Why Didn't the Apostles Recommend Circumcision to the Gentiles?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonathan95

Puritan Board Sophomore
I was reading through Acts 15.

A letter is written to the Gentile churches in order that they might understand that circumcision was not required under the New Covenant.

Although, they are told to abstain from blood and things strangled..

The majority teaching from this text seems to be that they were required to abstain from these things in order that they might not offend the Jews in their midst.

If that's the case, why not write to them reassuring them that while they need not be circumcised to be a Christian, it would be a cause of offense/stumbling to not be circumcised? In that way they would be able to avoid offending the Jews in fellowship with them.
 
To be circumcised would mean that they were not saved as Gentiles. Galatians seems pretty clear that those intending to get circumcised were attempting to not only become Jews but, hope that it would save them.

Its also about table fellowship. If Gentiles are now at the table, why partake in uncooked meat? It was offensive to the Jews and to God under Mosaic law and it would thus disrupt that fellowship.
 
To be circumcised would mean that they were not saved as Gentiles. Galatians seems pretty clear that those intending to get circumcised were attempting to not only become Jews but, hope that it would save them.

Is that so? Wasn't Timothy encouraged to become circumcised in order to avoid offending the Jews thus providing a gospel opportunity?


Its also about table fellowship. If Gentiles are now at the table, why partake in uncooked meat? It was offensive to the Jews and to God under Mosaic law and it would thus disrupt that fellowship.

That's interesting. Wouldn't it have done just as well to tell the Jews that they were free to engage in things like uncooked meat rather than focus specifically on the Gentiles giving up their right to do so for the sake of the Jews at the table?
 
Is that so? Wasn't Timothy encouraged to become circumcised in order to avoid offending the Jews thus providing a gospel opportunity?




That's interesting. Wouldn't it have done just as well to tell the Jews that they were free to engage in things like uncooked meat rather than focus specifically on the Gentiles giving up their right to do so for the sake of the Jews at the table?
Timothy was part Jewish. Using his Jewish identity would provide missionary opportunities.
Titus, was told by Paul not to circumcise.

The Jewish identity and thinking about cultural norms didn't change over night.
 
My interpretation is that the Gentiles are

1) relieved of any duty to the Mosaic law
2) given guidance on what utility the laws of the OT should still provide the NewCovenant Christian

While the proposal has some plausibility, that the Gentiles were directed to avoid consuming blood (and the meat of beasts strangled which would contain their pooled not drained blood) in order to appease the Jews; I personally find a better interpretation grounded in Gen.9:4, "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

The principle I find embedded in the direction is, that in searching the Scriptures to know God's will, this command of God was given to all mankind, and not simply to the Jews. I think the council's recommendation was that the Gentile's conscience could justly feel bound by a command in the OT that was evidently given to the human race as a whole.

In other words, this is a limited condition use of a positive biblical (i.e. OT) command. Even if it had no more use in the NC age than not offending the Jews, that was a good enough reason (besides "God said it") to keep it. After all, the Jews' could argue that their offense was not that the Gentiles weren't eating like Jews ate, but that they had forgotten the command of God that was no less for them, as was reiterated for the Jews by Moses, Lev.17:10ff.

The restriction on meat sacrificed to idols was more than a concession to Jewish sensibilities also, as Paul's teaching in 1Cor.10 clarifies. While Paul makes it clear that buying meat in the shops, no one should ask questions "for conscience's sake" as to the origin of the meat; he also tells the Gentiles that participation in the actual ceremonial meals that would commonly take place at the pagan temples was a participation in the cup and table of demons, 1Cor.10:21. In other words, this was a practical, logical effect of obedience to the "first table" of the moral law.

The final council direction was to abstain from fornication. This direction works on two levels. In the first place, it is a clear affirmation of a postulate of the "second table" of the moral law. It was also a most prevalent sin among the Gentiles, a case of deadened conscience needing to be awakened. Now, I can imagine many Gentiles are told, "Stop fornicating, it is sin." And they answer, "We will obey the Lord in this, but... what qualifies as sexual immorality?" Well, here is a case where the now-obsolete Law of Moses can still function in a utilitarian fashion. If you need a lesson in what God thinks is sexual immorality, then check out what God fleshed out for Israel, to ensure they should not forget it.

So, in the council's directions, spelled out in Act.15:29, and repeated in Act.21:25, we have response to Gentile questions: Do we need to become Jews?, and What use do we make of God's word in hand when it comes to morality (if we aren't becoming Jewish)? All believers are to be concerned with the universal moral law; where that is present in the OT, it speaks as much to Gentiles as well as Jews; and for good measure, attend any obvious positive laws which God gave the whole world, unless he has rescinded or amended them.
 
My interpretation is that the Gentiles are

1) relieved of any duty to the Mosaic law
2) given guidance on what utility the laws of the OT should still provide the NewCovenant Christian

While the proposal has some plausibility, that the Gentiles were directed to avoid consuming blood (and the meat of beasts strangled which would contain their pooled not drained blood) in order to appease the Jews; I personally find a better interpretation grounded in Gen.9:4, "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

The principle I find embedded in the direction is, that in searching the Scriptures to know God's will, this command of God was given to all mankind, and not simply to the Jews. I think the council's recommendation was that the Gentile's conscience could justly feel bound by a command in the OT that was evidently given to the human race as a whole.

In other words, this is a limited condition use of a positive biblical (i.e. OT) command. Even if it had no more use in the NC age than not offending the Jews, that was a good enough reason (besides "God said it") to keep it. After all, the Jews' could argue that their offense was not that the Gentiles weren't eating like Jews ate, but that they had forgotten the command of God that was no less for them, as was reiterated for the Jews by Moses, Lev.17:10ff.

The restriction on meat sacrificed to idols was more than a concession to Jewish sensibilities also, as Paul's teaching in 1Cor.10 clarifies. While Paul makes it clear that buying meat in the shops, no one should ask questions "for conscience's sake" as to the origin of the meat; he also tells the Gentiles that participation in the actual ceremonial meals that would commonly take place at the pagan temples was a participation in the cup and table of demons, 1Cor.10:21. In other words, this was a practical, logical effect of obedience to the "first table" of the moral law.

The final council direction was to abstain from fornication. This direction works on two levels. In the first place, it is a clear affirmation of a postulate of the "second table" of the moral law. It was also a most prevalent sin among the Gentiles, a case of deadened conscience needing to be awakened. Now, I can imagine many Gentiles are told, "Stop fornicating, it is sin." And they answer, "We will obey the Lord in this, but... what qualifies as sexual immorality?" Well, here is a case where the now-obsolete Law of Moses can still function in a utilitarian fashion. If you need a lesson in what God thinks is sexual immorality, then check out what God fleshed out for Israel, to ensure they should not forget it.

So, in the council's directions, spelled out in Act.15:29, and repeated in Act.21:25, we have response to Gentile questions: Do we need to become Jews?, and What use do we make of God's word in hand when it comes to morality (if we aren't becoming Jewish)? All believers are to be concerned with the universal moral law; where that is present in the OT, it speaks as much to Gentiles as well as Jews; and for good measure, attend any obvious positive laws which God gave the whole world, unless he has rescinded or amended them.

Thank you Reverand! Very informative answer.

Is it a moral law for us in modern times to also abstain from things strangled and of blood? If the commandment predates the giving of the law to Israel that might make sense no?
 
Thank you Reverand! Very informative answer.

Is it a moral law for us in modern times to also abstain from things strangled and of blood? If the commandment predates the giving of the law to Israel that might make sense no?
I will leave the matter of obedience to the ancient statute to your conscience. In technical terms, it is a positive injunction, making it moral to obey it and immoral to disobey it only so long as God assigns it. So one must reason to a conclusion, whether or not he thinks God did declare a permanent rule for his house.

The NT now in writing (it was only in the state of being formed and compiled in the first century), in it we have the overwhelming majority of moral guidance. One thing it clearly does not have are minutiae description of sexual sins (though it has plenty to say to convict most people). But there is extra definition provided in Israel's old constitution.

And, perhaps God did enjoin mankind as a whole (as recorded before said constitution) to some obedience; so if Jesus or his apostles do not clearly rescind or amend it, might there be some ethical logic to showing respect for it? At least until one is persuaded that its day is gone by? Again, I think the council's guidance for the Gentile believers is to help them as they read the Scriptures, to judge what applies to them and what does not.

The eating/drinking blood may have been an outgrowth of a corruption of sacrificial worship; that is, the habit developed in a cultic context. Maybe it had already cropped up before the flood, and so God made a point to forbid it afterward. Or maybe it was to record his disapproval of a corruption of worship that would later be common.

It can't be coincidence that at the Lord's Supper, the cup that we drink is the covenant in his blood, 1Cor.11:25; cf. Jn.6:53-56. "Don't drink that blood, but do drink my blood." His one sacrifice has made his life available to his people.

I'm persuaded there was something in the original prohibition that went beyond an object lesson of sorts. I personally feel obligated by this rule. But, I appreciate that some do not, and they have their reasons. I don't think these intend to engage in a corrupt worship practice, or to deny divine authority to norm human conduct.
 
I will leave the matter of obedience to the ancient statute to your conscience. In technical terms, it is a positive injunction, making it moral to obey it and immoral to disobey it only so long as God assigns it. So one must reason to a conclusion, whether or not he thinks God did declare a permanent rule for his house.

The NT now in writing (it was only in the state of being formed and compiled in the first century), in it we have the overwhelming majority of moral guidance. One thing it clearly does not have are minutiae description of sexual sins (though it has plenty to say to convict most people). But there is extra definition provided in Israel's old constitution.

And, perhaps God did enjoin mankind as a whole (as recorded before said constitution) to some obedience; so if Jesus or his apostles do not clearly rescind or amend it, might there be some ethical logic to showing respect for it? At least until one is persuaded that its day is gone by? Again, I think the council's guidance for the Gentile believers is to help them as they read the Scriptures, to judge what applies to them and what does not.

The eating/drinking blood may have been an outgrowth of a corruption of sacrificial worship; that is, the habit developed in a cultic context. Maybe it had already cropped up before the flood, and so God made a point to forbid it afterward. Or maybe it was to record his disapproval of a corruption of worship that would later be common.

It can't be coincidence that at the Lord's Supper, the cup that we drink is the covenant in his blood, 1Cor.11:25; cf. Jn.6:53-56. "Don't drink that blood, but do drink my blood." His one sacrifice has made his life available to his people.

I'm persuaded there was something in the original prohibition that went beyond an object lesson of sorts. I personally feel obligated by this rule. But, I appreciate that some do not, and they have their reasons. I don't think these intend to engage in a corrupt worship practice, or to deny divine authority to norm human conduct.

Yes I understand what you've written here. It's interesting to think of things pertaining to the moral law that we don't see represented in the 10 Commandments which is binding on the church today.
 
Thank you Reverand! Very informative answer.

Is it a moral law for us in modern times to also abstain from things strangled and of blood? If the commandment predates the giving of the law to Israel that might make sense no?
I started a thread about this question in the context of the Noahic covenant, you might find it interesting. I'd link to it if I knew how, but I don't and I'm too old to learn new tricks.
 
I'd link to it if I knew how, but I don't and I'm too old to learn new tricks.
 
I started a thread about this question in the context of the Noahic covenant, you might find it interesting. I'd link to it if I knew how, but I don't and I'm too old to learn new tricks.

While I enjoyed everyone's take on foods they would never touch, I saw the verses about all foods being declared clean. Our Lord declared all foods clean yes. It's interesting how the Apostles dont advise the gentiles that way though.

This is why I wanted to tackle the subject from the opposite angle. If it were truly about offending Jewish Christians they could just as easily told the Gentiles to be circumcised.

I'm more inclined to believe that the restrictions were an effort to make the Gentiles look different(holy) when compared with the culture around them.

Even so.. I never really buy those "due to culture" explanations:

Head coverings were only required in THAT culture, not today..

Blood was only forbidden in THAT culture, not today.

The women were only forbidden to speak in THOSE churches, not ours.

Like, we still live under the New Covenant. There's not some NEW New Covenant era that we live in that allows us to be exempt from this stuff.

Not saying that I completely disagree; Just seems a lil fishy when those explanations are given is all. Feels like pandering.
 
Last edited:
While I enjoyed everyone's take on foods they would never touch, I saw the verses about all foods being declared clean. Our Lord declared all foods clean yes. It's interesting how the Apostles dont advise the gentiles that way though.

This is why I wanted to tackle the subject from the opposite angle. If it were truly about offending Jewish Christians they could just as easily told the Gentiles to be circumcised.

I'm more inclined to believe that the restrictions were an effort to make the Gentiles look different(holy) when compared with the culture around them.

Even so.. I never really buy those "due to culture" explanations:

Head coverings were only required in THAT culture, not today..

Blood was only forbidden in THAT culture, not today.

The women were only forbidden to speak in THOSE churches, not ours.

Like, we still live under the New Covenant. There's not some NEW New Covenant era that we live in that allows us to be exempt from this stuff.

Not saying that I completely disagree; Just seems a lil fishy when those explanations are given is all. Feels like pandering.
Calvin has some interesting things to say regarding culture and interestingly, head coverings for men. He was into hats, if I remember correctly. Local culture is one of the pieces of context we must look at when studying these issues, since nothing comes to us in a vaccuum.

A thought on baptism: by now, (EDIT: circumcision) baptism was no longer the sign of the covenant, it was simply a national marker and a stumblingblock for those who would not let go of the Mosaic administration. To cave in to those who insisted on the new sign plus the old would have been confusion. It would have been to tell the Gentiles that there was still a national wall of separation; that they had to become culturally Jewish on order to be Christians.
The prohibition on things strangled, though, goes way further back than circumcision, and is rooted in other causes. It comes in the same declaration where God establishes the death penalty: "He who sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." There's an entire discourse on blood in that Genesis passage. I have a vague feeling that there's a connection there, if only I could make it.
Last of all, ew. Blood is gross.
 
Last edited:
While I enjoyed everyone's take on foods they would never touch, I saw the verses about all foods being declared clean. Our Lord declared all foods clean yes. It's interesting how the Apostles dont advise the gentiles that way though.
I don't think the Apostles advice contrasted Christ's declaration that all foods are clean. Christ was referring to all types of animals (i.e. pork) being now acceptable to eat. The Apostles here are simply requesting the gentiles avoid eating that which died of its own to avoid unnecessarily offending Jews or weak Christians who struggle within their conscience to accept that (i.e. Romans 14:21).

A thought on baptism: by now, baptism was no longer the sign of the covenant
Did you intend to write "by now, circumcision was no longer the sign of the covenant"?
 
since nothing comes to us in a vaccuum

I understand what you're saying. I just always viewed the Scripture as transcending culture and affirming a Christian culture rather than appealing to whatever society has deemed the culture be. There might be something wrong with ingesting blood as the pagans do/did. There is nothing wrong with abstaining. I'll err on the side of caution with this one. Same applies to the other situations I brought up.



The Apostles here are simply requesting the gentiles avoid eating that which died of its own to avoid unnecessarily offending Jews or weak Christians who struggle within their conscience to accept that

In the text, the Apostles do not simply request though. They command them to abstain. And they don't give that reason for doing so. This is why teachings on the subject differ. They don't give a reason, so we have to infer a reason. It's entirely plausible that they know the Gentiles see murder as wrong, so they don't mention murder. Lying leads to destruction and chaos and so it would not have been seen as a virtue therefore, there is no need to mention that.

But four things were here mentioned because they were wrong inherently. Eating things offered to idols are wrong if you willingly partake, leading yourself and others to conclude worshipping other gods is fine. That breaks the first commandment. Fornication was another idol to the Gentiles, that breaks the 7th. Blood in itself, and in strangled animals was another thing that we are taught in Genesis before the law is given. It apples to humanity. It might be inherently wrong because of the 6th commandment. Because it shows a lack of honor and respect towards life, which is in the blood. I'm not sure.

Not saying I agree with the view that I espoused, just saying that it's something else to consider. As I said above, I'd rather err on the side of caution.
 
I don't think the Apostles advice contrasted Christ's declaration that all foods are clean. Christ was referring to all types of animals (i.e. pork) being now acceptable to eat. The Apostles here are simply requesting the gentiles avoid eating that which died of its own to avoid unnecessarily offending Jews or weak Christians who struggle within their conscience to accept that (i.e. Romans 14:21).


Did you intend to write "by now, circumcision was no longer the sign of the covenant"?
Probably. Thanks for the correction.
 
Is that so? Wasn't Timothy encouraged to become circumcised in order to avoid offending the Jews thus providing a gospel opportunity?




That's interesting. Wouldn't it have done just as well to tell the Jews that they were free to engage in things like uncooked meat rather than focus specifically on the Gentiles giving up their right to do so for the sake of the Jews at the table?


What happened at Jerusalem was a church synod with some kind of binding authority. Paul having Timothy circumcised was a particular judgment call about a particular person's situation. There are all kinds of things that you would suggest to an individual to do in a particular circumstance that would not be good to give as a charge to everyone in a church. Paul, assuming his circumcision of Timothy wasn't a case of being inconsistent, could make sure Timothy knew he wasn't trusting in a superseded ordinance or trusting in a national marker. It would be rash to have assumed every Gentile believer understood that well enough to not be harmed in their faith or conscience, or confused about what bound them to the covenant community.

As for why give the Gentiles a command instead of the Jewish believers: it's safer to ask someone to refrain from something lawful (as long as you do not pretend to make it a law of God, among other things) than to ask someone to do something that their under-informed conscience still scruples against. Hence why, in 1 Corinthians and Romans, Paul suggests a similar outcome (just don't eat that) when another believer (or an outsider) is still burdened of conscience by the Mosaic dietary law or by potential indirect complicity in idol-worship by eating sacrificed meat. YOU may know that the food is lawful, or that an idol is nothing and you didn't worship it. But if your brother doesn't, love them more than you love that excellent, potentially Zeus-sacrificed steak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top