Circumcision: Has it Passed Away?

Many today believe that circumcision is no longer necessary. Christians simply write it off as being part of the Old Testament that has passed away. However, there are also many amongst the Messianic/Hebrew Roots crowd that believe circumcision has not necessarily been done away with, but rather replaced. Are they correct, or are the Christians? Perhaps the Jews? What if they’re all slightly off? That is what we’ll look at in this study.

First, let’s discuss the leading theories. Christianity, as mentioned above, has pretty much entirely thrown out circumcision because it was part of the “Old Testament Law.” Judaism teaches circumcision only of Jews. This means that anyone that is Jewish should be circumcised, as well as anyone who wants to convert to Judaism. In fact, the Talmud (Jewish Oral tradition and additional laws, written by the Rabbis throughout history) even states that before a man can convert, he MUST be circumcised. Even if he has already been circumcised, he still must have blood drawn in a commemoratory sense from his privates in order to convert. Seems excessive, no? Even within Messianic and Hebrew Roots circles, many today are saying circumcision is either no longer necessary because it was merely physical, or that it has been replaced by baptism. The latter is primarily what this study will focus on. If you have read any of my articles before you should already know my positions on Christian teaching as well as teachings of Judaism.

To begin, let’s talk about the main “anti-circumcision” theories. First, there is the belief that circumcision is no longer necessary because it is merely physical. People that believe this believe it was a physical commandment meant to teach the spiritual; therefore, since we have the Torah on our hearts, it is now about circumcision of the heart, not the flesh. For this, they typically cite two primary verses.

Deuteronomy 10:16, “16So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.”

Romans 2:28-29, “28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from Elohim.”

So this theory purports that since circumcision of the heart is included with the Torah now being written on our hearts, it no longer a “physical” sign. This theory requires something else to be true in order for it to hold up: the belief that the Torah was not written on the hearts of men during “Old Testament” times. But was it? It is true that it was Yahweh’s will for mankind to have a circumcised heart from the very beginning, as we read above. It is also true that it was His will for mankind to have the Torah written on their hearts.

Jeremiah 31:33, “33But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares Yahweh, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’”

Jeremiah 31 is quoted throughout the book of Hebrews as well. It is said that since Jeremiah recorded Yahweh saying “After those days” it means after the time of The Messiah. They say that since it means AFTER the time of Yeshua, THEN He would write His Torah on our hearts. But believe it or not, there is evidence of Torah being on the heart BEFORE Yeshua died.

Psalm 40:8, “8I delight to do Your will, O my Elohim; Your Law (Torah) is within my heart.”

Psalm 119:11, “11Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.”

Isaiah 51:7, “7Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law (Torah); Do not fear the reproach of man, Nor be dismayed at their reviling.”

Well there appears to be a problem here. Apparently King David already had the Torah in his heart. If it was possible for David, it was possible for others at that time as well. 


Deuteronomy 6:5 even says, “6These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.” So I guess we can lay that one to rest.

The second issue to address is the belief that circumcision has been replaced by baptism. This is usually said to explain why Paul seemingly taught that physical circumcision has passed away.

1 Corinthians 7:18-20, “18Was any man called [while] circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in un-circumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing, and un-circumcision is nothing, but [what matters is] the keeping of the commandments of Elohim. 20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.”

There are a couple more verses from Paul that we will read in just a moment. But consider this: if Paul is REALLY saying that the requirement (commandment) to circumcise is not to be observed, then WHY does he say (in the very next verse) that what matters is the keeping of the commandments of Elohim? The command to circumcise your sons on the eighth day IS a commandment of Elohim. That alone should tell us that something else is going on here. Let’s continue with Paul.

Galatians 6:15, “15For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”

Philippians 3:2-4, “2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers,beware of the false circumcision; 3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of Elohim and glory in Messiah Yeshua and put no confidence in the flesh, 4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more.”

Galatians 5:11, “11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the stake has been abolished.”

Romans 2:26-27, “26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?”

We’re kind of seeing the issue here, right? Surely as many times as Paul says that circumcision does not profit, we should be clear about the issue. But is it possible that we are misunderstanding the issue entirely? For the rest of this study, we’ll examine circumcision throughout Scripture, and then, lastly, we’ll re-examine the Pauline writings above.

The first recorded instance of circumcision is in Genesis 17.

Genesis 17:9-14: “9Elohim said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11“And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12“And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13“A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14“But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Now we notice here that Abraham already knew what circumcision was. Indeed, we do not find Yahweh saying, “Oh, by the way, this is what circumcision is, and this is how you do it.” But what I really want to point out here is verse 11, where Elohim says, “It shall be  the sign of the covenant…” Now, if you have already read my article, “The Sabbath: Sign of the Covenant,” then you already know that the Sabbath was the sign between Yahweh and His people. So was it changed? Was it at one time circumcision, and then later changed to Sabbath? Well, why can it not be both? Both are symbols and observances to show (outwardly) our obedience to The Creator. Elohim also created the sun, moon and stars to be for “signs” in Genesis 1. Are we to believe that those ceased to be signs once circumcision was the sign given to Abraham? Of course not.

So we have Abraham being commanded to circumcise his descendants (on the eighth day) and we find this commandment being restated in the rest of the Torah.

Leviticus 12:1-3, “1Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.’”

So now that we have the commandment established, let’s look at another example.

Joshua 5:2-4, “2At that time Yahweh said to Joshua, “Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time.” 3So Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. 4This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way after they came out of Egypt. 5For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6For the sons of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, that is, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished because they did not listen to the voice of Yahweh, to whom Yahweh had sworn that He would not let them see the land which Yahweh had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.”

So we find that the generation that Joshua led had not been circumcised in the desert, so they now had to be circumcised BEFORE they could settle the land. What is also interesting is what we find beginning in verse 10. Here we are told they observed Passover. Passover was commanded in Exodus 12, and one of the stipulations is that NO ONE who is uncircumcised may eat of it. So Joshua had to make sure they were all circumcised BEFORE it was time for Passover.

Up to this point we have read that the commandment was issued both to Abraham AND (through Moses) to ALL of Israel. Let’s look to Yeshua’s example, as we know He is our example.

Luke 2:21-24, “21And when eight days were completed for His circumcision, His name was called Yeshua, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. 22And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to Yahweh 23(as it is written in the Law of Yahweh, “EVERY FIRSTBORN MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO YAHWEH”), 24and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of Yahweh, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.”

(*NOTE: Most translations read, “And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision…” yet this is incorrect. The actual Greek phrase is, Kai hote eplesthesan hemerai okto tou peritemein auton, which is literally “And when were fulfilled days eight for the circumcising of Him…” As you can tell, the Greek preposition pro (before) is not there, so the word “before” should not be in the sentence at all.*)

Yeshua was not the only one to be circumcised in that time. Even Paul, as he admits in Philippians, was circumcised on the eighth day.

Philippians 3:5, “Circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee.”

So, back to our original statements, was Paul teaching against circumcision of the flesh? Let’s read Acts 21.

Acts 21:17-21: “17After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which Elohim had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20And when they heard it they began glorifying Elohim; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.”

So Paul and companions arrive in Jerusalem and go to speak with James and the other elders. Paul relates the good news of how well his ministry was going. The elders then respond by saying that the Jews have heard that Paul is teaching to not circumcise and to forsake Moses. Now, to forsake Moses does not mean the literal person, as he was long since dead. It means to forsake the LAW (Torah) of Moses, which as we read in Luke 2 is also called the Law of Yahweh. The term is typically interchangeable. So what do we find the response to be in Acts 21?

Acts 21:22-25, “22“What, then? They [the Jews] will certainly hear that you have come. 23“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.”

The elders instructed Paul to go to the Temple and be purified along with some men who were finishing vows. But their statement in verse 24 is key. Paul was told to be purified with the men to prove to every that he agreed with the Torah, and “That there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you.” What had they been told about Paul? They had been told that he taught against circumcision and against the Torah, yet Paul goes to be purified at the Temple as a way to show that was NOT true. Not only that, but Paul himself even said that he believed everything in the Torah and the prophets.

Acts 24:14, “14However, I admit that I worship the Elohim of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.”

I’m not going to write it all here, but if you begin reading with the above section of Acts 21 (Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem) and continue through chapters 22 and 23, you’ll find something very interesting. Acts chapters 21 through 26 are actually in quick succession. That is, the story narrative runs very close together. Chapter 22 is merely a continuation of chapter 21. Chapter 23 is a continuation of 22, and so on. Once you get to chapter 27, however, you’ll notice that it is no longer a short period of time and continuation of the same narrative.

Put another way, we could say that chapters 21-26 do not actually need any chapter breaks, as they are merely telling the same story.

This is interesting primarily because these chapters contain the story of Paul’s time in prison and before governors and rulers and even the Sanhedrin. Upon careful study (and reading these chapters back-to-back) one will find that the incident of Paul defending himself in Acts 24 STARTED in Acts 21, when he was arrested. And he was arrested right AFTER he set out to do what the elders had advised him to do (be purified with the men). So we find that Paul is STILL being accused of teaching against the Torah (indeed, that was why he was arrested to begin with in Acts 21:27-28).

So now we have established how Acts actually shows Paul DENYING that he taught against circumcision, right? Beyond that, it shows him denying that he taught against ANY of the Torah. So no we’ll revisit his writings and see where the issue lies.

We’ll start with a brief explanation of how Paul used the terms “circumcision” and “uncicumcision” and then we’ll read Romans 2:26-27, as we read earlier.

Paul DOES speak of the physical act of circumcision, but he also uses the term to describe Jews. He calls Jews “those of the circumcision” in some writings because a lot of issues arose because the Jews were saying salvation could not be attained without circumcision. (See article “Acts 15: The Great Debate” for more on this). Ephesians 2:11 shows how Paul uses the term “circumcision” to describe the Jews, while the term “uncircumcision” is equated to gentiles. Titus 1:10 and Galatians 2:12 are other examples.

So with this in mind, let’s read Colossians 3:8-11:

“8But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— 11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Messiah is all, and in all."

No distinction between Jew and Greek?

Romans 10:12, “12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Master is Master of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.”

There again, no distinction between Jew and Greek. The reason for this is because in Messiah, there is no Jew and there is no Greek. There is only a child of Abraham.

Galatians 3:29, “29And if you belong to Messiah, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” 


The blood and DNA that is inside a person does not determine their status. Their obedience to Messiah is what determines whether they get into the Kingdom or not. So Paul’s statements about circumcision not profiting, is best summed up in Romans 2.

Romans 2:25, “25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become un-circumcision.”

Just like keeping the Sabbath does no good if you are cheating on your spouse. The point, as Paul tries to make clear in Galatians, is that the heart should be focused on obedience to Messiah, and not the commands and rules and laws of MAN. Paul goes round and round with the Galatian ekklesia about how some of them had forsaken the gospel for “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6).

We notice that Paul says, “If the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his un-circumcision be regarded as circumcision?” This statement does not, in any way, negate the value or requirement of circumcision.

Galatians 5:6, “6For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision nor un-circumcision has any strength, but belief working through love.” 


This means, yet again, that simply being circumcised will not save you. Just keeping the Sabbath will not save you. There is nothing that any person can do to obligate the Creator to let them into the Kingdom. However, through faithful obedience to our belief [faith], we are promised that we WILL make it into the Kingdom, so long as we “endure to the end” (See Matthew 24:13 & Mark 13:13).

This is the same argument that was started in Acts 15, when “Certain men” started teaching that circumcision was required for salvation. My personal belief is that it was this same group (who Paul refers to as “the circumcision”) that was spreading this false doctrine.

So back to 1 Corinthians 7, then. If a person is called in uncircumcision, they should not be circumcised, right? That’s what Paul says.

1 Corinthians 7:18-20, “18Was any man called [while] circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in un-circumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing, and un-circumcision is nothing, but [what matters is] the keeping of the commandments of Elohim. 20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.”

For starters, let’s ask the LOGICAL questions here. 1) How can one become “uncircumcised”? Now I’m no physician, but I’m fairly certain that back then in Paul’s time, plastic surgery wasn’t an option. So how would one “become” uncircumcised, if already circumcised? Next question. 2) How can Paul tell people if they are uncircumcised, that they should not be circumcised, and at the same time tell them to keep the commandments of Elohim? All the while he also defends himself (as we read in Acts) from accusations saying he did just that!

So what, then, IS Paul saying? Simply put, he is telling the Corinthian assembly that if they were called while “uncircumcised” (that is, gentiles) that they should not try to become “circumcised” (that is, Jews). And vice versa. The reason for this is, as we have read, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile in Messiah.

To say Paul is teaching that they should remain circumcised if they were called in that condition, or not if they weren’t, is the same as to say that if you were called while having a broken leg you should continue to have a broken leg. Continue on in this section of 1 Corinthians 7 and we find that he even reminds the slaves to not be bothered if they were called while slaves. This has nothing to do with a “physical” condition such as being circumcised or having a broken leg: it has to do with the condition of your life as a whole. If you’re free, don’t try to become a slave. If you’re a gentile, don’t try to become a Jew. This is the only thing that matches up with both the Tanakh and the writings in Acts that tell us Paul defended himself.

Galatians 5:11, “11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the stake has been abolished.”

Is Paul saying here that he IS being persecuted, and he does NOT preach circumcision? No! Rather, he is saying “Even though I still preach circumcision, I am STILL being persecuted.” I find this verse fairly self-explanatory.

Lastly, let’s go back over the Philippians example.

Philippians 3:2-4, “2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers,beware of the false circumcision; 3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of Elohim and glory in Messiah Yeshua and put no confidence in the flesh, 4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more.”

For starters, a lot of this refers simply to Paul himself. However, in verses 2 and 3 he makes mention of the “false circumcision” and that he himself (and other Believers) were the “true circumcision.” What is this “false circumcision”? We’ve already read about it. It is the teaching that circumcision dictates one’s salvation. This is what the Jews of Paul’s time were teaching and this is what Paul taught AGAINST. However, Paul NEVER taught against the act of circumcision, just as he never taught against ANY of the Torah. Rather, he himself called is “Holy and just and good” in Romans 7:12.

Lastly, what about baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of the covenant? I think it has been made clear throughout this writing that circumcision is very much “alive and well” and still relevant for Believers today. Baptism requires an article all of its own, though for now, let’s remember that “baptism” (or in the Hebraic sense, mikvah) was nothing “new” during the time of John. Rather, a simple reading through the Torah will show many instances of “baptism” such as every time the priests entered the tabernacle. Baptism after Yeshua is merely a “symbol” of the washing away of sin, in the same way that the “sins” were washed away from the priests over 3000 years ago. Does the water LITERALLY remove your sin? Of course not! But the symbolism and imagery is there to help you understand it.

I pray this study has blessed you. Be Berean. Shalom.