I recently read an argument which was basically 'Paul against Jesus' type and was something like this: Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws but to fulfill them: > Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. ([Matthew 5:17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17&version=NET) , NET) And we have this verse in OT: > Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement. ([Genesis 17:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17:14&version=NET) , NET) It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so. What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?

During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey. The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews: > **Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) **
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish. How would they know that he had been circumcised? Would Paul and Timothy just announce it? Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

I know Jesus was a Jew. Jews are circumcised and don't eat pork. Was Jesus circumcised and did he eat pork? If so, why are these two things not primary ingredients of Christianity? I thought, to be a good Christian you have to be like Jesus.

When talking to my generally reformed friends on the topic of pedo-baptism they often say that baptism is the new circumcision, circumcision was done on babies to bring them into the Old Covenant, therefore we baptize babies to bring them into the New Covenant. I have a hard time with this because before infant circumcision was not based on the faith of the child but on the parents and their adherents to God's command to do so. But in the New Covenant, this same theological truth does not apply. I can not come into the covenant unintentionally or outside of my will. I am sure Reformed Theology has an answer to this and I just have not seen it yet, so how would Reformed Theology answer this?

I'm just wondering because I grew up in an Islamic family in Iran and I became a Christian when age 23. Will people who were circumcised in this life (like myself) be circumcised in the next life? Or will we be whole in heaven? Because I really don't want to spend all of eternity missing a body part. Sorry if this sounds like a troll question but I actually genuinely am curious about it.

Did Christians stop the practice of circumcision ([Berith](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bris) , Brith, Bris?) immediately and based on which scripture?

Paul says in Romans 9:7-8 >**7** and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” **8** This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. And Galatians 3:16 says >Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. But if the promise to Abraham and his offspring was for Christ or us as believers, why was circumcision, if it was the sign of the covenant, given to Abraham’s physical offspring, since they’re not part of the Abrahamic covenant? My best guess right now is that the promise in Genesis 12 has some double-fulfillment features going on, like 2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 7. As an alternative to a direct answer, links to helpful related articles or books would also be appreciated.

> **Genesis 21:4 (NIV)** When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham > circumcised him, as God commanded him. Starting with Abraham, the Israelite men were circumcised, and boys at the eighth day after birth. It was commanded again in the desert through Moses: > **Leviticus 12:3 (NIV)** On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. But the children born in the desert were not circumcised: > **Joshua 5:5 (NIV)** All the people that came out had been circumcised, > but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from > Egypt had not. How is this possible? Did they disobey God and not circumcise their children in the desert?

The particular view that raises a query in my mind is this, as fully detailed in my answer to this related question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91006/according-to-reformed-theology-how-can-one-justify-infant-baptism/91065#91065 After detailing why the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (circumcision) has its counterpart in the sign of Christians in the New Testament (water baptism), the author I quote (*A Faith To Live By*, p210, Donald Macleod, Christian Focus, Mentor) says: > “The children of believers continue to have the same special > relationship to the covenant as their Old Testament counterparts had; > and, consequently, the same right to the covenant sign. Why do I > baptise children? ...It is because God gave me an ordinance: Put the > sign of the spiritual covenant on the physical seed.” My query is that although 8-day-old babies were to be circumcised as a sign of that Abrahamic covenant, that only applied to male babies. ***No female babies were ever circumcised. Yet Christian water baptism is administered to both males and females (irrespective of their age). Is this not out of sync with the physical sign?*** Further, the author speaks elsewhere in his book about how, > “when a man comes to faith he may embrace his children with himself > under the sign of the covenant”, and “we should not give the sacrament > of baptism to a man for his child unless we would be prepared to give > it to him for himself.” (*Ibid.* p 219 & 220) But what about a woman coming to faith, who seeks baptism, and she has children? Is it only a female – like myself – who notices a need to consider females a bit more regarding the theology of baptism? *Disregard that last question if you don’t think it helpful.* *My question is,* **Given that no female babies were circumcised as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, why are female babies of Christian believers given the sign of the new covenant (water baptism)?** *Edit to clarify what my question is NOT:* it is ***not*** asking why females are baptised given that they are not circumcised. To clarify what my question IS: it ***is*** questioning the claimed link between circumcision as a sign of the old covenant and the claim that water baptism is a corresponding sign of the new covenant. ***There seems to be something out of sync with this claimed link.***

I was recently listening to Dr. Scott Hahn on Pints with Aquinas. In that interview, Dr. Hahn mentions baptism as the new circumcision in relation to covenantal theology. His main point was that if baptism is the new circumcision, then we should baptize infants. What is the basis for baptism as the new circumcision (whether it be biblical/traditional)?

Circumcision is a requirement given to the patriarchs/Mosaic law which somehow the SDA shuns yet hold on to the sabbath law from the same covenant Both requirements are said to be perpetual and everlasting. Genesis 17:13 NIV > Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. ***My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant***. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Exodus 3116 NIV >***The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant***. The SDA observe the physical sabbath(abstain from work/kindle no fire) as well as the spiritual requirements but when it comes to circumcision they only observe the spiritual requirements(circumcise the heart) and neglect the physical side. Why do the SDA hold onto the sabbath law yet neglect circumcision?

In [Exodus 4:24-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%204:24-26&version=NIV) : > At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.) I have 2 questions about these passages: 1. Who was the person referred to as "The LORD"? Was it The Holy Spirit Himself appearing in human form? Was it Jesus? Or someone else? 2. Why did the circumcision and touching of foreskin to Moses' feet apparently satisfy Him?

Upon reading the Bible, I have found that that Christian doctrine differs heavily from the scriptures. A few of the differences: 1. Circumcision 2. Feast days 3. Following the statutes & judgements 4. Keeping the Sabbath How is it that Christianity, which is supposed to be followers of Christ, don't seem to follow him at all? I hold the view that there is only one Christ who brought one doctrine and therefore Christianity should all be following the same teachings. Yet there are many divisions and many varying teachings.

A simple question; I am reading the Apostolic Fathers and have noticed how they frequently refer to themselves as 'Gods Chosen' and speak of the Old Testament prophets as 'Our Forefathers'. This naturally leads us to ask whether or not any of them were ethnic Jews? Considering that Eusebius records the first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem as 'being of the circumcision' it would be strange if none of the apostolic fathers were of that ethnicity.

It was claimed that the recent tradition in Judaism to give a name to babies while doing circumcision, is documented already in the New Testament. Is it true? I'm looking for the source / reference.

Not sure exactly why I thought of this while taking a shower this morning, but I was wondering if the Catholic Church has ever weighed in on whether the bodies of men will be resurrected circumcised or not. I've read that a glorified body would be free from any imperfection, impairment. That if one had a received a scar in this life, it would be gone in the next. If you lost an arm in this life, that it would be present in the next. So if you lose some foreskin in this life, will it be present in the next? I've also read St. Augustine used as his rationale for many of his ideas about the Resurrection the notion our bodies would conform to Christ (He had some caveats as to whether we would all be men or all have beards). So, for the sake of deeper theological understanding, has the Catholic Church weighed in on this subject?

Peace be with you. I want to know if Orthodox Christians eat pork, and are they circumcised? I am referring to the early church which is the Orthodox Christians because in the Bible it says Yeshua (messiah) never ate pork and he was circumcised. Pork is haram as I understand. Do the Orthodox Christians follow this even today: circumcision and not eating pork?

Statements like the following are common from Messianic Synagogues. This one comes from Beth Messiah in Sarasota, Florida: > At Beth Messiah, we are Messianic Jews and non-Jews who believe Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) is the Messiah, live a Jewish lifestyle, raise our children to be Jewish, and worship the God of Israel in a Jewish manner. Messianic Judaism is a movement of people from all walks of life who believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah and the Savior for Israel and the world. Messianic Jews have not stopped being Jewish. On the contrary we have continued to remain strongly Jewish in our identity and lifestyle, and in our belief that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of true Biblical Judaism. According to the standards of this site these congregations may be considered Christian. In maintaining their Jewish culture and lifestyle, a major historical aspect of which is circumcision, I am curious as to what these congregations teach regarding circumcision, specifically circumcision according to Torah law, in the light of Paul's warning in Galatians 5:1-6: > It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that _if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you._ And I testify again _to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law_. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. I wonder if some of these congregations circumcise their children in Torah observance. What is an overview of their doctrines regarding circumcision?

Both John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised on the 8th day, according to Old Testament laws. Luke 1:57-60 English Standard Version (ESV) >Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, “No; he shall be called John.” Luke 2:21-39 English Standard Version (ESV) >And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Did a priest come to the home to perform the circumcision? Were there formal traditions or prayers recited, and if so, what do we know about them and how do we know about them?

In [Genesis 17:9–13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17%3A9-13&version=ESV) we read: > 9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 **both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised.** So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (ESV) I understand this passage to say that male household slaves and the male children of household slaves were to be circumcised, regardless of any "statement of faith." In modern times we don't see many examples of household slaves or servants. However, several hundred years passed between the beginning of the [Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation) and widespread prohibitions on chattel slavery in the West. Other forms of generational household servitude continued even longer. Many Reformers affirm that baptism is the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision, and therefore practice [infant baptism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism) (or *paedobaptism*) for the children of believers ([WCF 28-4](http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_28)) . Thus, my questions: 1. Do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, *explicitly* argue that members of one's household, *including one's household slaves or servants*, ought to be baptized (even if they make no statement of faith)? 2. In the absence of any examples of (1), do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, *explicitly* explain *why* household slaves and servants ought not to be baptized?