Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
Summary: The issue of circumcision plagued the early church for years. It was like yelling, “I believe in life after death!” in a room full of Pharisees and Sadducees.
Paul was a Hebrew. In fact, he considered himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5). That was his way of saying that he was as Jewish as they come. And what did it mean to be Jewish? The oldest tradition associated with being a Jew came from their ancestor, Abraham. When he was ninety-nine years old, God bound Abraham and his descendants to a covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17: 9-14). It wasn’t a matter of getting circumcised so that a person could be a “good Jew.” It was a matter of whether or not a person was a Jew. Circumcision was required.
After Jesus ascended to heaven, he began to make it clear to Peter, Paul, and others that the Gentiles (non-Jews) were to be included in Jesus’ new covenant. This new covenant was not based on Jewish tradition but on the blood of Jesus, sacrificed for the sins of humanity (Romans 3:25).
This idea was, for many Jews, difficult to understand. How could God accept people outside of the Abrahamic covenant? Hadn’t they been trained for generation upon generation that circumcision was required to please God?
“Aye,” as Shakespeare would say, “there’s the rub.”*
What was it that God included in his covenant with Abraham?
There are four parts to the covenant sealed with circumcision:
One: God promised Abraham that he would be the “father of many nations.” (Genesis 17:4) Two: God changes Abram's name to Abraham. (Genesis 17: 5) Three: God affirms that he will be Abraham’s God and his descendant’s God forever. (Genesis 17: 7) Four: God deeds to Abraham and his descendants the “whole land of Canaan.” (Genesis 17:8)
Of course, after this came Moses and the Mosaic laws. Then came the exile and the variations on the law necessitated by the exile.
The question has to be asked, “Does circumcision indicated a descendant of Abraham, or is circumcision a sign of the later rules and requirements given in the laws by Moses and those who followed?”
Let’s ask the question a different way, “Is a Jew who believes in Jesus still covered by the covenant God made with Abraham?”
If you find this confusing, let me ask a different question. In the days of Noah, after the flood, God made a covenant between himself and Noah. God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” (Genesis 9:12-13)
The question is this: “Was God’s covenant with Noah invalidated when God made a covenant with Abraham?”
I hope we can agree that God’s covenant with Abraham does not invalidate God’s covenant with Noah. God’s rainbow is still in the clouds, so it is safe to say that God is not planning on flooding the earth again.
Does Jesus’ love for the Gentiles lessen God’s love for Abraham? I don’t think so. To be a Jew and undergo circumcision for the sake of God’s promise to Abraham does not contradict God’s new covenant in the blood of Jesus, “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
These were the types of questions the early believers wrestled with as they struggled to understand how Jesus wanted to embrace Gentile believers.
Application: Allow God to be God. Trust him.
Food for Thought: If Titus had been circumcised, what would that circumcision have bound him to?
*Hamlet (Act 3, Scene 1)
If Titus had been circumcised, what would that circumcision have bound him to?
To his bed for a while so he could heal.
True! Looked at that way, this topic is a sore subject!
If he was circumcised because he believed it was necessary for salvation, it would have bound him to another, or different, gospel (Galatians 2: 4 – 5 suggests he would be enslaved to something that was not the truth of the gospel). He would not be bound to Christ but to a law in which he would need to lead a perfect life. He would be rejecting the benefits of the cross and the salvation that only comes through Jesus.
Thank you, Rich.
You broach an interesting topic: “If he was circumcised because he believed it was necessary for salvation…” implies that it is not the act of circumcision itself that we are discussing, but rather what the motive for circumcision was. Put another way, where does a person put their faith?
In Acts 16:3 we read, “Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”
In this case Paul has Timothy circumcised, not because it is a salvation issue, but because it is a social or political consideration, similar to Jesus paying the temple tax in Matthew 17: 24-27.
I like Rich’s answer because it distinguishes between the physical act and what the physical act signifies for the person. The Bible tells us “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) and that “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) This is in everything, the Lord does love our devotion to Him. This type of devotion is a mutual love relationship with Him. When our deeds become the means to salvation in our eyes, our relationship with God becomes transactional. Christ paid our debt so that we could be free from this. It doesn’t mean we have license to sin, or to disregard God’s Will for our lives, it means we have the freedom to give and live in love.
Well said, Chris!
I like the way you phrased our relationship with God as a choice between “mutual love” and being “transactional.”
01-23-2024, If Titus had been circumcised, what would that circumcision have bound him to?
Titus had experienced spiritually circumcision of his heart by Christ. This circumcision, is a cutting off of the fleshly nature of the heart of a believer.
Colossians 2:11-14, “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ.” This circumcision is not done by human hands but by Christ. And it is not just males. All believers have experienced this circumcision of the heart by Christ.
Titus agreed to being physically circumcised for the benefit of others as part of his preparation to meet with Jews who might be offended by his not being physically circumcised.
1 Corinthians 10:23-24, All things are lawful [that is, morally legitimate, permissible], but not all things are beneficial or advantageous. All things are lawful, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life]. 24 Let no one seek [only] his own good, but [also] that of the other person.
Ron,
Thank you for the great Scripture references! I appreciate the connection with “spiritual circumcision.” What a great point!
Great question! It was a lot of fun, I thought I might have an answer, but it took some searching through the Bible to see what God has said about this one.
Great Job!
Ron
If Titus had been circumcised, what would that circumcision have bound him to?
First, I’d like to say that the covenant with Noah “and every living creature” was promised for all successive generations. AKA forever. So that one applies to everybody. The sign is the rainbow.
The covenant with Abraham, is for Abraham and his descendants, as an everlasting covenant. So that one applies to his family line. The sign is circumcision, with consequences for not taking on the sign.
The covenant with Moses is with the nation of Israel. This includes the whole gambit of laws.
The covenant of Jesus is with all who believe. The sign is baptism.
These details are incredibly important. Circumcision is for the Israelites. God is clear.
Second, Titus is not a descendant of Abraham. He is also trying to follow Jesus, not Moses. The sign of his covenant is baptism. If Titus just suddenly decided to be circumcised, that’s fine, he can do whatever.
The importance of this passage comes from this phrase “was not compelled to be circumcised”. If he was forced to by the Jews, that would mean they are requiring him to live under two covenants that were not for him.
Thank you, Angela!
I appreciate your logical approach. As you point out, details are important!
Well done A. Your precepts studies in the covenants have served you well and this is an important point.