2 Peter 3:14-17 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the lawless; 

I am publicly repenting of teaching that Circumcision is only necessary for Gentiles who migrate to the Nation of Israel pursuant to Exo. 12. I must thank 119 Ministries for their excellent article on circumcision.

I had a meeting with a young man today and we discussed my activism in Louisville and my rejection of Christianity. I had listed off many problems with Christianity and yet the young man demanded that I was deceiving myself with regards to Galatians and Circumcision. I thought about this deeply today. I could not deny that Exo. 12 was requiring circumcision for a gentile who came into the Commonwealth of Israel and that the Galatians were technically not doing that. That is true. I saw no problem with my view of Circumcision. I prayed and asked Yahweh to show me truth and reveal any error. One thought entered my mind: If indeed the Gentiles are grafted into the same Covenant of Abraham (Rom. 11) which was entered into through circumcision in the days of old, am I not replacing circumcision with Baptism? Am I not falling into the same erroneous Replacement Theology that I had rebuked just earlier this morning? A thorn began to prick my conscience. My emotions must be suppressed in order to seek truth. Merciless, ruthless and cold-hearted as it is, truth is truth whether it makes me feel good or not. It is time for Re-evaluation.

Enter 119 Ministries.  These men have written an excellent article on this issue linked above. The clearest and strongest argument made in this article is this:

In Gal 2 we read:

Gal 2: 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled [Anagkazō] to be circumcised.


Does Paul use this word Anagkazō elsewhere in Galatians so we can see how he is using it? Yes! In Galatians 6:

Gal 6: 12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel [Anagkazō] you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.


So here we see that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, meaning, that he was not pressured into taking circumcision FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFICATION, thus throwing his lot in with this sect of men who taught that circumcision played a role in justification. (Gal. 5)

Paul was in no way, diverting from the Torah. He was refusing to associate Titus with this heretical sect of men.

Remember, in Acts 16 we read of Timothy’s circumcision. 119 Ministries states,

“Because the decree of James proved the position of those in Acts 15:5 to be correct, Paul and Timothy both agreed that Timothy should be circumcised because all of the Jews already knew that he was a Greek. How awkward would it have been for Timothy to be issuing a decree that states that Gentiles were to learn the Law of Moses each Sabbath and still not be practicing the Law of God himself? Timothy felt as though he was ready to outwardly submit to his already inwardly circumcised heart.

What we would then have in Acts 16 is Paul and Timothy leaving to go issue the decree to the Jews that supposedly teaches that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but right before they leave, Paul actually circumcises Timothy, a converted Gentile. It simply does not add up. Why in the world would Paul and Timothy be issuing decrees to Jews that supposedly abolishes circumcision for Greeks and then feel it necessary to circumcise a Greek before they even begin? That would be the definition of insanity and hypocrisy.

Some even teach that Paul is simply trying to please believing Jews by circumcising Timothy. That makes no sense at all either. These Jews are already believers, this was not an evangelizing mission so there is no motive for Paul “pleasing” anyone. In addition, would Timothy have actually allowed himself to be circumcised for such an absurd reason if it was not because God commanded it? Why would Luke have documented this in Acts if it was not important and related to the decision in Acts 15, the same decree that they are leaving to deliver?

In addition, Paul already declared that his motive is to please God not men, thus there is not even a need to debate this:…

Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

Instead, Paul circumcised Timothy because the decree they were issuing teaches that Timothy should want to be circumcised in the flesh if his heart is truly already circumcised inwardly for the Word of God. This is what he would learn in the Sabbath each week as Moses (Law of God) was read from the Moses’ Seat.”

In the book of Galatians Paul is rejecting, not the Torah, but the doctrines of men:

Gal. 1:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Yeshua Hamashiach.

119 states,

“That being said, is the Law of God from God or from men? If the whole supposed point of Galatians is to teach against God’s law then why is Paul stating that he is teaching against doctrines of men? This will become clearer as we proceed.”

Notice, those who say that Stephen is teaching against Moses are speaking as false witnesses:

Acts 6: 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council.13 They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” 

119 states,

“Yet supposedly it is now “correct teaching” that Yeshua (Jesus) changed the law of God. Somehow what is a false accusation for Stephen is now true accusations according to the modern mainstream Church.”

As I have pointed out numerous times, Messiah and the Apostles teach against Rabbinic Tradition, not the Torah:

Mark 7:6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘ This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men

Mark 7:9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Mark 7:13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

 Paul cannot be interpreted to be doing away with the law

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Romans 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

119 states,

“Paul taught that it is inward obedience and conversion first:

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God…

We are not to be circumcised in the flesh until we are fully circumcised in the heart (fully desire the Law of God) and are no longer stiffnecked (Deut. 10:16; Deut 30:6).

Those of the Circumcision Party were only circumcising to boast in the flesh of their works:

Galatians 6:13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh…

To Paul’s point, if one is keeping God’s law only outwardly as written then they are missing the whole  point of God’s law which is an inward transformation. We are to keep God’s law to please God, not to please men. If we are keeping God’s law simply to boast then we are not keeping God’s law as intended. This is why Paul establishes this mindset in the very first chapter of Galatians.

Now we are really beginning to understand the difference between a true application of circumcision and a false application of circumcision.

This is why Paul states what he does in 1 Corinthians 7:19

1 Cor. 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of  God is what matters.

This is a very confusing statement by Paul because circumcision is actually a commandment of God as an inward and outward commandment.

However, if we fully consider everything that we have just reviewed we discover that Paul is once again just teaching against the doctrine of men that teach circumcision actually means something as it relates to salvation [Justification-Gal. 3:11, 5:4]. In reality, to Paul’s point it does not. Circumcision is simply evidence of faith in the Word.”