Lots of problems with this and coming from the Old Testament no less. I had Grok pin down my first one coming from the details of circumcision no less. Just not having no circumcision for Passover is a big deal no less, besides all the other stuff it did if we are going to be picky about being "Biblical", and doing so when the New Testament is in it's earliest stages of infancy being but a tiny fetus in the womb no less! Acts 15 just on circumcision makes sense that no festivals are required, like the precedents that eventually led to "Noahism" in later Talmudic Judaism.
(Grok writing to me on a detailed inquiry)
Here’s a focused, detailed breakdown you can use as the first major item in your reply. Circumcision is not a minor ritual that Acts 15 simply “hand-waves.” In the Old Testament it is the covenant
sign, a boundary marker for the people, a requirement for Passover, and tied to access to sacred space.
Core Old Testament Commandments on Circumcision
1. Genesis 17:9–14 (the foundational text) God establishes circumcision as the sign of the everlasting covenant with Abraham and his offspring:
- Every male among you shall be circumcised.
- It is the token/sign of the covenant between God and them.
- Eighth day for those born in the household.
- Includes home-born slaves and those bought with money from foreigners.
- The uncircumcised male “shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
This is not optional or secondary. Failure brings
karet (being cut off from the covenant people). The covenant is marked “in your flesh as an everlasting pact.”
2. Leviticus 12:3 In the context of purification after childbirth: “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” This simply restates and embeds the Genesis command into the ongoing life of Israel under the Law of Moses.
3. Exodus 12:43–49 (Passover regulations) This is the critical link to the festivals:
- No foreigner may eat the Passover.
- A slave bought with money may eat after he is circumcised.
- A sojourner or hired servant may not.
- If a stranger sojourns among you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, “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. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”
- One law for the native-born and the stranger.
Circumcision is the explicit gateway to eating the Passover lamb. No circumcision = barred from the central covenant meal that commemorates redemption.
4. Joshua 5:2–9 Before Israel celebrates Passover in the land, Joshua circumcises the entire wilderness generation that had not been circumcised. The place is named Gilgal because the Lord “rolled away the reproach of Egypt.” Circumcision is treated as necessary preparation for proper covenant life and Passover in the promised land.
5. Exodus 4:24–26 God seeks to kill Moses; Zipporah circumcises their son and the threat is averted. The narrative underscores how seriously neglect of the sign is taken.
What else does circumcision do?
- Covenant membership marker: It is the physical sign that distinguishes the covenant people. Being uncircumcised puts one outside the people (Gen 17:14).
- Passover access: Explicitly required (Ex 12). This is not a minor detail. Passover is one of the three pilgrimage festivals and the foundational redemption meal.
- Temple / sanctuary access: Ezekiel 44:7–9 is direct. God condemns Israel for bringing foreigners who are “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” into His sanctuary, calling it an abomination that breaks the covenant and defiles the temple. The rule is stated: “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh shall enter My sanctuary.” In Second Temple practice this played out spatially: the Court of the Israelites was for circumcised Jewish males; uncircumcised men remained in the outer Court of the Gentiles.
Heart circumcision language (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26) exists, but it does not cancel the physical requirement in the texts above. The physical sign remains obligatory under the old covenant administration.
Why this matters against Soyeong’s framing
Acts 15 does not treat circumcision as a temporary or progressive “starter” item that Gentiles will later adopt. The council, with the Holy Spirit, decides that circumcision is
not to be required of Gentile believers. The four stipulations are the decision; they do not include circumcision, and the letter does not present the four as incomplete.
If circumcision is the covenant sign, the gateway to Passover, and tied to sanctuary access, then removing the requirement for Gentiles has structural consequences. You cannot keep the full Torah-observance system intact for Gentile believers once the foundational boundary marker has been set aside by apostolic authority. Claiming that Acts 15 only settled “salvation by circumcision” while leaving the rest of the Torah binding for Gentiles does not solve the problem—Passover and temple participation are precisely where the Torah itself makes circumcision non-negotiable.
This is the devil in the details. Circumcision is not a side issue that can be bracketed off while festivals and other commandments remain binding in the same way. The Old Testament itself binds them together.
Pavel Note In the Near Eastern cultural background of the Old Testament, circumcision carried additional resonance with Israel’s calling to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).
Some ancient sources and modern scholarship note that circumcision was practiced in Egypt and appears to have held particular significance among priestly (and in some periods royal) circles, often linked to ritual purity and initiation into sacred service. Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, already associated the practice strongly with the Egyptians and noted its connection to their religious concerns for cleanliness. In certain Egyptian contexts it seems to have functioned more as an elite or priestly marker.
Against that backdrop, the biblical application of circumcision to
every male in Israel is striking: the covenant sign is given to the whole people, not reserved for a priestly caste. This fits the vocation announced in Exodus 19:6—Israel as a kingdom of priests—rather than a system in which only a specialized group bears the mark of consecration.
Pavel Note In the Near Eastern cultural background of the Old Testament, circumcision carried additional resonance with Israel’s calling to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).
S
ome ancient sources and modern scholarship note that circumcision was practiced in Egypt and appears to have held particular significance among priestly (and in some periods royal) circles, often linked to ritual purity and initiation into sacred service. Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, already associated the practice strongly with the Egyptians and noted its connection to their religious concerns for cleanliness. In certain Egyptian contexts it seems to have functioned more as an elite or priestly marker.
Against that backdrop, the biblical application of circumcision to every male in Israel is striking: the covenant sign is given to the whole people, not reserved for a priestly caste. This fits the vocation announced in Exodus 19:6—Israel as a kingdom of priests—rather than a system in which only a specialized group bears the mark of consecration.
