Dropping Circumcision as a requirement for Christianity in the Early Church

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This was a big change

Why was it implemented?

What was the rationale?

Does it have implications for groups of people who do not fit in our perception of what a Christian must be today?


Here is one rationale:

Acts 15; Galatians 2:1–3; 5:1–11; 6:11–16; 1 Corinthians 7:17–20; Colossians 2:8–12; and Philippians 3:1–3. As these passages proclaim, being delivered from our sins is the result of faith in Christ; it is Christ’s finished work on the cross that saves, not the observance of an external rite. Even the Law acknowledged that circumcision alone was insufficient to please God, who specified the need to “circumcise your hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16; cf. Romans 2:29). In salvation, the works of the flesh accomplish nothing (see Galatians 2:16).

Yet, this rationale has serious implications for baptism/the Eucharist, unless they are, indeed regenerative. If these sacraments are not regenerative, i see no reason to engage in them based on the same reasoning.

Comments?
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
i note that circumcision was "dropped" on paper, as it were; but i am still circumcised nonetheless lol

to put that another way, i was more or less forced into, or made the object of an observance of the Law; by ppl who would have vehemently denied being under the law, and even get offended about it today when i bring it up
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truth

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Sacraments are not based on the same reasoning, but the incarnation principle.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who said Circumcision as a requirement for Christianity in the Early Church was dropped?. not of the flesh, yes, but was not Circumcision of the heart required by God with the church in the wilderness? scripture, Deuteronomy 10:12 "And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward".

the Circumcision of the Heart, this have always been a requirement, before the law and after, even until now, for God is Spirit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Who said Circumcision as a requirement for Christianity in the Early Church was dropped?. not of the flesh, yes, but was not Circumcision of the heart required by God with the church in the wilderness? scripture, Deuteronomy 10:12 "And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward".

the Circumcision of the Heart, this have always been a requirement, before the law and after, even until now, for God is Spirit.
Circumcision of the heart is certainly true, but it went with physical circumcision the Jews were obligated to follow. The norm was for 8 day old baby boys. Deuteronomy 10:12 does not cancel out the requirement. It's not a false dichotomy of "either/or" but "both/and".

There was a great controversy over circumcision in the early church, and the matter was infallibly settled at the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Circumcision of the heart is certainly true, but it went with physical circumcision the Jews were obligated to follow. The norm was for 8 day old baby boys. Deuteronomy 10:12 does not cancel out the requirement. It's not a false dichotomy of "either/or" but "both/and".

There was a great controversy over circumcision in the early church, and the matter was infallibly settled at the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15.
Jews, Jews? listen, Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God".

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
There was a great controversy over circumcision in the early church, and the matter was infallibly settled at the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15.
ha but Catholics all still get physically circumcised nonetheless, right. Most Prots too, i guess?
sounds good though. another doctrine to put on a little plaque, and hang on the wall lol
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jews, Jews? listen, Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God".

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
That has nothing to do with my post. Jews were required to be physically circumcised. Circumcision of the heart is a spiritual matter; no one can look at a Jew and tell if his heart was circumcised. But circumcision as a requirement was done away with at the infallible Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, by the decision of the Apostles and elders.

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant – Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

There were no disputes over the doctrine of baptism for 15 centuries. Even Luther and Calvin baptized infants. Denial of baptismal regeneration (a circumcision of the heart if you will) is a tradition of men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Truth

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2017
1,737
1,797
113
70
AZ, Quartzsite
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This was a big change

Why was it implemented?

What was the rationale?

Does it have implications for groups of people who do not fit in our perception of what a Christian must be today?


Here is one rationale:

Acts 15; Galatians 2:1–3; 5:1–11; 6:11–16; 1 Corinthians 7:17–20; Colossians 2:8–12; and Philippians 3:1–3. As these passages proclaim, being delivered from our sins is the result of faith in Christ; it is Christ’s finished work on the cross that saves, not the observance of an external rite. Even the Law acknowledged that circumcision alone was insufficient to please God, who specified the need to “circumcise your hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16; cf. Romans 2:29). In salvation, the works of the flesh accomplish nothing (see Galatians 2:16).

Yet, this rationale has serious implications for baptism/the Eucharist, unless they are, indeed regenerative. If these sacraments are not regenerative, i see no reason to engage in them based on the same reasoning.

Comments?

Circumcision was only a covenant to Abraham for the Land Israel proper. when any of the Israelite's were circumcised it was a sign before God that they were partakers of that covenant, this is why Paul was against it, Salvation had nothing to do with the land of Israel. and in the end all the earth will be Our Savior's Kingdom! Also this practice of circumcision has been found to be a benefit, for Hygiene for males, God knew! lol
 

Truth

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2017
1,737
1,797
113
70
AZ, Quartzsite
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
i note that circumcision was "dropped" on paper, as it were; but i am still circumcised nonetheless lol

to put that another way, i was more or less forced into, or made the object of an observance of the Law; by ppl who would have vehemently denied being under the law, and even get offended about it today when i bring it up

Its OK, there is a majority of male's that were fixed without their consent, the medical field found it to be Hygienic!!! lol
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Circumcision was only a covenant to Abraham for the Land Israel proper. when any of the Israelite's were circumcised it was a sign before God that they were partakers of that covenant, this is why Paul was against it,
Is that why Paul circumcised Timothy? Acts 16:3
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is that why Paul circumcised Timothy? Acts 16:3
Of course not many details are available, but it does appear that Paul did effectively the same thing in this instance that he accused Peter of doing in Gal 2: 11-21.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Of course not many details are available, but it does appear that Paul did effectively the same thing in this instance that he accused Peter of doing in Gal 2: 11-21.
I don't think its the same at all. Paul circumcised Timothy, IMO, so he would be accepted by the Jews. It was unthinkable to them at that stage in the Infant Church for circumcision to be unnecessary. It took a council to straighten out the controversy.
Paul did not exhort Peter for his teaching, but for his behavior. They had no theological differences. Popes are not above reproach, they have been corrected at other times in history.
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't think its the same at all. Paul circumcised Timothy, IMO, so he would be accepted by the Jews. It was unthinkable to them at that stage in the Infant Church for circumcision to be unnecessary. It took a council to straighten out the controversy.
Paul did not exhort Peter for his teaching, but for his behavior. They had no theological differences. Popes are not above reproach, they have been corrected at other times in history.
Thank you for your kindly answer. Since we do not know more it could be just as you say with regard to Timothy. The two incidents are both mentioned in scripture and could help us see the necessity of growth to according to God's plan.