CIRCUMCISION: A COMMANDMENT NEARLY ALL CHURCHES CONSIDER ABOLISHED
Among all of God’s holy commandments, circumcision appears to be the only one that nearly all churches erroneously consider abolished. The consensus is so widespread that even former doctrinal rivals—such as the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations (Assembly of God, Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.)—as well as groups often labeled as sects, like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, all assert that this commandment was canceled at the cross.
JESUS NEVER TAUGHT ITS ABOLITION
There are two main reasons why this belief is so prevalent among Christians, despite the fact that Jesus never taught such a doctrine and that all of Jesus’ apostles and disciples obeyed this commandment—including Paul, whose writings are often used by leaders to “release” Gentiles from this requirement set by God Himself.
This is done even though there is no prophecy in the Old Testament suggesting that, with the coming of the Messiah, God’s people—whether Jews or Gentiles—would be exempt from obeying this commandment. In fact, circumcision has always been required, from the time of Abraham onward, for any man to be part of the people God set apart to be saved, whether he was a descendant of Abraham or not.
CIRCUMCISION AS A SIGN OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT
No one was admitted as part of the holy community (set apart from other nations) unless they submitted to circumcision. Circumcision was the physical sign of the covenant between God and His privileged people.
Moreover, this covenant was not limited to a specific time or to Abraham’s biological descendants; it also included all foreigners who wished to be officially integrated into the community and regarded as equals before God. The Lord was explicit: “This is true not only for those born in your household but also for the foreign-born servants whom you have purchased. Whether they are born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:12-13).
GENTILES AND THE REQUIREMENT OF CIRCUMCISION
If Gentiles truly did not need this physical sign to become part of the people set apart by the Lord, there would be no reason for God to require circumcision before the coming of the Messiah but not after.
NO PROPHETIC SUPPORT FOR A CHANGE
For this to be true, there would have to be information to that effect in the prophecies, and Jesus would have had to inform us that this change would take place after His ascension. However, there is no mention in the Old Testament about the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s people that suggests they would be exempt from any commandment, including circumcision, simply because they were not Abraham’s biological descendants.
TWO COMMONLY USED REASONS FOR NOT OBEYING THIS COMMANDMENT OF GOD
THE FIRST REASON:
CHURCHES ERRONEOUSLY TEACH THAT THE COMMANDMENT OF CIRCUMCISION WAS CANCELED
The first reason churches teach that God’s law on circumcision was canceled—without specifying who supposedly canceled it—lies in the difficulty of fulfilling this commandment. Church leaders fear that if they accept and teach the truth—that God never gave any instruction to abolish it—they would lose many members.
Broadly speaking, this commandment is indeed inconvenient to fulfill. It always has been and still is. Even with medical advances, a Christian who decides to obey this commandment must find a professional, pay out of pocket (as most health insurance plans do not cover it), undergo the procedure, deal with post-surgical inconveniences, and endure social stigma, often facing opposition from family, friends, and the church.
PERSONAL TESTIMONY
A man must be truly determined to obey this commandment of the Lord to go through with it; otherwise, he will easily give up. Encouragement to abandon this path is plentiful. I know this because I personally went through it at the age of 63 when I was circumcised in obedience to the commandment.
THE SECOND REASON:
MISUNDERSTANDING DIVINE DELEGATION OR AUTHORIZATION
The second reason, and certainly the primary one, is that the church lacks a proper understanding of divine delegation or authorization. This misunderstanding was exploited early on by the devil, when, just a few decades after Jesus’ ascension, disputes for power among church leaders began, culminating in the absurd conclusion that God had delegated to Peter and his supposed successors the authority to make any changes they wished to God’s Law.

This aberration extended far beyond circumcision, affecting many other commandments in the Old Testament, which Jesus and His followers had always faithfully obeyed.
AUTHORITY OVER GOD’S LAW
Inspired by the devil, the church disregarded the fact that any delegation of authority over God’s holy Law would have to come directly from God Himself—either through His prophets in the Old Testament or through His Messiah.
It is inconceivable that mere human beings would grant themselves the authority to alter something as precious to God as His Law. No prophet of the Lord, nor Jesus, ever warned us that the Father would, after the Messiah, grant any group or individual, whether inside or outside the Bible, the power or inspiration to nullify, abolish, modify, or update even the smallest of His commandments. On the contrary, the Lord explicitly stated that this would be a grave sin: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4:2).
THE LOSS OF INDIVIDUALITY IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
THE CHURCH AS AN UNINTENDED INTERMEDIARY
Another critical issue is the loss of individuality in the relationship between the creature and the Creator. The church’s role was never meant to be that of an intermediary between God and man. However, early in the Christian era, it assumed this role.
Instead of each believer, guided by the Holy Spirit, relating individually with the Father and the Son, people became entirely dependent on their leaders to tell them what the Lord permits or prohibits.
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE SCRIPTURES
This serious problem occurred largely because, until the 16th-century Reformation, access to the Scriptures was a privilege reserved for the clergy. It was explicitly forbidden for the common man to read the Bible for himself, under the justification that he was incapable of understanding it without clerical interpretation.
THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERS OVER THE PEOPLE
DEPENDENCE ON TEACHINGS FROM LEADERS
Five centuries have passed, and despite universal access to the Scriptures, people continue to rely exclusively on what their leaders teach—right or wrong—remaining incapable of learning and acting independently on what God requires of each individual.
The same erroneous teachings about God’s holy and eternal commandments that existed before the Reformation continue to be passed down through the seminaries of every denomination.
JESUS’ TEACHING ABOUT THE LAW
As far as I am aware, there is not a single Christian institution that teaches future leaders what Jesus clearly taught: that no commandment of God has lost its validity after the coming of the Messiah: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:18-19).
PARTIAL OBEDIENCE IN SOME DENOMINATIONS
SELECTIVE ADHERENCE TO GOD’S COMMANDMENTS
A few denominations strive to teach that the Lord’s commandments are eternally valid and that no biblical writer after the Messiah ever wrote against this understanding. Yet, for some mysterious reason, they limit the list of valid commandments to those that other churches have decided to declare abolished.
These denominations emphasize the Ten Commandments (including the Sabbath, the seventh day of the fourth commandment) and the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 but go no further.
THE INCONSISTENCY OF SELECTIVITY
The most curious thing is that these specific selections are not accompanied by any clear justification based on the Old Testament or the four Gospels that explains why these particular commandments are mandatory, while others, such as the use of hair and beard, the tzitzit, or circumcision, are not mentioned or defended.
This raises the question: if all the Lord’s commandments are holy and just, why choose to obey some and not all?
THE ETERNAL COVENANT
CIRCUMCISION AS A SIGN OF THE COVENANT
Circumcision is the eternal covenant between God and His people, a group of holy human beings set apart from the rest of the population. This group has always been open to everyone and was never limited to the biological descendants of Abraham, as some assume.

From the moment God established Abraham as the first of this group, the Lord instituted circumcision as a visible and eternal sign of the covenant. It was made clear that both his natural descendants and those not of his lineage would need this physical sign of the covenant if they wished to be part of His people.
THE APOSTLE PAUL’S WRITINGS AS ARGUMENT TO NOT OBEY GOD’S ETERNAL LAWS
MARCION’S INFLUENCE ON BIBLICAL CANON
One of the earliest attempts to compile the various writings that emerged after Christ’s ascension was made by Marcion (85 – 160 A.D.), a wealthy shipowner in the second century. Marcion was a fervent follower of Paul but despised the Jews.
His Bible primarily consisted of Paul’s writings and his own gospel, which many consider a plagiarized version of Luke’s Gospel. Marcion rejected all other gospels and epistles, dismissing them as uninspired. In his Bible, all references to the Old Testament were removed, as he taught that the God prior to Jesus was not the same God Paul proclaimed.
Marcion’s Bible was rejected by the Church of Rome and he was condemned as a heretic, but his view on the writings of the apostle Paul as the only ones inspired by God, and his rejection of the entire Old Testament and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, had already influenced the beliefs of many early Christians.
THE FIRST OFFICIAL CANON OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
The first New Testament canon was officially recognized in the late fourth century, around 350 years after Jesus returned to the Father. Catholic Church councils in Rome, Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) were pivotal in finalizing the 27 books of the New Testament that we know today.
These councils were instrumental in consolidating the canon to address the diverse interpretations and texts circulating in Christian communities.
THE ROLE OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME IN FORMING THE BIBLE
APPROVAL AND INCLUSION OF PAUL’S LETTERS
Paul’s letters were included in the collection of writings approved by Rome in the fourth century. The collection, considered sacred by the Catholic Church, was called Biblia Sacra in Latin and Τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια (ta biblia ta hagia) in Greek.
After centuries of debate over which writings should form the official canon, the bishops of the Church approved and declared as sacred: the Jewish Old Testament, the four Gospels, the Book of Acts (attributed to Luke), the epistles to the churches (including Paul’s letters), and the Book of Revelation by John.
THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN JESUS’ TIME
It is important to note that during Jesus’ time, all Jews, including Jesus Himself, exclusively read and referenced the Old Testament in their teachings. This practice was predominantly based on the Greek version of the text, known as the Septuagint, which had been compiled about three centuries before Christ.
THE CHALLENGE OF INTERPRETING PAUL’S WRITINGS
COMPLEXITY AND MISINTERPRETATION
Paul’s writings, like those of other authors after Jesus, were incorporated into the official Bible approved by the Church many centuries ago and are therefore considered foundational to the Christian faith.
However, the problem lies not with Paul but with the interpretations of his writings. His letters were written in a complex and difficult style, a challenge already recognized during his time (as noted in 2 Peter 3:16), when the cultural and historical context was still familiar to readers. Interpreting these texts centuries later, in an entirely different context, adds to the difficulty.
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATIONS
THE ISSUE OF PAUL’S AUTHORITY
The central issue is not the relevance of Paul’s writings but the fundamental principle of authority and its transfer. As previously explained, the authority the Church attributes to Paul to cancel, abolish, correct, or update God’s holy and eternal commandments is not supported by the Scriptures that preceded him. Therefore, this authority does not come from the Lord.
There is no prophecy in the Old Testament or the Gospels indicating that after the Messiah, God would send a man from Tarsus to whom all should listen and follow.
ALIGNING INTERPRETATIONS WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT AND GOSPELS
THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY
This means that any understanding or interpretation of Paul’s writings is incorrect if it does not align with the revelations that preceded him. Therefore, a Christian who truly fears God and His Word must reject any interpretation of the epistles—whether by Paul or any other writer—that is not consistent with what the Lord revealed through His prophets in the Old Testament and through His Messiah, Jesus.
HUMILITY IN INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE
The Christian must have the wisdom and humility to say:
“I do not understand this passage, and the explanations I have read are false because they lack the support of the Lord’s prophets and the words spoken by Jesus. I will set it aside until one day, if it is the Lord’s will, He explains it to me.”
A GREAT TEST FOR THE GENTILES
A TEST OF OBEDIENCE AND FAITH
This might be considered one of the most significant tests the Lord has chosen to impose on the Gentiles, a test analogous to what the Jewish people faced during their journey to Canaan. As stated in Deuteronomy 8:2: “Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep His commandments.”
IDENTIFYING THE OBEDIENT GENTILES
In this context, the Lord seeks to identify which Gentiles are truly willing to join His holy people. These are those who decide to obey all the commandments, including circumcision, despite the intense pressure from the church and the numerous passages in the letters to the churches that seemingly suggest several commandments—described as eternal in the prophets and the Gospels—have been revoked for Gentiles.
CIRCUMCISION OF THE FLESH AND THE HEART
ONE CIRCUMCISION: PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL
It is important to clarify that there are not two types of circumcision, but only one: the physical. It should be evident to all that the phrase “circumcision of the heart,” used throughout the Bible, is purely figurative, much like “broken heart” or “joyful heart.”
When the Bible states that someone is “uncircumcised in heart,” it simply means that the person is not living as they should, as one who truly loves God and is willing to obey Him.
EXAMPLES FROM SCRIPTURE
In other words, this man may have been physically circumcised, but his way of living does not align with the life God expects from His people. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God declared that all of Israel was in a state of being “uncircumcised in heart”: “For all the nations are uncircumcised, and the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:26).
Clearly, they were all physically circumcised, but by turning away from God and abandoning His holy Law, they were judged as uncircumcised in heart.
PHYSICAL AND HEART CIRCUMCISION REQUIRED
All male children of God, whether Jews or Gentiles, must be circumcised—not only physically but also in heart. This is made evident in these clear words: “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner, including those who live among the people of Israel, may enter my sanctuary unless they are circumcised both in body and heart” (Ezekiel 44:9).
KEY CONCLUSIONS
- The concept of circumcision of the heart has always existed and was not introduced in the New Testament as a replacement for true physical circumcision.
- Circumcision is required of all who are part of God’s people, whether Jew or Gentile.
CIRCUMCISION AND WATER BAPTISM
A FALSE SUBSTITUTION
Some mistakenly believe that water baptism was instituted for Christians as a substitute for circumcision. However, this claim is purely a human invention, an attempt to avoid obedience to the Lord’s commandment.
If such a claim were true, we would expect to find passages in the prophets or the Gospels indicating that after the Messiah’s ascension, God would no longer require circumcision from Gentiles who wished to join His people and that baptism would take its place. Yet, no such passages exist.
THE ORIGIN OF WATER BAPTISM
Furthermore, it is important to note that water baptism predates Christianity. John the Baptist was neither the “inventor” nor the “pioneer” of baptism.
THE JEWISH ORIGINS OF BAPTISM (MIKVEH)
THE MIKVEH AS A RITUAL OF PURIFICATION
Baptism, or mikveh, was already a well-established ritual of immersion among Jews long before John the Baptist’s time. The mikveh symbolized purification from sin and ritual impurity.

When a Gentile was circumcised, they also underwent a mikveh. This act not only served for ritual purification but also symbolized death—being “buried” in the water—of their old pagan life. Emerging from the water, reminiscent of the amniotic fluid of the womb, symbolized their rebirth into a new life as a Jew.
JOHN THE BAPTIST AND THE MIKVEH
John the Baptist was not creating a new ritual but rather giving a new meaning to an existing one. Instead of just Gentiles “dying” to their old lives and being “reborn” as Jews, John called Jews living in sin to also “die” and “be reborn” as an act of repentance.
However, this immersion was not necessarily a one-time event. Jews would immerse themselves whenever they became ritually impure, such as before entering the Temple. They also commonly—and still do today—undergo immersion on Yom Kippur as an act of repentance.
DISTINGUISHING BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION
DISTINCT ROLES OF THE RITUALS
The idea that baptism replaced circumcision is not supported by Scripture or historical Jewish practice. While baptism (mikveh) was and remains a meaningful symbol of repentance and purification, it was never intended to replace circumcision, which is the eternal sign of God’s covenant.
Both rituals hold their own distinct purposes and significance, and neither negates the other.
Back to list of articles