Circumcision in the Apostolic Scriptures

Introduction

This article is the second and last in this treatment of the issue of Genesis 17 circumcision as it is discussed in the Apostolic Writings. In the first article, I examined passages from the epistles that are commonly understood as teachings that abolish the Genesis 17 commandment of circumcision. There, I argued that for each passage there is at the very least a viable alternative interpretation, and that most of the alternative interpretations proposed fit the contexts of their respective passages better than the traditional interpretations.

However, one area I did not cover in that first section was the historical passages that document the behavior of the Apostles as pertains circumcision. Several passages are frequently appealed to by the Church at large as evidence that the Apostles ended the practice of circumcision among the believing community after the resurrection of Yeshua. Thus, the purpose of this article is to do for these historical passages what was done for the passages from the Epistles in the previous article – to carefully read each passage and observe if an alternative interpretation is reasonable, likely, or perhaps even rationally necessary.

Acts 15:1-10

The first question worth addressing in this passage is whether the statement of the Judean men in Acts 15:1 and the statement of the Christian Pharisees in Acts 15:5 are to be understood as carrying the same meaning. This will clarify whether verses 1 and 5 should be approached as two different uses of περιτέμνω (peritemno) or as two examples of a single use for interpretive purposes. Certainly, the superficial similarity of the two phrases makes it appear as though verses 1 and 5 both have the same meaning, and many interpreters take the statements of the Judeans and the Christian Pharisees to both mean something along the lines of Gentile Christians should keep the Torah, including the commandment of circumcision.¹ Since the Apostles rule against this position, the argument follows that Christians are not required to keep Torah.

Others such as Rob Vanhoff argue that the statement of the Judeans in verse 1 means something like, “Salvation is only accessible to the Circumcised, the Jews” and the statement of the Christian Pharisees in verse 5 is different, meaning “It is necessary for Gentiles to become proselytes.”² The idea that the Judeans and the Christian Pharisees might be articulating different positions is supported by the fact that there are subtle vocabulary choice differences between verse 1 and verse 5. For instance, the Judeans appeal to “the custom of Moses” (τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωϋσέως, (tow ethay tow Moseyos) but the Christian Pharisees want the Gentiles to observe “the Law of Moses” (τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως, ton nomon Moseyos.)

While the word ἔθει (ethay,) normally translated “custom,” does not ordinarily refer to the commandments of Scripture, there are a few occasions in Luke’s writings where it does, most prominently Luke 2:42.³ Further, the similar pattern of argument between verses 1 and 5 together with the fact that the Apostles offer a unified counterargument, as opposed to an argument opposing multiple points, suggests that the view of the Judeans and the view of the Christian Pharisees are at least similar enough for the Apostles to respond to both views with a single statement. This being the case it is correspondingly likely that both verses have the same use of περιτέμνω (peritemno.)

In this case, what use of περιτέμνω (peritemno) is in mind here? Most interpreters assume it is referring to the Genesis 17 commandment of circumcision, a view bolstered by the mention of “the Law of Moses” in connection with περιτέμνω (peritemno.) Although unlike many pronomian scholars I agree with the majority that these verses are likely a reference to Genesis 17 circumcision, there is a hermeneutical key to this passage that most interpreters overlook. In Acts 15:1, the claim of the men from Judea is that circumcision is a first-tier, salvation issue, that obedience to Genesis 17 precedes salvation.⁴ Then in verse 2, Paul and Barnabas depart for Jerusalem to consult the apostles concerning “this issue,” that is, the claim of the Judeans. In this way, the text directly tells us what the fundamental question put before the Jerusalem council was, the question “What must a Gentile do to be saved?”

In the council, there are two opinions represented on the matter. The opinion of some Christian Pharisees corroborates that of the men from Judea, that Torah observance precedes salvation.⁵ While the quote from the Pharisees in verse 5 does not include a limiting statement, and thus is traditionally read as if the Pharisees were advocating that Gentiles should keep Torah as opposed to not keeping it at all, the context of the Council is about soteriology (matters of salvation.) Since this is the question the Pharisees seek to answer, and since Luke wrote the comment “…you cannot be saved” in the comments of the Judeans only four verses prior, including a limiting statement in the quote from the Pharisees could be seen as redundant. Thus, its absence is not remarkable, and quite likely the Pharisees in verse 5 are articulating the view that Torah observance is a salvation issue.

This view is bolstered by the Apostolic response to the statement of the Christian Pharisees, which hinges on the fact that the Holy Spirit was poured out on Jew and uncircumcised, God-fearing Gentile alike. Peter knew that no one who is unsaved could have the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:7-8.) If Peter were arguing that Gentiles need not keep Torah at all, a point commonly inferred from verse 10, this would favor his case but not prove it. If however Peter is arguing that salvation is by faith alone, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of uncircumcised men proves his point absolutely, and refutes the argument of the Judeans and Pharisees that Torah observance is a salvation matter. If the matter of salvation is the focus of Peter’s argument, it follows that the “yoke” of verse 10 is the burden of keeping Torah for purposes of salvation as opposed to keeping the Torah in general.⁶

This understanding of the view that Peter is refuting is supported again by the conclusion of his argument, “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts 15:11, NASB 1995) If the conversation were about Torah observance in general, verse 10 would make a better concluding remark. If however Peter is arguing against the specific position that Torah observance is a salvation issue, the verse is the perfect summary of Peter’s creed, a concise statement of Sola Fide.

Likewise, the pattern of James’ argument is more consistent with the attributes of an argument against legalism (Torah observance for salvific merit,) than with those of an argument against pronomianism (Torah observance for post-salvation sanctification.) James says, “…it is my judgement that we do not trouble… the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19) but he does not state how or with what the Gentiles might be troubled. Traditionally this has been understood to be Torah observance, but as shown up to now the entire conversation is about the understanding of salvation, soteriology. Therefore, it makes better sense if James is saying not to trouble Gentile converts by making them conform to Genesis 17 (and the rest of Torah) before confessing Christ as Lord and becoming part of the Church.⁷

This interpretation of James’ words makes sense of the verse that is a difficulty for the traditional interpretation, Acts 15:21. The verse reads, “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” If James is arguing that Gentiles need not keep Torah altogether this statement makes little sense, but if James is advocating that Gentile believers in Yeshua should be embraced by the Church immediately, and that those converts should become increasingly Torah observant in the weeks, months, and years after being joined to Christ, verse 21 is a description for how that part of the Sanctification process could proceed.⁸

From this, it is clear that while Acts 15 speaks of Genesis 17 circumcision, the stance of the Apostles in the Jerusalem council is not necessarily negative. Indeed, careful reading of this passage shows that many of its features are consistent with the idea that the Apostles endorsed Torah observance, and thus circumcision inasmuch as it might be done in pursuit of obeying God’s word. What the Apostles condemned was any theology of salvation by works, and the Apostles lived out their belief in salvation by faith alone by encouraging the Church to welcome Gentiles who were not circumcised or lacked a developed understanding of Torah. Acts 15:21 makes it clear that James expected the Holy Spirit to perform its transformative work on the hearts of Gentile Christians so that they might become aware of and obey God’s commandments laid out in the Torah, but that this transformation properly comes after salvation by grace, not before.

Acts 21:21

In Acts 21, Paul meets with the elders of the Church in Jerusalem, where the elders glorify God for Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 21:19-20.) After this, the elders led by James make known to Paul some accusations which were spread about him in his absence, specifically that Paul was preaching an antinomian Gospel, “…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.” (Acts 21:21)

Given that this reference to circumcision speaks of Jews and talks of a physical ritual, this unambiguously refers to Genesis 17 circumcision, not a proselyte ritual or covenant member status. Thus, part of the charges against Paul were that he taught the abolition of Genesis 17, a position held by many Christians today.⁹

This passage is worth including not because it is difficult to understand, but because it makes an important point that many Christians overlook. The elders ask Paul to pay for four men “under a vow,” presumably Nazirites, to complete their vows in the Temple as a means of denying the charges against him, to prove that Paul endorsed the keeping of Torah and kept Torah himself (Acts 21:24.)

Contrary to what most Christians would expect (and possibly what many believers would do in the same situation,) Paul does what the elders ask without protest (Acts 21:26.) Thus, if Paul preached against circumcision as many argue he does in the Epistles, his behavior here would unquestionably constitute bearing false witness, as he would be lying about his convictions to all Jerusalem, performing the same sin for which Ananias and Sappira were struck dead by the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11.) This is incoherent within the narrative, as Luke does not condemn Paul in the same way he does Ananias and Sappira. From this it is best to conclude that Paul did not lie by denying the charges against him, but rather his affirmation that he was pronomian is in fact truthful.¹⁰ In this way, Acts 21 proves entirely on its own that the traditional antinomian interpretations of many of the passages covered in this article series must of necessity be incorrect as they contradict the theology that Paul affirmed before God and the Apostles, that he himself observed the Torah in his walk of sanctification, and taught others to do likewise.

Galatians 2:3-5 and Acts 16:3

These passages are discussed together because both describe scenarios that sound similar, but Paul’s response to the situation in Galatians is the exact opposite of his response in Acts. In both cases, Paul is under pressure from others to circumcise one of his associates, Titus in Galatians 2:3 and Timothy in Acts 16:3. What is most puzzling is that Paul makes it a significant point in Galatians to tell the Church about his refusal to have Titus circumcised, yet in Acts Paul circumcises Timothy without a word of protest recorded by Luke.

Ultimately, if we assume that both the accounts of Galatians and Acts are accurate and really happened, there are limited options for explaining Paul’s differing behavior:

1. Paul adapted to different circumstances, standing on principle with Titus but offering a conciliatory gesture with Timothy.
2. Paul changed his mind on the matter of circumcision in the time between these events.
3. Paul was mentally unstable, and did not notice his self-contradictory behavior.
4. The “circumcision” Paul refused for Titus was not the “circumcision” he accepted for Timothy, the same word is used with two different meanings.

Of these options, #3 is unlikely as Paul’s behavior is not characteristic of someone with mental health issues.¹¹ Option #2 requires a Progressive theory of the Gospel, though in this case it might be “Regressive” because Paul most likely circumcised Timothy after refusing to circumcise Titus.¹² Option #1 is problematic because if Genesis 17 circumcision is in view Paul’s behavior in Acts contradicts his own teaching in Galatians 2, and if a proselyte ritual is in view Paul’s behavior in Acts contradicts his teaching in Galatians 5:1-6.

Thus, the first three options all reduce themselves to absurdity. This leaves option #4, that the περιτέμνω (peritemno) form used in Acts 16:3 does not refer to the same thing as the περιτέμνω (peritemno) form of Galatians 2:3. In this case, the contexts of these respective passages offer some clue as to the respective meaning of each περιτέμνω (peritemno) form.

Defining the use of περιτέμνω (peritemno) in Galatians is the easier of the two, as Paul returns to the subject of Circumcision in Chapters 5 and 6 of Galatians. As shown in Part 1 of this article series, these instances use περιτέμνω (peritemno) and περιτομή (peritome) to refer to Jewish identity obtained by proselyte ritual. There is good reason to apply this meaning to Chapter 2 because Paul is using the example of his behavior with respect to Titus to illustrate how the Galatians should handle the demands of Paul’s Opposition: they should not yield to the Opposition’s insistence that they become proselytes, the same way that Paul refused to let his opposition in Jerusalem make Titus a proselyte. The similarities in vocabulary and situation make it very likely that the Opposition in Galatia wanted to do the same kind of περιτομή (peritome) on the Galatians that the false brothers wished to do to Titus in Jerusalem.¹³

Turning to Acts, the use of περιτέμνω (peritemno) rules out the alternate meaning of “covenant identity,” because there is some kind of physical ritual involved. This leaves the options of Genesis 17 circumcision or a proselyte ritual. Since both involve the surgical removal of the man’s foreskin, it is difficult to tell from the context of Acts 16 alone which meaning is in view. However, if the meaning is the same for περιτέμνω (peritemno) in both Acts 16:3 and Galatians 2:3 this forces a contradiction in Paul’s behavior. In other words, if Timothy underwent a proselyte ritual (the meaning of περιτέμνω (peritemno) in Galatians 2:3) Paul would have sinned in permitting this activity per his own words in Galatians 5:1-6.

Alternately, if the meaning of περιτέμνω (peritemno) in Acts 16:3 is Genesis 17 circumcision, Paul’s actions are perfectly consistent. He refused to permit Titus to undergo the anti-biblical ritual of a proselyte conversion in Galatians 2, but willingly obeyed the command of Torah with Timothy in Acts 16. Because the narrative of Acts does not appear to judge Paul’s actions negatively, it is most consistent with the remainder of Scripture for the circumcision undergone by Timothy in Acts 16 to be Genesis 17 circumcision.

In this case, the rational resolution of Paul’s behavior between Acts and Galatians reveals that Paul did not disparage obedience to Genesis 17 and its command for men to undergo circumcision, a fact he affirmed publicly in Acts 21. What he took issue with was the unbiblical idea that Jewish status conveyed by proselyte ritual is a prerequisite for salvation, and as such he forbade Gentile Christians from becoming proselytes, only administering Genesis 17 circumcision to believers who understood the actual significance of the ritual, namely submission to the will of God in all things.¹⁴

Conclusion

Just as with the six passages from the Epistles that were studied in Part 1 of this article series, the historical accounts that document the behavior of the Apostles regarding circumcision paint a consistent picture of upholding all the commandments of God as relevant for the Church. What the Apostles condemned was the enactment of extrabiblical rituals that upended the central truths of the Gospel, not obedience to the Torah as part of a believer’s sanctification. The difficulty for the first century Church was that the extrabiblical ritual of proselyte conversion was referred to with the same vocabulary as Biblical circumcision, and often the two were not differentiated in the Roman world.¹⁵

For future generations, the terminology confusion has only worsened, as in reading the Bible today it is easy to assume that any reference to “circumcision” in the Bible is to Genesis 17 circumcision. As has been shown, however, this assumption consistently applied to the interpretation of the Apostolic writings leads to the conclusion that Paul’s behavior regarding circumcision was schizophrenic, and that Paul lied in public testimony to the elders of the Church. Given that it is ordinary convention to give a writer the benefit of the doubt, this study examined passages in the Pauline Epistles to see if there is attestation for unambiguous alternate meanings for περιτέμνω (peritemno) and περιτομή (peritome.) As shown in Part 1 of this series, there are multiple alternate meanings for these words unambiguously attested in the Epistles, falsifying the assumption that these words always speak of Genesis 17 circumcision.

Then, this study reexamined many of the historical passages in the Apostolic Writings that are usually brought forth as evidence that the commandment of Genesis 17 circumcision is abolished. In every case, careful reading showed that either an alternate meaning for περιτέμνω (peritemno) and περιτομή (peritome) is more likely in context, or that the passages in question actually constitute the endorsement of Genesis 17 circumcision, provided it is done for the purpose of sanctification of the believer and not to attain salvation for a prospective believer. Thus, the only theological position that is consistent with itself and the full teaching of the Apostles is a pronomian hermeneutic of the sort Paul affirmed in Acts 21, that all the commands of Torah are relevant for, and should be practiced by, the Church and her members as a means for the Church to sanctify herself for her one Lord, Christ Yeshua. All other positions on the matter reduce themselves to absurdity, either by contradicting themselves or the clear teaching of Scripture.

Bibliography

Hegg, C.M. Acts: Igniting the Abrahamic Promise. Tacoma, WA: Pronomian, 2022.

Hegg, Tim. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2010.

McKenzie, G. Scott. Walking Orderly, Keeping the Law: A Pronomian Pocket Guide to Acts 21:20-26. Clover, SC: Pronomian, 2024.

Moo, Douglas J. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Schnabel, Eckhard J. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.

Vanhoff, Rob. “Circumcision in the Second Temple Period: Part 2” (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource Institute, 2012), 3. Accessed August 13, 2025, https://tr-pdf.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/circumcision-in-the-second-temple-period.pdf.