The Second Journey, Part 1: Circumcision?

Call to Worship

Psalm 124 LSB

“Had it not been Yahweh who was on our side,” Let Israel now say, “Had it not been Yahweh who was on our side When men rose up against us, Then they would have swallowed us alive, When their anger was kindled against us; Then the waters would have flowed over us, The stream would have swept over our soul; Then the raging waters would have swept over our soul.” Blessed be Yahweh, Who has not given us to be prey for their teeth. Our soul has escaped as a bird out of the snare of the trapper; The snare is broken and we have escaped. Our help is in the name of Yahweh, Who made heaven and earth.

Elder: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you!

Reading of Scripture

Haggai 1:15-2:9

2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, 13-17

Circumcision?

Read Acts 15:36-16:5

Introduction to the introduction

Last week we gave an introduction to the second missionary journey of Paul which begins at the end of Acts 15. We focused in on the “sharp disagreement” between him and Barnabas in Acts 15:39.

Today, we are going to focus in on the beginning of Acts 16, particularly Acts 16:3 “...and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts...” This will complete our introduction to the second missionary journey.

The next time we continue in Acts we will look at how Paul ended up going to Macedonia with all of his adventures in Philippi, Athens, and Corinth.

The Advent season begins on November 30th and so, we will be doing seasonal messages from the lectionary during that time. And remember, this is the beginning of the church year. So, we are rapidly approaching the end of the previous church year, which fittingly, in America, ends with Thanksgiving. Which is actually a civic holiday, but one we can very much support as a church.

Introduction

Question: What was the Jerusalem Council all about in Acts 15?

Think about that. What was the argument? If we look at Acts 15:1, we read: “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’”

Essentially, the debate centered on how the Church ought to treat believing Gentiles in the New Covenant. Must they become Jewish to be part of God’s people? Must they receive circumcision?

The answer was clear: No. They must become Christian, not Jewish. They must be joined to Christ—the One to whom the Old Covenant rituals pointed.

To understand why this decision was so momentous, we must consider the place of circumcision in the Old Covenant.

Circumcision in the Old Covenant

In Genesis 17:9–14, God promised Abraham the land and that through his seed all nations would be blessed. He gave circumcision as the sign of this promise, to be administered on the eighth day, calling it an everlasting covenant and warning that anyone who refused the sign would be cut off from the promises.

In Exodus 12:43–49, God declared that only those who had been circumcised could partake of the Passover.

In Leviticus 12:3, Moses prescribed that circumcision for covenant children be performed on the eighth day, directly connected with the mother’s purification following childbirth.

Peter Leithart calls attention to the similarities among the Old Covenant’s purity rituals, describing them as quasi-ordinations. Through them, the people of Israel were constituted as a priestly nation. Visible symbols represented sin and separation from God on the one hand, and cleansing and restored access on the other. There were clear distinctions between priest and layman, man and woman, Jew and Gentile. Visibly, the Old Covenant was filled with signs—of blood, purification, and separation.

Circumcision was one of these signs of redemption. It was a bloody sign, placed upon the body, specifically on the organ of reproduction. In our squeamish modern culture, we often shy away from thinking about why that was. But circumcision was a setting apart of the person and, symbolically, of their offspring. The seed was sanctified and given access to the Passover Lamb.

We can summarize the place of circumcision in the Old Covenant:

Given only to males

A bloody sign

Placed upon the body—the reproductive organ

Consecrated this man and his offspring to the Lord

Granted access to the Passover Lamb

Served as a sign of God’s promise to redeem His people from sin and misery through a coming Redeemer.

Circumcision and Baptism

Now, in the New Covenant, our whole person is cleansed in baptism. This sign is given equally to men and women, to Jew and Gentile alike. There is no distinction. In Christ, we all have covenantal access to God. We have been washed from our sin, and our children are sanctified to the Lord.

Through baptism, we also have access to the covenant meal, where we partake of the true Passover Lamb—the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Through baptism, we are united to Christ’s body. Circumcision was a mark of God’s promise to send a Seed, baptism is what joins us to that Seed. In this way, baptism fulfills circumcision.

Just as circumcision marked entrance into the Old Covenant and its privileges, baptism now marks entrance into the New Covenant and its blessings. In a sense, baptism is to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. Yet this comparison raises a crucial question.

The Challenge in Acts 16

If circumcision was rendered obsolete as a covenant sign at the Jerusalem Council—if humanity no longer needs circumcision to stand within God’s covenant or to participate in the covenant meal—then why, immediately after this decision, do we find Paul, the very apostle who opposed circumcision as a requirement, circumcising someone?

Practical Questions

The issue of entering synagogues - A big part of Paul’s ministry was to the Jews, God’s covenant people. As we saw in the first journey, they would generally enter the synagogues to convey the good news of the kingdom to the covenant people of God. Therefore, practically, it made sense to be circumcised so that entrance could be made into the synagogues.

The typology:

We said, quasi-ordination - a setting apart to the Lord. Paul was setting Timothy apart for this work.

It was connected with the land promise - God promised the land and gave the land and in both instances circumcision was given:

Genesis 17

Joshua 5

So, I’m making a loose connection that this is Paul’s way of connecting the land promise with their mission to the ends of the earth. I would not be dogmatic about this connection, but I believe the argument could be made: Paul circumcises Timothy as a typological setting apart to make disciples of all the nations, just before he goes on a journey to the ends of the earth.

The ritual of sonship.

It was usual for the father to take the son and circumcise him. So, this is Paul claiming Timothy as his spiritual son. He is succession planning. He is looking forward to a time after he is dead and answering this question, “who will continue the work that I have begun?”

As a side note, I’d like you to notice next time you read 1-2 Timothy how much of the Proverbs are there. And Proverbs was written from a father to a son.

Notice that circumcision was not imposed upon Titus (Galatians 2:3-5). I believe that the distinction between Timothy and Titus was merely one of continuing ministry - both Titus and Timothy are called children of Paul, but Timothy was to be the inheritor of Paul’s mission, which included entering synagogues, and therefore required circumcision.

The Apostles had a unique role as the heralds of a New Covenant as it was changing from Old to New, and there is consequently and overlap in signs and rituals. Paul takes a Nazarite vow, offers sacrifices, and even has his son circumcised, while at the same time advocating salvation by grace, through faith, baptism as a sign of the new covenant, and breaking of bread with believers of all kinds, Jew/Gentile, Male/Female.

Summary

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) ruled that Gentiles do not need circumcision or Mosaic Law to be saved—salvation is by faith in Christ alone: the One that the Old Covenant pointed towards.

Circumcision in the Old Covenant marked covenant membership, purification, and promise of redemption through the coming Redeemer.

Baptism now fulfills circumcision as the New Covenant sign, marking all believers—male and female, Jew and Gentile—as cleansed and united to Christ.

Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16) not for salvation, but for practical mission reasons, symbolic consecration, and spiritual fatherhood.

Implications for Application

All things to all men

1 Corinthians 9:20–22 “I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.”

https://dougwils.com/the-church/s8-expository/the-circumcision-of-timothy.html

Even if some would take it wrongly, it seems that it was ok to take Timothy through this ritual in order to gain a hearing. It didn’t ultimately matter that there were some present who believed circumcision was necessary for salvation. Paul still did it in order to gain access to their community and tell them about Jesus, the Messiah.

The questions is this: is it wrong to be circumcised? No, it is not. Objectively, it is simply a cutting of the skin and is actually a hygienic practice. Is it required to be in covenant with God? No.

It is not required nor is it forbidden. But it is forbidden to require it.

This would be similar to allowing for grape juice in the Lord’s Supper so that you can remain in a community that might believe drinking alcohol is sinful. You would be willing to drink grape juice in the Lord’s Supper even though you know it is not a requirement.

It is not wrong to use grape juice in the Lord’s Supper, just like it is not wrong to circumcise. It is wrong to impose grape juice in the Lord’s Supper just like it is wrong to impose circumcision.

But it is therefore not wrong to impose grape juice upon yourself so that you might influence a community that believes drinking alcohol is wrong. Just like it was not wrong for Timothy to impose circumcision on himself in order to influence the Jews.

But it is not required that we impose these things on ourselves. You are not morally obligated to attend a grape juice church if there is a wine church available. Nor are you obligated to leave the grape juice church because there is a wine church available.

You are free to use your freedom in service to Christ.

Black and white thinking goes against this mentality. This framework goes like this,

“If I believe wine ought to be used in the Lord’s Supper, then that means I am in sin if I use anything but wine in the Lord’s Supper.” Therefore, my moral obligation would be to only use wine.

“If I believe that the KJV is the best translation, then everyone who doesn’t use it must be in sin.” And I would be sinning by using anything else. I therefore shouldn’t use the KJV if there are people who believe it is necessary to use it.

“If I believe that we should be presbyterian, then I must believe that Baptists are in sin.”

“If I believe that women should wear head coverings, then that must mean that women who do not are sinning.”

“If I believe that circumcision is obsolete, then I must also believe that those who still use it are in sin. Meaning, that it would be morally wrong for me to use circumcision in order to win those who disagree or are ignorant. Because I believe it is sinful.”

“If I believe that a woman should stay home, that must mean that any woman who works outside of her home is in sin.”

There are probably many, many more examples that could be given to demonstrate this way of thinking. What should be apparent is this, despite good Christians differing on all of these issues: wine/grape juice, head coverings/hair, presbyterian/Baptist, how a woman serves in her home, we often use them as excuses to remain separated.

Our American individualism has allowed for this thinking because I can drive past 6 generally orthodox churches in order to find one that fits my preferences and convictions. This per se is not wrong. It is not necessarily wrong to drive an hour to church. But, it isn’t necessarily virtuous either. It isn’t more pious for us to attend a church that matches our convictions to the T. As a matter of fact, it could be more pious for us to attend a church that we don’t 100% agree with, because they are Christians and the circumstances call for it.

Michael Foster makes the case that we always have three options when considering our responsibilities in a church:

We can work to serve/reform the church we find ourselves in (as long as it is orthodox; we aren’t recommending someone join a Mormon church in order to influence them).

We can move to a church with whom we align more fully.

We can start a new church that has the distinctives we are looking for.

All three of these are good options. The point I’m driving at is, option number 2 (moving to a different church that aligns with us) is not automatically the correct and most pious option. Nor should we judge those who differ on these points.

If a person has extenuating circumstances that lead them to a grape-juice church, they have the Christian freedom to go to such a church.

The problem is that some will say: But I believe that since the Scriptures require head coverings, or wine, or presbyterian polity, then this means I only really believe it if I think those who disagree are in sin, and I cannot attend a church that upholds sin.

This way of thinking does not recognize that how other people view these things does not effect you. You must choose to be faithful and to use whatever lawful means at your disposal to reach as many as you can.

I will drink alcohol with those who drink, I will refrain from alcohol with those who refrain.

Let’s become all things to all men, lawfully, in Christ, so that we can by all things win some.

The ethnic danger

The Judaizers were right to have some pause here. There was a massive change in culture taking place. What had set them apart for so long; what had defined their very people, was being removed. Now, Israel had to die and absorb all the nations. Do you see that? Their unique cultural practices had to cease in order to bring the world into fellowship with God.

What if we were asked this questions: The entirety of the Americas can be Christian, but the only way that can happen is if America loses its national and cultural identity. What would you choose?

The Jerusalem council was debating that question: Are we willing to lose our Jewish identity for the sake of the world? And there answer was, yes. Must these gentiles become Jewish? No.

Now, even though it’s no quarter November I’m going to give some qualifications to my analogy:

I’m not suggesting that we need to have unfettered immigration policy in line with the Jerusalem council. I’m not saying that America ought to lose its cultural heritage in order to win the world.

I’m saying that this is the weight of the question on those participating in the Jerusalem council. The Judaizers were the “Jerusalem First” people of that day. They equated faithfulness with allegiance to their cultural heritage. They saw the holy of holies as still being in Jerusalem, not among the people of God from every nation.

This is the danger of the America First movement - most of what it wants to preserve and prioritize is good, actually. It is trying to conserve Christianity and Christian social ideals, like Male headship and Christ’s Kingship. But the danger is that this is also being tied to whiteness. Just like covenant membership was being tied to Jewishness.

The way it is stated, America was founded by and for “Anglo-protestants.” There is a connection of the genetic heritage with the spiritual heritage. Therefore, the only way to preserve America is to preserve its whiteness and its Protestantism. This is a very common trope among “race realists.” Those who believe there is a real difference among peoples based upon the color of their skin; their genetic heritage.

America was founded by and for Christians, I have no problem saying. The ideals of the American Nation should be under Christ’s authority. But this has nothing to do with genetics.

Communion

Romans 14:7–8 LSB

For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

As we come to this symbol of our union with Christ and communion with each other, I want us to ask this question, “Is my life being lived for me or for Jesus?”

If you are baptized and in good standing with the body of Christ, harboring no sin in your heart toward God or your neighbor, then we invite you to eat and drink with us in remembrance of Christ.

If you are not baptized, or if you are harboring sin in your heart toward God or your neighbor, then we would ask you to refrain from the supper, repent of your sins, and accept an invitation to membership in Christ’s household.

The Bread

Give thanks

1 Corinthians 11:23–24 LSB

...the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was being betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Read during distribution:

Psalm 145:1-5,17-21

The Cup

Give thanks

1 Corinthians 11:25 LSB

In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

Read during distribution:

Luke 20:27-38

1 Corinthians 11:26 LSB

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.

The Lord’s Prayer

Matthew 6:9–13 LSB

“...Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. ‘Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”

Matthew 6:14–15 LSB

“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. “But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

The Commission

Matthew 28:18–20 LSB

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Numbers 6:24–26 LSB

Yahweh bless you, and keep you; Yahweh make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; Yahweh lift up His face on you, And give you peace.’