Both Acts Chapter Fifteen and Acts Chapter Twenty-One show us that the Apostle Shaul continued to teach physical circumcision. However, since Shaul’s writings are so easily misunderstood (2 Kefa 3:15-17), some readers will still wonder what certain passages of Shaul’s writings actually mean.

While we do not have space to address all of the common misunderstandings about Shaul’s writings here, one of his more commonly misunderstood passages is found in Romans Chapter Four:

Does this passage suggest that physical circumcision is no longer required? No, it does not. What it says is that Avraham was brought into Covenant before he became physically circumcised. YHWH only required him to physically circumcise himself as a seal (or a sign) of that Covenant.

Notice verse twelve:

 

 

 

Avraham is the father of physical circumcision not only to those whose forefathers were physically circumcised (i.e. the Jews), but also to those whose forefathers were uncircumcised (i.e. the Gentile Ephraimites). Avraham is the father of the requirement of physical circumcision to both of these parties.

What Shaul says is that no matter whether one’s parents were circumcised or not, as long as one begins walking in Avraham’s footsteps (by believing, as he did), then one can be brought into the Covenant (as Avraham was). Then, once one has been brought into the Covenant, one can physically circumcise oneself (as Avraham did); and thereby receive the seal (or the sign) of righteousness.

Physical circumcision is only the seal, the mark, or the sign of righteous belief. Such a mark does not lead to Salvation, or else the Muslim people would also be heirs to the Covenant (as they circumcise their sons at thirteen years of age). However, while such marks (or signs) are not the cause of Salvation, they are by no means unimportant (or no longer required).

Next we should look at Galatians, one of Shaul’s most misunderstood letters. In this letter, Shaul uses the term ‘circumcision’ as a poetic reference to the House of Judah (and the term ‘uncircumcision’ as a reference to the House of Ephraim):

 

 

 

This passage does not say that the Apostles intended that Shaul’s students were to remain physically uncircumcised. Rather, Shaul was to go to those whose forefathers had been historically uncircumcised (i.e. Ephraim), and bring them back into the Covenant (which calls for physical circumcision).

Then, three chapters later we come to Galatians Five, which is perhaps the most misunderstood of all of Shaul’s writings:

 

 

 

Does Shaul say that if we become physically circumcised, Messiah’s sacrifice will profit us nothing? No, he does not. Both Scripture and the writings of the Church Father Epiphanius tell us that the Nazarenes continued to practice physical circumcision. Therefore, there must be another meaning.

 

The secret to understanding Galatians Five is to remember that the word Circumcised is a reference to The Circumcision; that group of ‘believing Pharisees’ (i.e. believing Orthodox Jews) who thought that the works of their own hands saved them.

If The Circumcision believed that Yeshua was the Messiah, but still they believed that they were justified (i.e. ‘saved’, verse 4) by works of the Law, then they were not trusting in Yeshua’s sacrifice; and if that was the case, then yes, it literally profited them nothing.

Remembering also that The Circumcision (i.e. the believing Pharisees/Orthodox Jews) believed that the rabbinical rulings also constitute ‘Torah Law’, Galatians Five might well be paraphrased:

 

 

Does this passage say that we should never become physically circumcised? No it does not. Rather, it says we must be careful not to trust that it is the works of our own hands (with regard to the Torah) that leads to justification (Salvation). Salvation comes only by accepting Yeshua’s sacrifice.

Shaul spelled this out two chapters earlier, (in Galatians Three) but most scholars misunderstand Shaul’s use of the word justified:

Shaul does not say that the Covenant is a curse. Rather, what he says is that if you think you can justify (i.e. save) yourself by doing great works of the Law (like the Pharisees did/do), then you really are under a kind of a curse; because it is not possible for human beings to justify themselves before Elohim:

 

 

The curse Messiah came to set people free from was not the Torah, for we know that the Torah is a delight (e.g. Psalm 119). The curse Messiah came to set people free from was the rabbinic delusion that they could save themselves by the works of their own hands. Yet even though the Messiah came to set His people free from this delusion, The Circumcision (and others) did not understand:

 

 

Does Shaul suggest disregarding the Law? No: He only says that if righteousness comes through the works of men’s hands, then Messiah died in vain. Yet, despite Shaul’s warnings, The Circumcision still insisted on trying to justify (i.e. save) themselves by physical circumcision. Shaul likens this to mutilation:

If anyone had a reason to believe that the works of his own hands might save him, it was Shaul. In the eyes of the rabbis, his walk was blameless. And yet, after his Damascus experience, even he realized that trying to justify oneself before Elohim by cutting off one’s foreskin was utter foolishness. Without Yeshua’s sacrifice, one has nothing.

 

Another commonly misunderstood passage is Romans Two. The key here is the same as before: that Shaul uses the term ‘circumcised’ as a euphemism for the Jews, and the term ‘uncircumcised’ as a euphemism for the Ephraimites and Hellenized Jews:

 

While the Christian may believe that Shaul’s questions are rhetorical, they are actually quite pointed. While in theory the Orthodox Jews teach that one must keep all the Commandments, in practice the belief is that so long as one performs the ‘more important’ Commandments, one earns some leeway or ‘slack’ in the eyes of Elohim, so that others can be broken, if one desires.

The reason this kind of thinking prevails is that the Orthodox rabbis teach that genetic Jews can earn their way to favor with Elohim through the works of their own hands. Since it is understood that no one can perform all the Commandments (especially in the absence of a Temple), many Jews believe that Elohim can be appeased by the performance of ‘enough’ of the ‘more important’ Commandments.

Orthodox Jews believe that so long as one is physically circumcised, keeps the Sabbath, the Feast days and certain of the rabbinic additions, he or she is doing ‘good enough’ before Elohim. Based on that, they feel they can do whatever else they want (since on the whole they are already justified before Elohim).

In verse twenty-five, Shaul tells us that physical circumcision is indeed profitable: but only if we do not use it as an excuse to break other parts of the Law (as we just described above):

The Church then suggests that the next two verses (twenty-six and twenty-seven) justify remaining physically uncircumcised; but we already know that this is impossible.

Remembering that the Orthodox Jews descend directly from the Pharisees, and that the Orthodox Jews reckon genetic lineage of the utmost importance, Shaul is only trying to say that since uncircumcised Ephraim is being brought back by the Messiah, family history is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not one keeps the Commandments right now.

In verse twenty-six, the ‘righteous requirements of the Law’ entail physical circumcision:

 

 

This next passage confuses many people, because Shaul is trying to be poetic (or perhaps ironic). What he really means is that the heart condition is the main thing; which is absolutely correct:

 

 

However, even while the heart condition is the main thing, physical circumcision profits:

Note clearly: Shaul says that even though the heart condition is the main thing, there is still an advantage to becoming physically circumcised.

Then in verse nineteen:

The phrase ‘under’ the Law means one who believes that he is saved (or justified) by works of Law:

Shaul points out that no one can be justified by the works of one’s hands; for justification (Salvation) only comes by believing on Elohim’s Son (to the point of obeying Him). Justification (Salvation) is of faith alone: not of works:

Shaul says that those who have performed the Law have no reason to be boastful, for the Law of Faith excludes their boasting.

If Salvation was due to works, they might have cause for boasting. However, when they understand that Salvation is not due to their own merit, but is a free gift that came from an election not their own, then there is no cause for such arrogance:

One is justified (saved) by one’s faith, apart from one’s deeds (or works) of Law. This, however, does not change the fact that once one becomes justified by faith, it then becomes one’s duty to keep the Covenant, regardless of whether one’s heritage is Jewish, or Gentile Ephraimite:

Shaul concludes that our faith does not do away with the need to keep the Law; it establishes the Law:

 

 

Christianity twists and contorts verse 31 beyond all recognition. Christian doctrine says that faith in Messiah Yeshua establishes the Law; and therefore their faith does not make the Law void. However, the fact that they have faith in Messiah Yeshua does make the Law void, even though Messiah Yeshua taught that He did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets:

 

 

 

Yeshua clearly said that He did not come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. Words do not get much plainer than these.

The Church, however, tells us that Acts Chapter Fifteen is where the Apostles ruled against the need for physical circumcision; and that in Galatians Five, Shaul tells us that physical circumcision denigrates Yeshua’s sacrifice to the point that it profits us nothing.

However, if Shaul actually taught that physical circumcision denigrates Yeshua’s sacrifice to the point that it profits us nothing, and if the Apostles actually ruled against physical circumcision in Acts Chapter Fifteen, then why did Shaul circumcise Timothy in Acts Chapter Sixteen? It was almost the next thing he did:

 

 

The Church teaches that Shaul denigrated Yeshua’s sacrifice for Timothy immediately following the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’ because Shaul was afraid of the Pharisees. This is ludicrous. Shaul had been raised as a Pharisee (an Orthodox Jew), and had shown himself more than willing to contend with the Pharisees on a number of occasions. He did not fear death, and he did not fear the Pharisees.

But if Shaul was not really the coward that the Church says he was, then what was Shaul’s true motivation for circumcising Timothy immediately after the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’ of Acts Chapter Fifteen?

What probably happened was that although the Apostles and elders had ruled that those coming closer to the Covenant technically had until the Passover to become physically circumcised, Shaul chose to circumcise Timothy right then and there, because he hoped to use Timothy in a ministerial capacity. If Timothy was going to minister Elohim’s Word, then he needed to be in compliance with that Word.

Furthermore, while the Jews that Shaul hoped to reach might listen to a formerly uncircumcised Greek Jew who was now in full compliance with the Torah, they would almost certainly have refused to hear any Good News coming from an uncircumcised man. Therefore, in order to make Timothy more effective as a minister, the best thing to do was just to go ahead and circumcise him.

 

But then, what about Titus? Does not Shaul tell us that not even Titus was compelled to become Circumcised? Yes, he does; but once again we must remember that the word is used as slang here. Not even Titus was compelled to join The Circumcision:

 

5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you. [Galatians 2:1-5]

 

Remember that the Book of Galatians is all about The Circumcision: those believing Pharisees who continued to believe that the rabbinical rulings were inspired. These tried to convince the returning Greeks (such as Titus) that Salvation depends upon keeping the rabbinical laws. However, even though Titus had Jewish blood, not even he was convinced that the rabbinical injunctions were required.

But then, what does Shaul mean in Colossians Two, about the ‘circumcision made without hands’? Does he mean that physical circumcision is no longer required? No, he does not. Notice the phrase ‘tradition of men’ in verse 8:

 

 

This passage is commonly used to suggest that the supposedly ‘new’ rite of immersion (or baptism) has done away with the need for physical circumcision. There are multiple problems with this thesis.

In the first place, immersion has long been a part of the Torah lifestyle. Yochanan HaMatbil’s (John the Immerser’s) mission was not so much to immerse people, as it was to get them to repent, and to turn their hearts back to Elohim. Since the Torah requires one to become ritually clean before coming before YHWH, Yochanan (John) used this as a symbol of repentance. The main thing, though, was the repentance itself.

In like manner, physical circumcision is only a seal (or a sign) of the submission of the flesh to Elohim. Physical circumcision itself is nothing: The only thing that is important is the keeping of Elohim’s Commands:

 

The Church uses this passage to suggest that since circumcision is nothing, the only Commandments that one should keep are the Two Great Commands, to love the Father, and to love one’s neighbor. However, as we have already seen, the Apostles kept all of the Bridegroom’s Torah.

We should take a look at the whole passage in context, remembering that the words ‘circumcised’ and ‘uncircumcised’ are used in a poetic sense; first as euphemisms for Judah and Ephraim, and then as symbols of the callings of the Two Houses:

 

 

 

We do not have room to detail all of Shaul’s misunderstood and misapplied writings here.  However, it should be clear that while Shaul taught that the heart of the Law was the main thing, never did he suggest that the letter of the Law was unimportant. Neither did he teach against the customs and traditions of the Patriarchs, which have always held a place of central importance in the Patriarchal Hebrew mind.