Did Paul Teach The Jews to Forsake Moses Regarding Circumcision or Anything Else?

This sounds like a simple question but the answer to this question is quite convoluted and involves concepts that most of us twenty first century Christians are really not too familiar with.

Background to Gentile Non-Circumcision

Many Christians don't really understand how important the subject of circumcision was and still is for Jews. As Genesis 17 shows, to a Jew (then and now) circumcision is all about being a descendent of Abraham, their identity and Israelite citizenship. You might say:

To a Jew circumcision is like a passport.

The Physical Circumcision of Abraham's Descendents is an Everlasting Requirement

Today many people espouse the view that circumcision is part of the Old Covenant and is "done away". Now, they say, under the New Covenant, "circumcision is of the heart". But careful review of the scriptures shows that twice in Genesis 17 God's circumcision covenant with Abraham is declared to be "everlasting". Critics say "everlasting" in a "spiritual" sense (whatever that means)? Yes. In a physical sense? No. Yet long after the concept that "circumcision should be of the heart" was explained in Deuteronomy, we see in Joshua 5: God commanding the original covenant of physical circumcision to be reinforced. Why did God command this if everyone was "circumcised in their hearts"?

Arguably the physical obligations under the Genesis 17 covenant have always been "everlasting", just as God said they were, and when scripture advocates being "circumcised of the heart", it means we should strive to be like Abraham, not simply through physical descendence, but by being likeminded in character with the "Friend of God". Trying to behave like Abraham behaved, is an additional requirement on Jews and Christians (gentile or Jew) alike, but it was never intended to replace the "everlasting" physical element of the Genesis 17 covenant, presumably because it enables God to demonstraby prove that He can be always counted on to keep His side of an agreement, which was in this case to give Abraham an extraordinarily large number of descendents: who are identifiable as such precisely because they are circumcised!

Paul Did Not Encourage Jews Not To Circumcise Their Sons

Nowhere in scripture can Paul be shown to be encouraging Jews not to circumcise their sons. The subject of the conference of Acts 15 is whether gentiles (not Jews) should be circumcised, because scripture unequivocally shows that for a gentile proselyte to keep Passover they must be circumcised in accordance with the "law of Moses" (Exodus 12:48)). However something had definitely changed, because God had directed that Cornelius be baptised without being circumcised in Acts 10.

God Revokes His Command in Exodus 12:48

This direct revokation by God of His original command in Exodus 12:48 (and that is very clearly what it was), created enormous dissent within the first century Church. After all, the Jews have always seen the written Torah-law as a great blessing and unlike most Christians, they don't dismiss lightly what Malechi the prophet wrote:

Malechi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change; NKJV and;

Malechi 4:4 "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, With the statutes and judgments. NKJV

Clearly, Uncircumcised Gentiles Were Being Given God's Spirit

Despite this, in the same way that God had made it perfectly clear to Peter by giving the uncircumcised Cornelius and members of his household the ability to speak in tongues, Peter had absolutely no doubt that even as an uncircumcised gentile, Cornelius had been given God's Spirit. Similarly, Paul and Barnabus had presumably seen many Gentiles exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit about which Paul wrote in Galatians 5:22 and also supernatural gifts about which he also wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, in just the same way that Peter had witnessed them. So to Peter, Paul and Barnabus, what they'd seen signaled the beginning of what many Old Testament prophecies had prophecied for many centuries, that the doors for the large scale calling of gentiles were now open. They realised that as God had shown them with Cornelius' baptism, to compell the large number of gentiles now being called to be circumcised, would simply defeat the presumably intended purpose of circumcision under the Genesis 17 covenant, which was to show how God was blessing Abraham's physical descendents. Until Cornelius, the circumcision of the occasional gentile proselyte was to be on an exceptional basis. After Cornelius, it became a whole different matter.

Non Circumcision of Gentile Proselytes - Biggest Doctrinal Controversy in The Church

So, it's no small wonder that the baptism of Cornelius without him being circumcised became the single biggest doctrinal controversy for the church, without exception. Paul wrote at great length on the subject in his epistle to the church at Rome and the vast majority of what he wrote to the Galatians was to address this controversy. Quite understandably there were some individuals in the church who became known as "those of the circumcision", who would not believe that God had changed the Exodus 12:48 ruling, and would not let the issue alone. Demonstrably even though Paul always called uncircumcised gentile proselytes "brethren", some of the more traditional Jewish elements within the church remained more exclusivist in their view.

Did Paul Preach That Jews Should No Longer Be Circumcised ?

At no time then, did Paul or any first century minister preach that Jews should not be circumcised. He did however, preach that gentile proselytes no longer needed to be circumcised prior to baptism in acordance with Exodus 12:48. This was and remains the only recorded instance where Paul can be proven to have preached anything which opposed the written Torah-law.

Amazingly enough, it seems as though many christians believe that only a few verses after Malechi had reminded Israel to remember the law of Moses and the Statutes and Judgements, that Christ came along and did away with it all.

Frankly to a Jewish nation which had spent many decades in Babylonian captivity because of their failure to keep the Law of God, that concept was inconceivable. Ever since their return from Babylonian exile the religeous elite had actually gone completely into the other ditch and added more and more legislation - the oral-torah law, which ultimately became codified in the Talmudic traditions and additions to the writtent torah-law. It was these "customs" that Paul was accused of teaching the Jews to foresake. Because of his background as a Pharisee, Paul understood the oral torah-law particularly well, but he also knew that the oral Torah-law was an illegal addition to the written Torah-law because of Deuteronomy 4:2 which states:

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. NKJV

Paul understood that since the customs of the oral Torah-law contravened this basic principle, it brought Pharisaic Jews under the "curse of the law" in Deuteronomy 27:26" , so Paul, like Christ, had a lot of criticism for the oral-Torah law.

Don't Believe This Website, Believe the Bible

Because these questions are such important subjects, as a matter of principle, please question everything that we're going to cover. In fact don't believe us (or anyone else for that matter) believe the Bible. Decide for yourself, how our arguments stack up or fail to stack up, like the Bereans did:

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. NKJV

Return to the start of Paul's Post Crucifixion Temple Sacrifices a Judianity website ?
© www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info March 2006.

One small & predictable change to an "Old Testament" law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts, caused massive turmoil in the predominantly Jewish first century church. If most of the "law of Moses" really has been "done away with" by Paul in Galatians; why then isn't any comparable degree of unrest recorded in the New Testament?