul, point directly to his decision of Acts 15—that the Gentiles were not to be circumcised.

The slander against Paul was put to an end when he took the Nazarite Vow. The Vow reveals that Paul still kept the Law (and wanted the Gentiles to as well; 1st Cor. 4:16-17) and that he believed that circumcision was still required for the Jewish believer and his sons. Observe no such thing speaks of the Gentile believer (and his sons) not being circumcised.

Many have thought it out of place that Yakov repeated the four rules in speaking with Paul. 39 On the contrary, this was a most appropriate time for him to reiterate the rules. After having told Paul to take the Vow to declare that circumcision for the Jewish believer was still intact, James immediately says that circumcision (still) doesn’t apply to the Gentiles (observe no such thing), but that they have to keep the four rules. It was extremely appropriate for Yakov to reiterate the four rules. He clarified what was most incumbent upon the Gentiles after he had just spoken of what they weren’t to do: circumcision.

Acts 21 took place approximately seven years after Acts 15.40 Yakov gives no asterisk or extenuating reason for Gentiles to become circumcised. Surely, in all this time, that question and need would have been raised, but there’s nothing in Acts 21, or anywhere else in the New Testament, that justifies Gentile circumcision in order to keep Passover, etc.

Observe no such thing doesn’t refer to the Nazarite Vow, and still less to the Law—it refers to Yakov’s decision that the Gentile wasn’t to be cir-cumcised (Acts 15:19-29). It fits well with Paul being accused of teaching Jews not to circumcise their sons, James saying that they had written something and his reiterating the four rules (Acts 15:22-29; 21:25).

The reiteration of the four rules also reveals exactly what Yakov was referring to. In other words, if the four rules hadn’t been reiterated some scholars could say that there were other things ’written and concluded’ that Luke didn’t mention. It would open up endless speculation and other strange interpretations. Thank God that Yakov reiterated the four rules!

Observe no such thing can’t be used to teach that Yakov gave only four rules to the Gentiles or that they didn’t have to keep the Law. On the contrary, Yakov was making sure that everyone knew that Paul still kept the Law, and by extension, that everyone else should, too. He reemphasized the four rules of Acts 15 to make sure that the Gentiles knew what they could implement in relation to what they couldn’t do (circumcision).

Observe no such thing focused first on the Nazarite Vow to point out that sacrifice was still in effect for all the Apostles at the Temple 25 years after the resurrection, and theoretically, for the Gentile believer as well. Just from the perspective of the Nazarite Vow the Law of Moses is confirmed for every believer today. 41

But What of Passover for the Gentiles?

The reason why some in the so-called Hebrew Roots movement want Gentile believers to be circumcised is because of what is written in Ex. 12:43-49, especially verse 48:

“And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to Yahveh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 42
Their reasoning is logical—Gentiles should keep Torah (the Law of Moses) and Gentile circumcision is part of Torah, therefore, the male Gentile should be circumcised, not for salvation, but for the ’right reason’ (in order to celebrate Passover; Ex. 12:48). As logical as this reasoning is, it is false because the New Testament doesn’t support it, but teaches against it. Satan, too, knows how to use logic and this is a prime example of it.

There is no appended legislation in Acts 15 (or anywhere in the NT) that allows for Gentile circumcision in order to keep Torah (i.e. Ex. 12:48), and so, Gentile circumcision is not authorized; it’s not an option. For instance, in Acts 15:24, after all the believers realized that physical circumcision for the Gentile wasn’t what God wanted in order for them to be saved (Acts 15:1-21), Yakov (James, the half-brother of Messiah Yeshua) is recorded as saying in his letter to the Jewish and Gentile believers in Antioch that the Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised (and keep the Law in order to be saved):
“Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ’You must be circumcised and keep the law’—to whom we gave no such commandment—’” (Acts 15:24).
According to those who teach Gentile circumcision, shouldn’t James have said something like this:
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ’You must be circumcised and keep the law’—to whom we gave no such commandment—BUT when you realize that you’re not to be circumcised for salvation, you must be circumcised in order to keep the Passover…
Why do we never read of any writer in the New Testament speaking like this? What if a Gentile came to believe in Messiah Yeshua a day or two before Passover? Would that be enough time for him to realize that he wasn’t being circumcised in order to be saved, but in order to keep Passover? The reason why there is no Scripture to this effect is because Gentile circumcision ’for the right reason’ is works righteousness. If the Gentile came to the Passover, but couldn’t keep it because he wasn’t circumcised in the flesh, he would be cut off from his people Israel and lose his salvation! That’s what it means to be ’cut off.’ In other words, according to their position, whether they realize it or not, the male Gentile must be circumcised in order to be saved.

Didn’t God realize, though, what He had said to Abraham and Moses about circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:43-49)? Obviously, He did, but the ’circumcision made without hands,’ pictured in Dt. 30:6, is what is required of the Gentile (and the Jew) today. Physical circumcision for the Gentile doesn’t bring him into Yeshua’s Kingdom; only the circumcision of the heart:
’For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Messiah Yeshua, and have no confidence in the flesh’ (Phil. 3:3; see also Jn. 4:23-24).

’In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Messiah’ (Col. 2:11).
The Scripture, that all who keep Passover must be physically circumcised (Ex. 12:48), is of the Old Covenant and the Egyptian Passover. That’s what physical circumcision is good for, but in order to keep Messiah’s Passover in Jerusalem one must be circumcised in the heart.

Circumcision was given to the Jew as a sign of the covenant relationship that Abraham had with God (Gen. 17:1-14, 23-27). This physical sign is still in effect for the Jewish believer and his sons as is evident from the remark of James: some thought (wrongly) that Paul taught against Jewish circumcision (Acts 21:20-21, 24).

Some others might say that if the believing Gentile shouldn’t be circumcised, then the concept of the Law still being in effect is shattered because, as they see it, if the Gentile doesn’t have to keep one law he should not have to keep any of them. This is an ’either—or’ concept that fails to recognize that some Mosaic laws are modified in the New Testament. For instance, our Messiah, from the Tribe of Judah, is also our High Priest, but the Law of Moses states that the high priest was to come from only the Tribe of Levi (Ex. 28:1, 3; 29:30; Heb. 7:1ff.).

Modification of a law code does not do away with the entire law code. The Law of Moses is for the Gentile, but God doesn’t want him to be physically circumcised. Also, this position, of not having to keep any of the laws of Moses, is clearly seen as non-biblical when one realizes that the laws of love for God and Man, as well as the laws against adultery and homosexuality, all come from the Law of Moses. Obviously, there are many laws that a Christian keeps that come from the Law, so, how can he say that he doesn’t have to keep any of the Law?

We Jews are also adopted into the Family of Israel who love Messiah, just as the Gentiles are. 43 It’s by the circumcision made without hands that we enter into the New Covenant, which is symbolized by water baptism. The sign has changed to reflect that one is a new creature in Messiah Yeshua (more on this in Yeshua’s Water Baptism below.) That’s why the Apostles Peter and Paul could say that physical circumcision wasn’t to be for the Gentile, but that allmust keep the commandments of God (as they apply to them; Acts 15:1, 7-11; Rom. 3:20, 31; 1st Cor. 7:17-19; see also Rom. 4:11).  Yet, wouldn’t the continued circumcision of Jewish sons create a problem if Gentile sons weren’t circumcised? After all, if both sets of parents were to keep the Law, how could one be required to circumcise their son, while the other was barred from doing so?

The Gentile as Wife

A symbolic point to Gentile non-circumcision may lie in the fact that at any given time in Israel half the population wasn’t circumcised—the women. The Gentile, like the believing wife, is to woo her unbelieving husband (the Jew) to Yeshua by her chaste and holy conduct (1st Pet. 3:1-2). God wants the Gentile to be a godly witness to bring the unsaved Jew to Messiah (Rom. 10:1, 19; 11:1-31). Would non-circumcision make the Gentile believer less valuable than the Jewish believer? Of course not (Acts 15:11; Rom. 10:12-13). The Gentile had received the ’circumcision made without hands,’ which would do to him what physical circumcision symbolized: the creation of a new nature. 44 This made the Gentile (and the Jew!) acceptable to God (Acts 10:45-48) and brought them both into the Kingdom of Messiah Yeshua. Physical circumcision couldn’t change the Adamic nature, nor cause entry into Messiah’s Kingdom. It didn’t matter spiritually if one was physically circumcised or not (1st Cor. 7:17-19), only racially. By not circumcising the Gentile, the racial Seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was preserved for God’s end-time purpose—to display His forgiving loving-kindness to Israel after the flesh and His faithfulness to the world. 55 God will yet be the God of the Jews.

If all the male Gentiles in Messiah were physically circumcised in the days of the Apostles, and thereafter, it would be impossible today to be able to tell a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from a Gentile believer, especially if the Gentiles had continued to follow the New Covenant and walk in Torah the way that they initially did. In Egypt the Hebrews were slaves and the Egyptians didn’t want to marry them because they despised the Hebrews, so, the Hebrews were kept ’racially pure.’ When Moses came on the scene, every Hebrew knew that he was a Hebrew because there had not been any intermarriage.

With the New Testament prohibiting the Gentile from being physically circumcised, it’s very similar. Now, after more than 1,800 years without a nation, and having been dispersed to the four winds, we Jews are returning to the Land that God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Being able to tell a Jew from a believing Gentile is a divine by-product of non-circumcision of the Gentile. One day soon God will raise up the natural Seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to the consternation of the world and many so-called Christians, but to His eternal glory and faithfulness to His covenant with our Fathers (Gen. 15:1-21; Ezk. 36:22–37:14; Rom. 11:25-36).

The wife was created to be the helpmate of her husband (Gen. 2:20-23). As a human being before God she is on equal footing with her husband. They are one (Gen. 2:24; Mt. 19:6; Eph. 2:13-16), but she is different from her husband. Yet, the Jewish woman was obviously part of the covenant of Israel and was required to keep all the laws of Moses that applied to her, with some laws specifically applying to her and not to the Jewish man (e.g. Lev. 12:1-4f; 15:19-24f; the laws of menstruation and child-birth).

Not every law of Moses applied to the Hebrew women. For instance, none of the laws of the Levitical priesthood applied to the women, and no woman was ever made High Priest. Therefore, the laws for the High Priest (and the other priests) didn’t apply to Hebrew women. Also, the laws for the king only applied to him, not to any other Hebrew; Dt. 17:14f.

Yeshua said that He had another Flock and that the two would become one Flock (Jn. 10:16). Here’s another hint of a ’marriage union,’ with the Gentile taking the place of the wife in order to woo her husband to Messiah Yeshua by her prayers and holy conduct. It’s happening today.

The concept of how one enters Messiah’s Kingdom, and the position of the Gentile to the Jew, further refutes Hegg’s position of Gentile circumcision ’for the right reason.’ James declared that Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised—period (Acts 15:19, 24). Nothing is ever mentioned about it being possible ’for the right reason’ in Acts or anywhere else. Acts through Revelation covers approximately 70 years (30–100 AD). During this time Gentile believers were having many sons, yet there’s not a single reference in the New Testament validating circumcision for them (or their fathers). It’s hard to believe that an issue of this magnitude could have been overlooked by all the writers of the New Testament (and the Holy Spirit), ’if circumcision for the right reason’ was a valid theological position. On the contrary, the issue is laid to rest when Paul tells the uncircumcised Gentiles to remain that way (1st Cor. 7:18). This closes any possibility that they could get circumcised ’sometime in the future.’ Gentile ’circumcision for the right reason,’ was never a valid biblical option in Apostolic times. ’And other sheep I have which are not of this Fold. Them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one Flock and one Shepherd’ (John 10:16).

Cornelius, Titus and Dr. Luke

Another case in point is Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48). He was the first Gentile to come to Messiah Yeshua (39-40 AD46 Acts 10:28, 34-35; 11:18; 15:7). By the time of Acts 15 nine years later (48-49 AD), 47 where it was authoritatively determined that Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised, Peter stands up and relates that it was by his mouth that the Gentiles (meaning Cornelius, his household and friends) first heard about Messiah Yeshua. In those nine years Cornelius hadn’t been circumcised because here was Peter saying that it hadn’t happened (Acts 15:7-11)! We know that Cornelius was walking in the Law that applied to him, and with Peter and James coming against circumcision in Acts 15, would Cornelius even consider being circumcised? What was the need? Hadn’t he also kept Passover as an uncircumcised Gentile in those nine years?

Hegg, though, would have us to believe that in order for Cornelius to be a ’Torah submissive Gentile’ he would have had to have been physically circumcised, so that he could obey Torah (Ex. 12:48). If so, where do we find even a hint of that possibility for Cornelius, or any other Gentile, in Acts 15 or anywhere else in the New Testament? The New Testament is the ultimate criteria for ascertaining if a Gentile should be physically circumcised or not. This, too, is the Word of God. Those that say that they want to follow the Law in the area of Gentile circumcision, but disregard what the New Testament says about it, are walking in the sin of presumption and practicing heresy.

Turning to Titus, one of Paul’s Gentile traveling companions, Gal. 2:1-3 speaks of him being in Jerusalem with Paul among the Apostles and that he was ’not being compelled to be circumcised.’48 Why shouldn’t he have been compelled to be circumcised in order to keep the Passover?! When would he be circumcised?! There’s no mention of Titus ever being physically circumcised, and the obvious implication of what ’compelled’ means is that he wouldn’t ever have to do be circumcised. 49

Just a few verses later, Paul speaks of Peter’s sin in separating himself from the Gentiles when those of the circumcision arrived (Gal. 2:11-13). He speaks of them as Jews. Weren’t any of those Gentile believers circumcised, yet, in order to keep Passover? Also, how could Paul use that language (’of the circumcision’) if Gentiles had already been circumcised for the right reason?

There are some who misinterpret the phrase (that there isn’t any Jew or Greek; Col. 3:11, etc.) to mean that those distinctions don’t exist anymore, but the problem with their understanding is that Paul also says that there aren’t any males or females, slaves or free. Would Paul endorse a marriage between two men since ’men and women’ didn’t exist anymore? Of course not, and in the following verses Paul speaks to the slaves and to the masters, to wives and to husbands (Col. 3:18-22; 4:1, etc.). Also, Paul continues to use, and make the distinction, between the Jew and the Greek (Gentile) at Rom. 1:16; 2:9; Gal. 2:11-13, etc. What Paul means by speaking of ’no Jew and Greek,’ etc., is that ’before God’ the Jew and the Gentile, the slave and the free, the husband and his wife, are equal. This was a new concept to pagan society, as well as Hebrew, but it doesn’t negate their identity.

Paul’s sense of ’Jew and Gentile’ is very clear when he begins to close his letter in Colossians four. He speaks of Onesimus (v. 9) as ’one of you’ (meaning that he was a Gentile of that congregation). Was Onesimus circumcised? In vv. 10-11, Paul writes of Aristarchus, (John) Mark and a certain Jesus who was also known as Justus. Paul says that they are ’the only fellow workers for the Kingdom of God who are of the circumcision.’ Paul then goes on to mention Epaphras and ’Luke, the beloved physician,’ as well as Demas (vv. 12-14). How could Paul even think about making such a distinction if all the Gentiles had been circumcised?! And if not, when would they be circumcised?

How many years had Dr. Luke been with Paul by this point? Luke first ’appears’ in Acts 16 with the beginning of his ’we’ passages that speak of Luke writing of the events first hand. 50 Acts 16 is seen to have taken place about 48-49 AD (coming immediately after Acts 15). The letter to the Colossians is said to have been written from Rome about 58-62 AD. 51 Dr. Luke had been with Paul for at least nine years, and most likely, was a believer a few years before that. Why hadn’t this Gentile man been circumcised yet? 52

Also significant is that Scripture implies that Luke, while uncircumcised, kept the Passover before Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians. Acts 20 took place about 57 AD, 53 yet, it wouldn’t be for at least a year to five years later that Colossians would be written, but Luke records that he and the others stayed at Philippi during the days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover week), 54 which strongly suggests that he kept the Passover with Paul in Philippi in 57 AD—uncircumcised:

’But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days’ (Acts 20:6).
Paul certainly kept the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 21:20-27). Are we to think that Dr. Luke didn’t? 55

Passover in Corinth

Another facet of this issue on Gentile circumcision is seen when Paul writes to the Corinthian assembly about not being circumcised (1st Cor. 7:17-19) after he’s already spoken to them about keeping the Passover (1st Cor. 5:6-8)! Many so-called Messianic/Hebrew Roots congregations demand that Gentiles be circumcised in order to keep the Passover, basing their demand on Gen. 17:10-14 and Ex. 12:48. This is the logical outcome of following their teaching on keeping Torah and being circumcised ’for the right reason,’ and/or to keep Passover, etc. Yet, Paul, certainly aware of those verses in Torah, admonishes the Gentile believers in Corinth not to be circumcised and to keep the Passover!

Unless one is ready to charge the Apostle Paul with heresy, which some in their pride and ignorance do, 56 Gentile believers in the days of the Apostle Paul weren’t circumcised in order to observe Pass-over. If Gentile circumcision wasn’t done in Apostolic times, why the need to do it today? The teaching that espouses Gentile circumcision ’for the right reason’ is logical, false, deceptive and dangerous because it nullifies Messiah’s sacrifice.

Yeshua’s Water Baptism

If circumcision was so important in the days of Abraham, Moses and King David, and it was, why does God in the New Covenant nullify circumcision for the Gentile believer in Yeshua? Circumcision is nullified for the Gentile because both the covenant and the sign have changed. Covenants are made through the shedding of blood. Yahveh linked the act of a bloody circum-cision to the blood sacrifices of the animals of the covenant that He had made with Abram by making circumcision the sign of that covenant (Gen. 15:1f; 17:1f.). The eight day old Hebrew infant, unbeknownst to him, but chosen by God, was brought into the covenant of Abraham by the shedding of his own blood in the act of circumcision. This linked him back to the animals sacrificed when God made His covenant with Abram. Before the believer comes to Messiah, also unbeknownst to him, he was chosen by God. Yeshua said:

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” (John 15:16)

“And He said, ’Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.’” (John 6:65) The covenant of circumcision included redemption (salvation) from Egyptian slavery and entry into the Promised Land (Gen. 15:12-14; Ex. 6:1-8). It was the prototype of God’s New Covenant with Israel (Jer. 31:31-34) in which His Son’s sacrifice as the Lamb of God brings about Israel’s redemption from Satan and entry into the eternal Kingdom of Messiah. The sign of the New Covenant is not physical circumcision, but water baptism in the name of Messiah Yeshua, 57 with Holy Spirit baptism ensuing, but how can water baptism link the believer to the blood of Yeshua’s sacrifice?

Baptism in water signifies the believer’s death in dying to self (Rom. 6:1f.), which symbolically speaks of the shedding of his blood. This is the ’blood’ of water baptism, which is the physical sign that both Jew and Gentile must have. The hope of every righteous Hebrew was that his circumcised infant son would grow into a man who would love Yahveh and keep His commandments. Baptism in water speaks of that same hope, but now, with the blood and Spirit of Messiah one is able to love God with all his heart and keep His commandments by God’s Spirit within. This new power to overcome our sinful carnal nature is available to us in the name of Messiah Yeshua. Baptism in water should bring this new reality with it—the circumcision of the heart (i.e. the baptism in the Holy Spirit). In Deut. 10:16, God commanded Israel to circumcise their hearts and to no longer resist Him and His ways by their stubbornness (carnal nature), but in Dt. 30:6, Yahveh said that He would circumcise the hearts of Israel so that they would no longer be stubborn, but instead, love Him, and consequently, delight to keep His commandments. This is what the baptism in the Holy Spirit is about.

With the shedding of the sacrificial blood of Yeshua, both circumcised Jew and uncircumcised Gentile are called to enter into the New Covenant, by faith in His shed blood. It is this blood that God requires of us in order to keep Passover in the Kingdom of His Son, and it is this blood that will avert God’s wrath on Judgment Day, not the blood of physical circumcision, nor the blood of Abram’s sacrifice. This ’blood’ is ’seen’ in the ’death to self’ of water baptism and the circumcising of one’s heart. This is what links the believer, both Jew and Gentile, to the blood sacrifice of Messiah Yeshua. A Jew who is only physically cir-cumcised cannot enter into Messiah’s Kingdom, nor participate in His Passover.

Water baptism has another significant aspect to it, which further emphasizes its potent spiritual reality. This leads to a question, though—why was Yeshua baptized in water? Certainly not, as some think, for identification with Israel in her sins and need for cleansing, for it’s Israel that must identify with Him; and certainly not to wash away any sins that Yeshua had, for He was sinless. 58 The water baptism of Yeshua was a symbolic, physical reenactment of how Yeshua, God the Son, 59 came forth from the Father60 and the Holy Spirit on Day One of Creation week. Therefore, all who follow Yeshua in this physical-spiritual sign of ’death to self’ are not only saying that their ’death to self blood’ links them to Yeshua’s sacrifice, but that symbolically and spiritually they are coming forth from God as Yeshua did on Day One. One day, God promises, that they will be like Yeshua is now—glorified. Baptism in water pictures all this and why it is so important for believers to do.

Water baptism is a real spiritual picture of dying to self so that one might become a new creation in Yeshua (Jn. 3:5-6; Rom. 6:1f., 2nd Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). In the Beginning Yeshua came forth from the Father and the Spirit. If we look at the very first words recorded in Scripture that God uttered (’Let there be light!’ Gen. 1:3) we are privy to seeing Yeshua come forth from the Father and the Spirit. Yeshua was not created, but came forth—as a baby comes forth from the womb its mother.

The waters of Genesis 1:2 picture the Father. 61 The verse also speaks of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters like a bird. 62 In Genesis 1:2-3 we see the Father and the Spirit…and then the Son comes forth as both the Word of God, 63 alive!, 64 and the Light of God. This, then—how Yeshua came forth from the Waters of the Father (and the Spirit), is why Yeshua was baptized in water almost 2,000 years ago. It was a living reenactment of His coming forth from the Father and the Spirit on Day One, and as such, how we are Born from Above. When Yeshua came forth from the waters of baptism, the Father spoke and the Spirit descended upon Him like a dove, similar to Day One:
“When He had been baptized, Yeshua came up immediately from the water, and behold! Heaven was opened to him (John) and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him, and suddenly, a Voice came from Heaven, saying, ’This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!’” (Matthew 3:16–17)
This is why God commands us to be immersed in water—it’s a spiritual picture of our coming forth from the Father and the Spirit, like Yeshua—of being begotten like Yeshua (1st Pet. 1:3; 1st Jn. 5:1). This is why water baptism is so necessary. When salvation in the name of Messiah Yeshua was first proclaimed it was immediately linked to water (and Spirit) baptism. Now we know why:
“Then Peter said to them, ’Repent! Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Yeshua the Messiah for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your sons, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.’” (Acts 2:38–39; see also 10:44-48)
Water baptism, with its multifaceted spiritual pictures, is the sign of the New Covenant and why the Gentile must not be physically circumcised for theological-covenantal-religious reasons. 65 Both Jew and Gentile enter into the New Covenant not by the sign of circumcision, but by the sign of water (and Spirit) baptism. Unfortunately, there are some today who don’t understand this and teach that the Gentile must be physically circumcised, but this teaching tramples over God’s word and negates the shed blood of Yeshua. Circumcision links the Gentile to the wrong sacrifice! Circumcision of the flesh brings the Gentile to the animals of Abram’s sacrifice, which cannot eternally save anyone, nor make them acceptable for celebrating Messiah’s Passover.

Those who teach Gentile circumcision assume that since it’s commanded in the Old Testament it must also be kept in the New. They refuse to hear the many New Testament Scriptures that forbid it. Their sin is the deadly sin of presumption. They assume that God wants something when He doesn’t, even though He may have wanted it earlier, as in the case of physical circumcision, or, in God wanting Israel to conquer Canaan after coming out from Egypt. Yet, because Israel believed the faithless witness of 10 of the 12 spies, God told Israel ’to turn around’ and go back into the Wilderness where they would die over the next 40 years because of their disbelief. After the incident some of the Hebrews said that they wanted (now) to obey God and go into the land, but Moses warned them not to go because God had redirected them, and that neither He (God), nor the Ark of the Covenant, nor Moses would go with them. They insisted, however, on obeying what God had previously said and many of them were killed by the Amalekites and the Canaanites (Num. 14:1-45). It’s not a superficial sin to presume upon God and His word, but this is exactly what all those who teach Gentile circumcision are guilty of:
’But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on Yahveh, and he shall be cut off from among his people because he has despised the word of Yahveh and has broken His commandment—that person shall be completely cut off. His guilt shall be upon him!’ (Num. 15:30–31; see also Dt. 1:19-43)
The New Testament never modifies the decision of Acts 15, which struck down Gentile circumcision in order to be saved, to make allowance for Gentile circumcision for Passover and/or to fulfill the commandment given to Abraham because God has changed both the sacrifice and the sign for the New Covenant. The Old sign means nothing in terms of entry into the New Covenant or the keeping of Passover. Circumcision of the flesh didn’t change the infant’s nature, but circumcision of the heart, the sign of which is baptism in water (and Spirit), does change our nature. What physical circumcision pointed to baptism in water fulfills—the circumcision of the heart. This is why circumcision of the flesh doesn’t do a Gentile any good and why Paul wrote:
’But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk, and so, I ordain in all the assemblies. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised! 66 Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised! Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing’ (in terms of entering Messiah’s Kingdom) ’but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.’67 (1st Corinthians 7:17-19)
The sign of circumcision given to Abraham has given way to water/Spirit baptism. Circumcision has given way to the reality that God promised in Dt. 30:6. Those who insist on Gentile circumcision are walking in the sins of presumption and rebellion to God and His word in the New Covenant.

Gentile circumcision is a false and dangerous heresy. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote against it, and why he says,
“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:” (NASB Philippians 3:2-4; see also vv. 17-19)
Paul was saying that he, too, could have confidence in the flesh (circumcision!) if that was what God wanted. The Gentile believer is linked to Messiah’s bloody sacrifice by water baptism. In this he becomes a new creature in Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit and circumcised in his heart, to the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, the Jew must continue to physically circumcise his sons because he is literally part of the covenant that God made with Abraham and all his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. One day, in the thousand year reign of Messiah Yeshua from Jerusalem, in the land of Israel on this Earth, that covenant will be fulfilled, to the glory of Yahveh and His words to Israel.68

Circumcision, Salvation and Covenant

Those who advocate Gentile circumcision are careful to say that they are not doing it ’for salvation.’ They realize that Acts 15, as well as 1st Cor. 7:17-18, Gal. 2:1—5:12 and Phil. 3:2-4, expressly forbids this, but this is exactly what they’re doing, whether they realize it or not.

Physical circumcision was instituted by God as a sign of the covenant that He had with Abraham (Gen. 15:1-21; 17:1-27). When God gave that covenant He spoke of saving the Sons of Abraham out of enslavement (Gen. 15:13-14). In Exodus 12, God saves the Sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob out of Egyptian slavery. The mentioning of the need for any Gentile who wanted to keep the Passover to be circumcised (Ex. 12:43-49), only emphasizes the salvation aspects of the covenant of circumcision because Exodus chapter 12 is the chapter on the salvation (redemption/deliverance) of Israel out of Egypt—the very promise of God to Abram (Gen. 15:13-14). Any Gentile who wanted to keep the Passover (i.e. to become part of Israel, which was in covenant with God) had to be circumcised.

The keeping of future Passovers were a time for remembrance of the salvation that God had already done for Israel. Physical circumcision, then, is the sign of entry into the covenant of Abraham to become part of God’s saved (past tense), already redeemed people Israel (from Egypt). Therefore, the very concept which Gentile circumcisers insist that they are not doing is what they are doing. Gentiles who get circumcised ’in order to keep the Passover’ are entering into the covenant of Abraham to become part of the ’already saved from Egypt’ people of Israel ’after the flesh.’ Physical circumcision makes the Gentile part of natural Israel, which was saved, but which is still enslaved to its sins under the Old Covenant. The salvation that the New Covenant speaks of is one that is yet to come, for we are not yet glorified. With the circumcision of our hearts we receive the divine down-payment—the heavenly assurance that we will be glorified. We are made new creatures in Messiah (2nd Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), 69 symbolized in water baptism. This brings us into Messiah’s Kingdom without physical circumcision, as Cornelius demonstrates and Peter testifies to (Acts 10:1–11:18; 15:7-9f.). The Gentile comes into the Kingdom of Messiah because of the circumcision of his heart, not his flesh. This is what Peter said in Acts 15:7-9:

’Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. 70 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.’
Peter declared that there was no need for the Gentile to be circumcised (see Acts 15:1-6). God had not made a difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, bringing both into Messiah’s Kingdom by the baptism in the Holy Spirit (and water baptism).

The Gentile who is physically circumcised places himself within a covenant people who aren’t saved by the blood of Messiah Yeshua. The Gentile is placing himself back under the Old Covenant. He has gone from the New to the Old; from freedom in Christ to slavery ’in self.’ It’s a spiritual oxymoron and a major heresy.

Yeshua didn’t die to bring the Gentile into the Old Covenant and to an enslaved people, but to bring them into the freedom of His Kingdom, which is ’another Kingdom, another Covenant, another Priesthood, and another Israel.’71 Physical circumcision for the Gentile is the wrong sign for the wrong covenant.

Ezekiel 44:9–Gentile Circumcision in the Future Temple?

Ezekiel 44 is primarily about the Sons of Zadok, who had been the Aaronic High Priest in Solomon’s day. They remained true to God, 72 while the other Sons of Aaron (and other Levites) weren’t.73 It’s not about the priesthood of all believers. It’s about which priests will be able to enter into the Holy Place, and also, minister at the Altar of Sacrifice in the future ’Temple of Ezekiel’ on this Earth at Jerusalem. According to the Law this ministry can only be done by Aaron and his Sons, 74 but here, God is making a distinction between which Sons of Aaron will be sacrificing and ministering in His Name and which will not be able to.

Only three of the thirty-one verses in the chapter pertain to the foreigner (vv. 7-9) whom God isn’t going to permit to enter His Temple because of his evil attitude toward God. Some point to Ezekiel 44:9 and interpret it to mean that Gentile believers will be physically circumcised in the future ’Temple of Ezekiel,’ so, they believe that they have authority to be circumcised now, but that’s not a proper interpretation of the verse. Ezekiel 44:9 reads in Hebrew and English:

‎‏כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יָהְוֵה כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל־מִקְדָּשִׁי לְכָל־בֶּן־נֵכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.‎ “Thus says the Lord Yahveh! ’Every foreigner (בֶּן נֵכָר ben nay’har) uncircumcised in heart and75 uncircumcised in flesh will not enter into My Sanctuary, of every foreigner (בֶּן נֵכָר ben nay’har) who is among the Sons of Israel.’" (Ezekiel 44:9) 76
God is saying that the foreigner (בֶּן נֵכָר ben nay’har) who is uncircumcised in both his heart and his flesh will never be allowed to enter God’s holy Temple. This is because he despises God and thinks the God of Israel is ’foreign’ or strange. This foreigner has no interest whatsoever in the God of Israel, nor the things of God (i.e. His Torah). It’s not an admonition that this Gentile was to be circumcised in his flesh (and his heart) so that he could enter the future Temple. It’s a prohibition against this type of Gentile who lived among the Israelis. 77 C. F. Keil, the distinguished German theologian, writes that this foreigner had no desire to be godly:
“Their being uncircumcised in heart is placed first, for the purpose of characterizing the foreigners as godless heathen, who are destitute not only of the uncircumcision of their flesh, but also of that of the heart, i.e., of piety of heart, which Solomon mentions in his prayer as the motive for the coming of distant strangers to the temple. 78 By the admission of such foreigners as these, who had no fear of God at all, into the temple…Israel had defiled the sanctuary." 79
The foreigner is one of five types of Gentiles mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) that resided within Israel who weren’t of the Seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Law applied to only two of them—the slave (by circumstance) and the stranger (the ger) by choice.

The KJV translates foreigner in Ezk. 44:9 as stranger and in this verse it’s not noticeable, but in Ex. 12:43-48, where it speaks of the five different categories of Gentiles, the KJV is confusing because it uses the same term, stranger, for both ben nay’har (בֶּן נֵכָר) and ger (גֶר). 80 The former could never partake of the Passover (i.e. become part of Israel), while the latter could, and doing so, became part of Israel. They are truly two different categories of Gentiles, as the Hebrew brings out.

The five Hebrew words are found in the Passover chapter (Ex. 12:43-48). It’s here that the Lord says who can, and who cannot, take part in the Passover:
1. Foreignerבֶּן-נֵכָר(ben nay’har)noEx. 12:43
2. hired workerשָׂכִיר (sah’here)noEx. 12:45
3. temporary residentתּוֹשָׁב(toe’shav)noEx. 12:45
4. slaveעֶבֶד (eh’ved)yesEx. 12:44
5. strangerגֶר (ger)yesEx. 12:48

The KJV, in not making a distinction between the foreigner (#1) and the stranger (#5), calling them both strangers, distorts the Word of God because it seems that God is contradicting Himself. 81 The KJV has God saying that the stranger (#1 Ex. 12:43) cannot keep the Passover, while their stranger (#5 Ex. 12:48) can keep it! Actually, God is saying that the foreigner #1 (בֶּן נֵכָר ben nay’har) cannot keep the Passover, while the stranger #5 (ger גֶר) can keep it. What is the difference between these two Gentiles? Why could one take part in the Passover while the other couldn’t? It seems to revolve around what was in their heart toward God. The definition of the words tends to bring this out:
  1. The foreigner could not eat of the Passover (Ex. 12:43). The noun means ’what is strange, foreign;’ the verb, ’to estrange, alienate…to seem strange…to reject.’82 TWOT says it speaks of ’a foreign god…Dt. 32:12’ and ’everything foreign (Neh. 13:30).’83 This person worships other gods and wants to be alienated from Israel, her God and His Torah, all of which appear ’strange’ to him.


  2. The hired worker could not eat of the Passover (Ex. 12:45). The noun means a ’hired laborer, hireling.’84 He’s not interested in the God of Israel, only in himself and finding work (Jn. 10:12-13).


  3. The temporary resident could not eat of the Passover (Ex. 12:45). This is a person who is also called a ’sojourner.’85 He’s a migrant, a ’temporary, landless wage earner.’ The word can also be ’a synonym for a hired servant (Lev. 22:10; 25:40).’86


  4. The slave could eat of the Passover after he was circumcised (Ex. 12:44). The slave served his master, doing his will. 87 This slave seems to be ’one’ with his Hebrew master (Gen. 17:9-13, 23-27).


  5. The stranger could eat the Passover once he and all the males in his house were circumcised (Ex. 12:48). The verb means to ’dwell for a time.’88 The stranger kept the Sabbath laws (Ex. 20:10; 23:12) and expressed the same loyalty to God as the native-born (Lev. 20:2). 89

    1. He was to hear the Law read (Dt. 31:12), and the Feasts applied to him (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 16:29; Num. 9:14; Dt. 16:14).


    2. His punishment was death if he sacrificed to a foreign god (Lev. 17:8f.) and he was forbidden to eat blood (Lev. 17:10-13). The special cleansing of the red heifer’s ashes applied to him (Num. 19:10) as well as all the laws of forbidden sexual unions (Lev. 18:26).


    3. It’s written that Yahveh loves this stranger, giving him his food and clothing (Dt. 10:18). The stranger wasn’t to be oppressed by the Israeli and enjoyed the same rights as the native-born Israeli (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:3; Jer. 7:6). He was to be helped if he was poor (Lev. 19:10; Dt. 14:29; 16:11) and he could take of the gleanings of the olive trees and vineyards, which were only reserved for the widow and the orphan (Dt. 24:20-21).
The stranger (#5 ger) loved Israel and was circumcised to become part of Israel and follow God’s Torah. The foreigner (#1 ben nay’har) didn’t want to have anything to do with Israel, her God or His laws. It’s specifically this foreigner (#1 ben nay’har) that Yahveh forbids to enter His future Temple in Ezekiel 44:9.

The five designation aren’t ’set in stone,’90 but they do offer a basic understanding of who could be part of Israel and who couldn’t. It may be that a ben nay’har could ’move over’ into the category of a ger, but the biblical understanding is that the ben nay’har wasn’t interested in the God of Israel or His Torah. With this mindset it’s easy to understand why God would say that no foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, would ever come into His Temple. God is not admonishing the foreigner to be circumcised in heart and flesh. He’s prohibiting this type of Gentile. Ezekiel 44:9 is not a license for Gentile circumcision.

Church History and Gentile Circumcision

If Gentile circumcision was theologically valid in the days of the Apostles, and thereafter, we should find something written of circumcised Gentiles ’for the right reason,’ in Church history, but there is nothing. 91 Yet, with things like the 7th day Sabbath and Passover, Church history after about 130 AD abounds with railings against the many Gentile believers who rightfully kept the 7th day Sabbath and Passover. 92 Why, then, isn’t anything mentioned or written against Gentile circumcision by the so-called Church Fathers? There should have been a number of Gentiles, if not all of them, that were following this practice of physical circumcision, no? Were there no Gentile baby boys whose fathers wanted them physically circumcised to comply with Torah in the days of the Apostles and thereafter? The New Testament, as well as Church history, reveals that physical circumcision for the Gentile was never a justifiable issue. The teaching that Gentiles need to be circumcised in order to keep the Torah and Passover (and to be acceptable to God) is only a recent aberration.

Conclusion

For the Gentile before the crucifixion, physical circumcision was necessary to enter into the covenants of Abraham and Moses. Physical circumcision was how the Gentile became part of Israel, but God fulfilled what physical circumcision symbolized with the sacrifice of His Son and the rite of water baptism. The nullification of physical circumcision by God is seen through Peter and James in Acts 15. Those who teach physical circumcision for the Gentile don’t realize that entry into the covenant people, the Israel of God, has changed with the New Covenant and its ‘circumcision made without hands.’ This allows the Gentile (and the Jew!) to come into Messiah’s Kingdom and partake of His Passover.

Acts 15 declares that Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised. There were no extenuating reasons or circumstances given for a Gentile to be circumcised, and there isn’t a single instance of either Scripture commanding Gentiles to be physically circumcised, or the recording of a Gentile being circumcised. The only Gentiles that were circumcised in the New Testament or in New Testament times, were done by the Judaizers ‘for the wrong reason.’93

Many think the the Apostle Paul is the culprit in this ‘teaching against Gentiles being circumcised,’ but the Council of Acts 15 authoritatively ruled that Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised. Paul acted and wrote on the authority of the Council (even though Barnabas and he had a proper understanding of the issue before it was brought to the Council; Acts 15:1-2). Are we to think that Barnabas, Paul, James and Peter didn’t know what the Law said about the need for Gentiles to be circumcised in order to keep Passover? Or that they weren’t hearing from God on this issue? None of them, nor anyone else in the New Testament, ever speak of Gentiles being circumcised in order to keep Passover, and/or ‘for the right reason.’ On the contrary, Paul admonishes the Corinthians to keep the Passover and tells the Gentiles not to be circumcised (1st Cor. 5:6-8; 7:17-24). It’s not without theological significance that Gentile circumcision ‘for the right reason’ is never found in the New Testament. Also, Paul’s Gospel was endorsed by the Apostles and Yakov (Gal. 2:1-10), as well as Peter (2nd Peter 3:14-18). Paul is not the offender, but rather those who twist and pervert the Word of God to their logical, but biblically wrong way of thinking. Those who teach that Gentiles should be circumcised are very wrong. Here are 11 points why:

1. Acts 15 authoritatively rules that the Gentile wasn’t to be circumcised in order to be saved. There is nothing in Acts, or in the New Testament, where the ruling is ever modified to allow Gentile (religious/covenantal) circumcision for any reason.

2. Tim Hegg’s teaching that Timothy was a Gentile whom Paul circumcised, and therefore, Gentile circumcision is taught in the New Testament, fails for six reasons:

1. It defies logic and common sense to think that Paul circumcised ‘a Gentile Timothy’ for the Jews in the area. This would have been meaningless to the Jews (except to anger them that a Gentile had been circumcised who believed in Yeshua).

2. Timothy hadn’t been circumcised as an infant because his father was a Greek, and apparently, he hadn’t wanted it done to his son because circumcision was a stigma in the eyes of the Romans and the Greeks. Timothy is seen, though, fulfilling his Torah obligation as a Jew, so that he wouldn’t be a hindrance to the furtherance of the Gospel among the unbelieving Jews who would have wondered why this Jewish boy wasn’t circumcised, but proclaiming the Jewish Messiah. In other words, how could he be proclaim the Way of Life and not keep the Way of life (i.e. Torah)?

3. Paul would certainly not have reversed himself against his own understanding of the subject, and also, the Council’s Decree of Acts 15, without explaining why. Neither does he ever write that he circumcised any Gentiles or that it was alright or necessary to do so if they knew that it wasn’t being done for salvation.

4. Luke places Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 16:1-3) immediately after Acts 15, which statesthat Gentiles weren’t to be circumcised, and just before Paul takes the Decree of Acts 15 tosome believing congregations (Acts 16:4-5). Placing a ‘just-circumcised Gentile’ in-between these two sections, defies reason, logic and common sense. On the other hand, by placing itwhere he does, Luke reveals that Timothy was a believing Jewish man who fulfilled his Torah obligation because of his faith in Messiah Yeshua, and that the prohibition for the Gentiles,not to be circumcised, didn’t effect the Jewish believer or his sons.

5. There’s no second witness in the New Testament to support Hegg’s assertion that Timothy was a Gentile.

6. There’s no second witness in Scripture to support Hegg’s assertion that Timothy was an example of a Gentile believer circumcised ‘for the right reason,’ but on the contrary, there are anumber of passages the speak against Gentile circumcision.

3. The Gentile who is circumcised in order to keep Passover is guilty of works righteousness and thesin of presumption. He thinks that if he doesn’t have physical circumcision he can’t keep thePassover, and therefore, he will be cut off from Israel. This is tantamount to losing one’s salvation, but God has made another way to enter into the Kingdom of His Son, and by being physically circumcised he nullifies God’s way of salvation for him.

4. The phrase in Acts 21:25, ‘observe no such thing,’ brought out that the Gentile wasn’t to be circumcised. James mentions no extenuating reasons or circumstances to justify Gentile circumcision at any time after entry into the New Covenant, which seven years after his Decree of Acts 15,would have been the perfect place for him to do so, if circumcision ‘for the right reason’ was abiblical teaching.

5. With Gentiles not being physically circumcised, as the New Testament teaches, it opens the wayfor the Gentile to take the part of the believing wife in a symbolic marriage to the Jew whodoesn’t believe (natural Israel), to woo her husband to Messiah by her love and prayers. God willyet be glorified through His physically circumcised Jewish people for all to see.

6. Neither Cornelius, Titus or Luke were ever physically circumcised, yet they kept Torah, Passoverand the Fast of the Day of Atonement. Obviously, there was no need for them to be physicallycircumcised in order to participate in the Feasts of Israel. This reveals that physical circumcisionfor the Gentile wasn’t needed, nor was any righteous Gentile doing it.

1. What is the Feast of the Passover, but the celebration of God’s salvation through His Lamb? Yet, those that say the Gentile must be circumcised in order to keep the Passover are sayingthat the Gentile can’t be saved (is not acceptable to God) without physical circumcision! Thistotally negates what the Lamb of God has done for the Gentile believer.

2. The New Testament expressly denies physical circumcision for the Gentile believer. There is no Gentile in the New Testament that is authorized to become physically circumcised. Yes, some did, but they did it because they listened to false teachers (Gal. 1:6-8ff.). The ‘circumcision made without hands,’ done by Messiah Yeshua Himself (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11) allows the Gentile (and the Jew!) to enter His Kingdom and partake of His Passover.

7. Paul commands the Corinthian Gentiles to keep the Passover, and only two chapters later, he saysto the Gentiles that they were to remain the way they were and not become circumcised (1st Cor.5:6-8; 7:18). Paul never teaches otherwise (nor does anyone else). This reveals that uncircumcisedGentiles were keeping the Passover, the very thing that Hegg and others say an uncircumcisedGentile cannot do. Paul’s words affirm the decree of Acts 15, and also, that Gentile circumcision‘for the right reason’ was never a valid biblical teaching (see also Romans 2:26; 3:30; 4:11).

8. Physical circumcision brought (and continues to bring) the Hebrew baby boy into the OldCovenant redeemed people of God and protected him from being cut off from Israel. So, too, nowwater/Spirit baptism for adults. Circumcision personally linked the infant, by the shedding of his own blood, back to the sacrificial covenant that God made with Abram. It was a blood coveringfor every male.94 Water baptism personally links the believer, by the spiritually symbolic shedding of his own blood (death to self) to the sacrifice of Yeshua, a blood covering for everybeliever, and makes him part of redeemed Israel after the Spirit.95

1.  Baptism in water, with its circumcision made without hands, is the sign of the New Covenantfor both Jew and Gentile (Acts 2:38-39;15:7-11; Rom. 6:1f; Col. 2:11).

2.  Water baptism pictures both Jew and Gentile dying to self—presenting their own life’s blood,so to speak, which links them to both the sacrifice of Messiah, and also, how Yeshua came forth as God the Son on Day One. This is a picture of what awaits the believer.

3.  What circumcision pointed to, the circumcision of the heart, the transformation of the carnalnature and total consecration to Yahveh, water baptism, through the blood of Messiah and thepower of the Holy Spirit, fulfills. Believers are new creatures in Messiah circumcised by God,a fulfillment of Dt. 30:6, which says that He would circumcise the hearts of Israel.

4.  The sign of the covenant that God made with Father Abraham was very important to God, somuch so that anyone failing to keep the sign would be cut off from the covenant. Is water/Spir­it baptism of any less importance to God? As the New Covenant is the flowering and ful­fillment of the Old, so is water/Spirit baptism to physical circumcision and why all who callupon the name of Yeshua need to be fully immersed in water, not sprinkled, and certainly notimmersed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.96 We are immersed into Yeshua’s death (Rom. 6:1f.)—neither the Father, nor the Spirit, died for us

9. The Gentile who is circumcised for alleged biblical reasons places himself under the Old Testa­ment and has attached himself to Israel after the flesh, a people who are enslaved to sin and death.He has left the New for the Old.

10. Ezekiel 44:9 cannot be used to support Gentile circumcision because God isn’t demanding thatthe Gentile, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, was to be circumcised, but on the contrary, that thistype of Gentile was never to enter into the future Temple. That’s because this Gentile didn’t wantto have anything to do with the God of Israel and His Torah.

11. Church history, which vociferously comes against Gentile believers who rightly kept the 7th daySabbath and the Passover (after 100 AD) is glaringly silent on Gentile physical circumcision ‘forthe right reason.’ This reveals that Gentiles weren’t being circumcised after Apostolic times andconfirms that Gentiles weren’t doing it during Apostolic times (except for the wrong reason).

The New Testament doesn’t authorize Gentile circumcision, but comes against it every time it speaksof it. Authority from God, in the form of His Word, to physically circumcise the male Gentile who be­lieves in Yeshua, is absent. That’s why Hegg has to manufacture ‘a Gentile Timothy.’

Gentile circumcision ‘for the right reason,’ in order to keep Passover (Ex. 12:43-49), etc., is a majorheresy because it negates the efficacy of Yeshua’s sacrifice and the meanings of water baptism. It’s ateaching of presumption and works righteousness because without physical circumcision the maleGentile isn’t able to keep their Passover, and hence, he would be cut off from Israel (lose his salva­tion). This is why Gentile circumcision is a major heresy. The Apostle Paul speaks about anyone presenting ‘another Gospel,’ and Gentile circumcision in order to obey Torah is certainly that:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the graceof Messiah and are turning to another gospel—not that there is another gospel, butthere are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Messiah, buteven if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” (Galatians 1:6-8)

Gentile circumcision is an act of pride and presumption, rebellion and ignorance, and works right­eousness for salvation. Gentiles who teach and/or circumcise themselves, and/or their sons, ‘for reli­gious reasons’ (to obey Torah) have crossed over a red line. The Gentile who becomes physicallycircumcised negates God’s design of eternal redemption and voluntarily places himself under theLaw’s ability to condemn him. Gentiles must not be circumcised for religious reasons.97

For those Gentiles that have had themselves circumcised, wrongly following the teaching of Hegg,etc., there is a need for repentance and for asking of forgiveness from God in the name of Yeshua. Heis merciful in this and He will forgive. The Gift of God through faith in Messiah Yeshua has made theGentile and the Jew acceptable to God and able to keep His Passover.

On his way to chains in Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul told the Ephesian Elders that some believers would arise and teach perverse things. His words speak to us today concerning Gentile circumcision:

‘For I know…that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, notsparing the Flock. Also, from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves’ (Acts 20:29-30).98

Paul again spoke prophetically about our time in his first letter to his spiritual son, Timothy:

‘Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith,
giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons’ (1st Tim. 4:1).

Is it any wonder, then, that there are perverse teachings going around the Body of Messiah? The rea­son why the Lord doesn’t want Gentiles to be circumcised is also conceptually seen in the book ofHebrews:

‘Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holy of Holies by the blood ofYeshua, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, thatis, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the House of God, let us draw near with atrue heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con­science and our bodies washed with pure water’ (Heb. 10:19-22).

The flesh of our Messiah was destroyed so that our Adamic nature could ‘die to self’ and be trans­formed into His Image, which is what physical circumcision pictured (Dt. 30:6). Jew and Gentileenter Messiah’s Kingdom through His sacrifice and baptism in water and Spirit, not the circumcisionof the flesh. There’s no scriptural reason for a Gentile to be physically circumcised:

‘For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but
faith working through love’ (Gal. 5:6).

‘For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but
a new creation’ (Gal. 6:15).

‘In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, byputting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Messiah’ (Colos­sians 2:11).

‘Beware of dogs! Beware of evil workers! Beware of the mutilation!99 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Messiah Yeshua, and have no confidence in the flesh, though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyoneelse thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighthday, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews! Con­cerning the Law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Assembly; concerningthe righteousness which is in the Law, blameless, but what things were gain to me,these I have counted loss for Messiah. Yet, indeed, I also count all things loss for theexcellence of the knowledge of Messiah Yeshua my Lord, for whom I have sufferedthe loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Messiah and befound in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the Law, but thatwhich is through faith in Messiah, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that Imay know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His suffer­ings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrectionfrom the dead.’ (Philippians 3:2-11)100

We must not keep any natural law and think that it will save us or that God requires it (i.e. physicalcircumcision) for our salvation or for the keeping of the Passover. In the Old Covenant, God requiredit of a Gentile to immediately be circumcised in order to enter into that Covenant and to participate inthe Passover. There was no waiting period for the Gentile to come to know that he wasn’t beingcircumcised ‘in order to be saved.’ Now, if God the Father didn’t require it of the Gentiles for theirsalvation (Acts 15), to enter into His Covenant, into the Kingdom of His Son, then it’s not required ofthem to keep the Passover of the Messiah, either.




End Notes:

  1. The Hebrew word Torah is used for the first five books of Scripture (Genesis through Deuteronomy; the Law of Moses) as well as a general term for all of Scripture. The believer should keep all the Law that applies to him. Physical circumcision, though, doesn’t apply to the Gentile believer.
    2. .

  2.   Rom. 4:1-16; 1st Cor. 7:17-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 2:1-5; 5:2; Phil. 3:2-3f. .

  3.  Tim Hegg, The Letter Writer: Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 2002), p. 114. Hegg writes, ‘Paul felt free to have Timothy circumcised because it was a matter of Torah-obedience,’ and that Timothy was a ‘Torah-obedient Gentile,’ p. 285. .

  4.  Ibid., p. 113, notes 232-233. .

  5.  Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio–Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), p. 475, note 19: ‘For some reason Cohen, Was Timothy a Jewish? p. 254, focuses entirely on the clause that refers to his father being Greek as proof that Luke (and the Jews in Lystra and Iconium) thought of Timothy as being a Gentile. This makes Paul’s actions, which Luke clearly records, quite inexplicable. Probably the γαρ clause’ (‘for they all knew that his father was a Greek;’ v. 3) ‘should be seen as an explanation of why Timothy had not yet been circumcised, as his fellow Jews were well aware.’

  6.  Ibid., pp. 474-475.

  7.  Ibid., pp. 475-476.

  8.  Ex. 34:12-16; Dt. 7:1-4, see also Ezra 9:1-2, 12; 10:1-14f; Neh. 9:-13; 10:28-30; 13:23-28.

  9.  Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 476, note 23: Early Christianity, p. 176.

  10.  David J. Williams, author; W. Ward Gasque, New Testament editor, New International Biblical Commentary: Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 275.

  11.  I. Howard Marshall, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., author; Professor R.V.G. Tasker, M.A., B.D., General editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Acts (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), p. 260.

  12.  R. J. Knowling, D.D.; author; W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D., editor, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. two: The Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 339.

  13.  Ibid.

  14.  Acts 15 is the theological pillar in the New Testament that establishes the Law of Moses for every believer in Yeshua. The Lifting of the Veil: Acts 15:20-21 at http://www.seedofabraham.net/LiftingTheVeil.html reveals that the four rules of v. 20 are not for ‘table fellowship,’ as the Church explains, but are four rule ‘unit’ on sacrificial-sexual idolatry that James presents as a biblical filter for the Gentile to pass through to prove that his faith in Yeshua was genuine. Verses 20-21 speak of God wanting Gentiles to walk in the Law.

  15.  Walter Bauer, augmented by William F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and Frederick Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Accordance electronic edition, 8.4.6; March 2010), p. 254.

  16.  Acts 15:1-32; Rom. 2:26-29; 3:30; 4:1-12, 16; 1st Cor. 7:17-19, 24; Gal. 2:3, 12; 5:2, 11; 6:12-17.

  17.  If one knows that he has any lineage from the natural Seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (i.e. that there’s a Jewish grandparent or great-grandparent, etc. in his background) he/she should consider himself Jewish.

  18.  Physical circumcision effects the most intimate part of a man and symbolizes that he is open and totally submitted to the God of Israel (Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Josh. 5:2-7; Jer. 4:4). See Acts 21:20f., where Paul is slanderously accused of teaching that Jews shouldn’t circumcise their sons. James knew it was a lie and a distortion of Paul’s teaching, so, he led Paul to be purified, along with four other Jewish believers under the Nazarite Vow, in order to prove that Paul still kept the Law (Acts 21:24).

  19.  The New American Standard Bible and the New Revised Standard Version use the 1881 Westcott–Hort Greek New Testament. This was revised and updated as the NU text: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament–United Bible Societies third corrected edition, 1983 (Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, translators; J. D. Douglas, editor, The New Greek–English Interlinear New Testament [Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990], p. iv [Roman numeral not printed]). The basis for this interlinear is the NU text. This is the same text as the 26th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, by Kurt Aland, M. Black, C. Martini, A. Wikgren and Bruce Metzger.

    Page vii (also without Roman numerals) says this Greek text ‘represents the best in modern textual scholarship.’ Textual criticism determines which words were originally in the text and which were added or left out. This is important for Acts 21:25. The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV and the NKJV are based, differs for the verse in question in the NU text. It’s worth reading ISBE’s section on the History of Textual Criticism, pp. 820-821 (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, General editor; Everett F. Harrison, Roland K. Harrison and William Sanford LaSor, associate editors, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. four (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979) to get an understanding of the two major Greek texts; pp. 814-820 explain the different Greek manuscripts and why some are considered more valuable than others.

  20.  Be that as it may, how many Christians keep the four rules or know anything about them, even as the Church interprets them?

  21.  Walter Bauer, augmented by William F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and Frederick Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 220; also Wesley J. Perschbacher, editor, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publications, 1990), p. 119.

  22.  George Ricker Berry, Editor and Translator, Interlinear Greek–English New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000), p. 380, Acts 21:25.

  23.  F. F. Bruce, author; Gordon D. Fee, General editor, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 407.

  24.  I. Howard Marshall, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., author; Professor R.V.G. Tasker, M.A., B.D., General editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Acts (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), p. 346.

  25.  Ibid., p. 345, note 1. Bruce is on the right track, but heading in the wrong direction. Perhaps the controversy and enigma over what Paul entered into with those four Jewish men (Acts 21:23-24) would be solved by suggesting that the seven-day purification rite (Acts 21:26-27) was just that: a seven-day period that one had to complete before he was able to actually enter into the 30, 60 or 100-day Nazarite Vow. In other words, it was a preliminary purification or cleansing rite that one did before he took the Nazarite Vow.

    Acts 21:26-27 speaks of ‘days of purification,’ not ‘days of separation’ as it does for the Vow in Num. 6:2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 21 twice, with vv. 18-19 speaking of the consecrated or set-apart head or hair (NKJV). One can only speculate as to why no information on a preliminary purification rite exists, but the fact is that there’s no record of a seven-day Nazarite Vow, either. A seven-day purification rite, to be accomplished before taking the Nazarite Vow, was most likely what Paul and the four men were involved in.

    Another possibility is that it may have been a special time of purification for Jewish men coming from outside the land of Israel (Judah and Galilee). This would deal with their perceived uncleanness of having been among the idolatrous Gentiles. On the other hand, with more Jews living outside the land of Israel than inside and many hundreds of thousands coming to Israel for each of the three annual holy Feasts (Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles) it would seem far too long a time for pilgrims to have to prepare for the Feasts (as well as the sheer numbers making it an impossible practice).

    If this was a seven-day rite of purification on which Paul initially embarked, as it seems (Acts 21:26-27), both the concept and the sacrifice(s) that would have been offered for him and each of the four men at the end of their purification (Acts 21:24, 26) may have come from the Torah’s dealings with the Nazarite becoming defiled (Num. 6:9-12), which is what Bruce referred to. A Nazarite became defiled when someone suddenly died in his presence (Num. 6:9). He would have to shave his hair ‘on the seventh day’ (Num. 6:9; Acts 21:24, 27) and on the eighth day, bring either two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest as a sin sacrifice and a burnt sacrifice (Num. 6:10-11) as well as a lamb for a guilt sacrifice (Num. 6:12). Then he would begin his Vow anew. Here is not only a seven-day time frame of purification from uncleanness (Num. 6:9; Acts 21:26-27), but also the shaving of the hair of the head on the seventh day, spoken of as the day of his cleansing (Num. 6:9; in Acts 21:24, 26, purified, NKJV). With the sacrifices on the eighth day, the man’s head became sanctified again (Num. 6:11, 18-19) and he was able to begin the Nazarite Vow afresh, or in the case of the four men and Paul, to begin it.

    This seven-day ritual of purification may very well have been adapted in Paul’s day for any Jew wanting to take the Nazarite Vow. This understanding in no way alters a central point of Acts 21. Paul was entering into (the preliminary stage of) a Nazarite Vow (the shaving of the hair, Num. 6:9; Acts 21:24). He would have offered sacrifice for himself and paid for the sacrifices of the others (Num. 6:10-12; Acts 21:24, 26) to show everyone that he still kept the Law of Moses (Acts 21:24) as a Christian, 25 years after the resurrection!

  26.  Marshall, Acts, p. 345.

  27.  Jn. 14:6; 15:26; Rom. 1:18; Eph. 4:24; 2nd Tim. 2:15; Heb. 10:26; 2nd Peter 1:2; 1st Jn. 1:6; 4:6; 5:6.

  28.  Marshall, Acts, pp. 345-346.

  29.  Charles F. Pfeiffer, Old Testament; Everett F. Harrison, New Testament, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), p. 1165.

  30.  David J. Williams, author; W. Ward Gasque, New Testament editor, New International Biblical Commentary: Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 366.

  31.  R. J. Knowling, D.D.; author; W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D., editor, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. two: The Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 450.

  32.  Ibid., p. 451.

  33.  Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 303.

  34.  For the historical and theological accuracy of Acts ask for my PDF, Is Acts Reliable?

  35.  Acts 18:18 states, ‘Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow.’ Scholars are perplexed that Paul would do such a thing, yet Marshall, Acts, pp. 344-345, believes it was a Nazarite Vow that Paul took in Acts 18:18, and Williams, Acts, pp. 321-322, says it was based on a Nazarite Vow. Stern, JNTC, pp. 290-291, doesn’t think Paul’s vow of Cenchrea was a strict Nazarite Vow, saying that it could only be done in Jerusalem, but Williams overcomes Stern’s objection by revealing that Josephus (War 2.309–314) writes that such a thing was possible, and Marshall, Acts p. 300, citing Mishnah Nazir 3:6; 5:4, says that the shaving of the hair for the Nazarite Vow was permissible outside Jerusalem and Israel.

  36.  Mt. 26:57-68; 27:1-2, 11-14, 17-20, 39-43, 62-66; 27:11-15; Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 7:1-60; 9:1-2.

  37.  Bromiley, ISBE, vol. one, p. 692. Regarding the arrest of Paul in Jerusalem, which takes place in Acts 21:26-36, ISBE places this event in the year 54 A.D. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 25th printing, 1976), pp. 486-488, has 58 A.D.

    J. D. Douglas, M.A., B.D., S.T.M., Ph.D., Organizing editor, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 1 (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998), p. 281, has 59 A.D. For IBD, Paul’s arrest happened 29 years after the resurrection.

  38.  For a greater understanding of Mosaic sacrifice and its meaning after the resurrection see the two articles at http://seedofabraham.net/sacrific.html.

  39.  Marshall, Acts, p. 346; Williams, Acts, pp. 366-367, and Knowling, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 450.

  40.  Acts 15: Douglas, IBD, part 1, pp. 281-283: 48 A.D. Unger, UBD, pp. 486-488: 48 A.D.

    Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 444, note 361: 49 A.D.
    Bromiley, ISBE, vol. one, p. 692: 49 A.D.

  41.  For more on why the sacrifices of Moses are still theologically in effect, see Sacrifice in the New Testament at http://www.SeedofAbraham.net/ntsac.html.

  42.  Also included is Gen. 17:14: ‘And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people—he has broken My covenant.’

  43.  Acts 15:7-11; Rom. 8:15-16, 23; Gal. 4:1-5; 6:15; Eph. 1:5.

  44.  Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Ezk. 36:26; 2nd Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15.

  45.  Is. 62:1-12; Jer. 23:5-8; Zech. 2:10-12; Rom. 11:25-32.

  46.  Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 346. Witherington believes it was 39-40. Marshall, Acts, p. 183. Marshall states it was ‘before 41 A.D.’

  47.  Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 25th printing, 1976), pp. 486-488. Unger’s says it was 48 AD. J. D. Douglas, M.A., B.D., S.T.M., Ph.D., Organizing Editor, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Part 1 (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998), p. 279-283. IBD states it was 48 AD. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. one, p. 692. ISBE has 49 AD.

  48.  Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. one, p. 692. Galatians was written from Ephesus about 52-53 AD.

  49.  See Acts 21:25 (54-59 AD) where James reiterates that Gentiles ‘should observe no such thing’ (i.e. circumcision). To understand that James meant meant circumcision and not ‘the Law,’ see, The Lifting of the Veil, chapter Acts 21-25–Observe No Such Thing!

  50.  Acts 16:10, 11, 12, 13, 16; 20:6, 13, 14, 15; 21:8, 10-12, 14, 18; 27:1f., etc.

  51.  Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. one, p. 692. ISBE has 58 AD. Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 233. Unger’s has 61-62 AD. for when Colossians was written.

  52.  For why Luke is a Gentile see Luke the Jew? under Articles/Misc., at http://seedofabraham.net/articles.html.

  53.  Douglas, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Part 1, p. 279-283.

  54.  The term Passover is used interchangeably with the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mt. 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-18; Lk. 22:1, 7-14; Acts 12:3-4). See also Acts 27:9f., where Luke writes, ‘and sailing was now dangerous because the Fast was already over.’ The Fast that Luke refers to is the fast of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:26-32), which occurs in mid to late October. From mid-September to mid-November it was ‘risky’ to venture into the Mediterranean Sea, while from mid-November to the beginning of March it was ‘dangerous’ because of the strong winds; James B. Pritchard, The Harper Atlas of the Bible (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987, p. 172. The Fast, like Passover, is a holy Sabbath, that if one doesn’t keep it he will be ‘cut off from his people.’ Dr. Luke wasn’t circumcised, yet it seems that he kept the Fast, too.

  55.  Gentiles were to imitate Paul (1st Cor. 4:14-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:15-17; 4:9; 1st Thess. 1:6-7; 2nd Thess. 3:7, 9).

  56.  Some charge the Apostle Paul with heresy, but this is the height of folly, or perhaps I should say the depths of depravity? They don’t understand his writings on Law and/or circumcision, and so, they accuse the Apostle: ‘Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to Yahveh. Though they join forces, none will go unpunished’ (Prov. 16:5). Charging Paul with heresy is also a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Paul’s writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and recognized as such (Gal. 2:6-9; 2nd Peter 3:15-16).

  57.  Acts 2:38; 8:36-39; 10:47; Heb. 10:22; 1st Pet. 3:20.

  58.  John 8:46; 2nd Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1st Jn. 3:5; 1st Pet. 2:22.

  59.  See Yeshua: God the Son at http://seedofabraham.net/yeshua.html for the Hebraic concept of how Yeshua is deity, along with His Father (and the Spirit).

  60.  Psalm 2:7; 89:26-37; John 1:14, 18; 3:16; with John 16:27-28 and 17:8 having Yeshua saying that He ‘came forth’ from the Father. John 8:42 has the identical concept that Yeshua ‘proceeded forth’ from the Father. See also Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; 1st Jn. 4:9.

  61.  The ‘waters’ of Gen. 1:2 picture of the Father (see Psalm 104:3; 148:4; Is. 8:6; 55:1; Jer. 51:16; Ezk. 1:24-26f; 2nd Peter 3:5). The waters in Gen. 1:2 are not the waters of the oceans of the Earth because on Day Two (Gen. 1:6-8) these waters are divided by a ‘firmament,’ which God calls ‘Heaven.’ Creation took place in the waters under Heaven, while God dwells in the waters above the firmament, above Heaven. This may be why Paul can say that he was caught up to the third Heaven (2nd Cor. 12:2).

  62.  The Hebrew word in Gen. 1:2 for the Spirit hovering over the waters is מְרָחֶפֶת mira’cheh’fet and it speaks of the hovering motion made by the wings of a dove or an eagle as they hover over an object (Dt. 32:11).

  63.  In Hebrew the first words of God are literally, ‘Light, be!’ which makes Yeshua, as the Light of the world, the first word of the Father (John 1:1-9; 8:12; 1st John 1:1-4; Rev. 19:13).

  64.  God’s living Word came forth from the Waters (which picture the Father). This living Word was the Light of Day One. This Light wasn’t the sun, moon or the stars, for they were created on Day Four (Gen. 1:14-19).

  65.  Many Gentiles were circumcised by their parents for medical-health reasons and that’s alright because it is not the same reason as the theological circumcision of Gen. 17:9-14 and Ex. 12:43-49. Any Gentile, though, who has wrongly followed the teaching, that he must be circumcised in order to keep the Passover, etc., has grievously sinned. He should repent and ask God the Father, who is rich in mercy, to forgive him, in the name of Yeshua.

  66.  Paul’s admonition to the Jewish believer to not become uncircumcised was a real prohibition. In Paul’s day there was a surgical operation that attached some skin to the remaining foreskin of a Jew so that the Jewish man would look like he hadn’t been circumcised; in other words, to look like a Gentile. Gentiles would be naked in their spas and gymnasiums, and so, any Jew who was with them would automatically be seen to be Jewish (and despised in Gentile eyes) unless he had the operation. This was prevalent more than 200 years earlier in the days of the Maccabees. See 1st Maccabees 1:15; 1:2f; Josephus, Antiquities xii. 241.

  67.  Some might say that Gen. 17:9-14 and Ex. 12:43-49 are part of the commandments of God for Gentile believers, but this totally negates what God says about it in the New Covenant.

  68.  Genesis 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7, 12-16, 18-21; 17:7-8, 19-22; 24:7; 26:2-5; 28:3-4, 13-15; 35:9-13; 48:3-4; 50:24-25; Ex. 3:7-10, 14-17; 6:1-8; 12:21-25; 13:3-5, 11-12; 23:20-33; 32:7-14; Ezk. 40–48; Rev. 20:3-6.

  69.  The word for ‘creation’ (in some translations) should be creature, yet, it will be a new creation, too.

  70.  This is Cornelius, his Gentile household and some of his friends that Peter is referring to (Acts 10:1-48).

  71.  The ‘Israel of God,’ etc. (Gal. 6:10-16; also Ps. 110:4; Jer. 31:31-34; Mt. 16:19; Heb. 7:1–8:13; Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10).

  72.  Ezekiel 40:46; 44:15-16f.

  73.  Ezekiel 44: 6-8 implied, 10f.

  74.  Exodus 28:43; 30:20; Numbers 16:40.

  75.  Some English translations have ‘or’ (NKJV), or ‘nor’ (KJV), but the Hebrew letter for those two is the vav ו and 90% of the time it’s translated as ‘and’ (so, the NASB, NIV, NCBS, etc.). It’s a judgment call because the word can be translated as ‘or,’ but translating it as ‘and’ will make the sentence to be correctly understood because the condition of ‘either’ (i.e. ‘or’ or ‘nor’) cannot be applied to the foreigner because the foreigner was uncircumcised in both heart and flesh.

  76.  My translation. This is supported by the NASB, which reads, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary.’" (Ezekiel 44:9) There are translations that separate and make a distinction between the first foreigner and the second foreigner by saying ‘including any foreigner’ and ‘not even the foreigners who live among Israel (NKJV and NIV respectively), but this is not supported by the Hebrew, which is why I’ve included the Hebrew for anyone who can read it (i.e. the words ‘including’ and ‘not even’ are not found in the Hebrew passage).

  77.  This interpretation, that it’s a prohibition against this type of Gentile, is also supported by v. 7 where God says, ‘When you brought foreigner/s (בֶּן נֵכָר ben nay’har) uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in My Sanctuary to defile it.’

  78.  1st Kings 8:41-43.

  79.  C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 9 Ezekiel–Daniel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), p. 411.

  80.  Most Bibles translate ben nay’har (בֶּן נֵכָר) as foreigner (e.g. ASV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, and NIV) and use something else for ger (e.g. ASV, NASB stranger; NIV, NRSV alien).

  81.  The NET and HCSB use the term foreigner for both verses, which of course, is as confusing as the KJV using strangers for both verses. Even if a #1 ben nay’har could become a #5 ger it’s best to distinguish them so as not to cause obvious confusion.

  82.  Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 549.

  83.  R. L. Harris, editor; Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, associate editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. II (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), p. 580.

  84.  Davidson, AHCL, p. 715.

  85.  Ibid., p. 352.

  86.  Harris, TWOT, vol. I, p. 412.

  87.  Davidson, AHCL, p. 583.

  88.  Ibid., p. 134.

  89.  Harris, TWOT, vol. I, p. 156.

  90.  Although the stranger (ger) is in a separate category from other foreigners who weren’t native Hebrews, there are times when the word seems to be used as a general designation for anyone not of Israel (e.g. Dt. 10:19; 28:43). Also, see Isaiah 56: 3, 6-7 where God allows #1 to be part of Israel and 1st Kings 8:41-43 where Solomon prays for the prayers of #1, who came from a distant land to the Temple, to be heard by God. It does seem that a ben nay’har could ‘change’ and become a ger and become part of Israel.

  91.  Gentile circumcision is mentioned (e.g. Justin, Dialogue 47:2, about 140 A.D.), but this relates to Judaizers who told the Gentiles that they couldn’t be saved without it, not Gentiles doing it for ‘the right reason.’

  92.  For references to the many thousands of believers, both Jew and Gentile, who kept the holy days, etc., ask for my four page article, Passover, Sabbath, Sunday and the Lord’s Supper.

  93.  There were Gentile believers who, following the false teaching of the Judaizers, were circumcised, but this
    was condemned by Paul, following the Council of Acts 15 (48-49 AD), in his letter to the Galatians (52-58
    AD).

  94.  Females didn’t need it because they were/are ‘one’ with their fathers and husbands.

  95.   Interesting to note, God ordained circumcision for the eight day old infant. All those who believe in Yeshua are Born Again, which means that they are spiritual infants, but instead of being physically circumcised,God requires the infinitely more powerful spiritual sign of water/Spirit baptism; circumcision of the heart. 96 The formula found in Mt. 28:19 (baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the HolySpirit) is not authentic, but false. It was changed by the Roman Catholic Church in the days of Constantine(4th century). The Apostles always baptized in the name of Yeshua (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16, 36, 38; 9:18;10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16). For an article on how Mt. 28:19 originally didn’t speak of baptismin the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ask Avram for Mt. 28:19–Father, Son & Holy Spirit?

  96.  The formula found in Mt. 28:19 (baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the HolySpirit) is not authentic, but false. It was changed by the Roman Catholic Church in the days of Constantine(4th century). The Apostles always baptized in the name of Yeshua (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16, 36, 38; 9:18;10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16). For an article on how Mt. 28:19 originally didn’t speak of baptismin the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ask Avram for Mt. 28:19–Father, Son & Holy Spirit?

  97.  Religious meaning that they shouldn’t do it to follow what’s written in Gen. 17:10-14 and/or Ex. 12:43-49 orbecause they think that it would strengthen their faith, or be a cause for unity, or that it would glorify Jesus,etc. Those who proclaim and/or practice this teaching are under a spirit of deception. They’ve opened a doorinto spiritual darkness and are in danger of losing their salvation.

    Of course, there have been many Gentile baby boys that were circumcised at birth, or three days later, oreight days later, etc., but unless their circumcision was done as an act of entering into the Abrahamiccovenant, it didn’t make it a covenantal circumcision. In other words, if one was circumcised for medicalreasons, or their parents’ thought that it was a good idea to have, etc., it doesn’t make it the theologicalcircumcision of Abraham, no more than salt, looking exactly like sugar, becomes sugar because of its looks.

    There are tribes in Africa, etc., that practice circumcision as a cultural and/or religious-covenantal rite, forcircumcision predates Father Abraham. Also, Muslims circumcise their 13 year old sons, following the agewhen Ishmael was circumcised (Gen. 17:24), but these don’t enter the realm of being done by Gentile be­lievers for obedience to Torah. When one of them comes to faith in the Jewish Messiah, they are cleansedfrom the theological meaning of their circumcision.

    Individual cases are just that. If the Holy Spirit leads a Gentile to be circumcised, that’s a matter of God di­recting an individual, who obviously, has some physical lineage to the House of Israel that he might not haveknown about. Teaching that all Gentiles should be circumcised, though, is a false and perverse doctrine.False, because obviously, there’s nothing in the New Testament to support Gentile circumcision; perversebecause it perverts both the Word of God and the Body of Messiah.

  98.   Another heresy has arisen in the Messianic/Hebrew Roots community that is closely related to Gentilecircumcision and that is Gentile conversion, where a Gentile seeks to become a Jew. This is an odious teach­ing and totally unscriptural (Acts 15:1-21; 1st Cor. 7:17-24; Gal. 1:6-9). In Judaism there is Gentile conver­sion, but this is just another instance of rabbinic folly. In Scripture there is not one instance of a Gentile be­coming a Jew. In other words, Gentiles becoming proselytes is a rabbinic fantasy. Ruth, the great grand­mother of King David, after aligning herself with Israel, was still called and seen as a Moabitess (Ruth 4:5,10). If Gentile circumcision is a false theological teaching, how much more so, Gentile conversion, whichobviously entails circumcision for the Gentile and also has no Scripture to support it? In other words, Godnever says in the Old (or the New) that a Gentile becomes a Jew. What spiritual need is there on the part of aGentile ‘to convert’ to being a Jew, when the Gentile is already ‘one’ with Israel in Messiah Yeshua (Rom.11:13f; Eph. 2:11-22)?

  99.  This whole phrase, from ‘dogs’ to ‘mutilation,’ refers to those who wanted to circumcise the Gentile. Thefirst part of the quote speaks directly against Gentile circumcision. The Apostle never modifies his stance forany supposed need to keep the Passover or Torah.

  100.  It’s not as though I can’t sympathize with Tim Hegg and others who teach Gentile circumcision. It seems sological. It was in the mid 1980s when I first began to wrestle with this issue. As much as I imagined that itwas right for the Gentile to be physically circumcised to comply with Torah I found only passages in theNew Testament that prohibited it, and so, I realized that Gentile circumcision wasn’t what the Lord wanted,as this paper brings out.
    On the other hand, the issue of the Jewish believer continuing to circumcise his sons is upheld in the NewTestament (Acts 16:1-3; 21: 20-24; 1st Cor. 7:17-19). This is because the Jew is still part of the covenant ofcircumcision that God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the Gentile is not. When a Jew, such as my­self, is circumcised on the eighth day of his life, and then comes into the New Covenant with its circumcision of the heart, God’s Word is literally fulfilled yet another time. In Dt. 30:6 God says that He will circum­cise the heart of Israel. I am a living witness to that. The Gentile, however, not having been a part of thecovenant of circumcision must not be physically circumcised for any alleged theological, spiritual or biblicalreason. As illogical as “Jew ‘yes,’ Gentile ‘no’” might seem, it’s actually supra-logical or as I would say, it’sthe Hebraic Perspective. God can transcend logic. It’s up to us to obey Him whether we understand or not.

Email Avram — avramyeh@netvision.net.il

|ARTICLES| |MAIN PAGE|