Circumcision in Acts 15 and Acts 16

An Example of Individual Christian Responsibility

by Dave Brown

The issue of circumcision was one of the most divisive in the first century church. We read of the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. In Acts 13 and 14, we read of the church at Antioch sending Paul and Barnabas out to take the gospel to much of the Gentile world. They returned to Antioch at the end of Acts 14, only to be confronted with some Jewish Christians who came from Judaea claiming that circumcision was essential to salvation. Acts 15:1 states: “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”

Exactly what their motive was we cannot know for sure, but many such doctrinal disputes are caused by a lust for power, and perhaps these Jews wanted to keep some control over the church by forcing the Gentiles to keep the law of Moses. Clearly, from Acts 15:5, they were pressing for not just circumcision, but to enforce keeping the entire law of Moses.

We might pose the question: what was the position of the apostles with regard to circumcision? What did the Holy Spirit reveal to them? Like many other issues as the first century church was organized, a direct edict from the Holy Spirit should put this issue to rest for once and for all.

By the time we get to Acts 15, however, it is clear that the Jewish converts were practicing circumcision and the Gentile converts were not. Clearly the Jews who came from Judaea (the home of all of the apostles except Paul) were practicing circumcision. If not, how would they be able to suggest imposing it on the Gentiles? But it is also just as clear that the Gentiles were not practicing it – none of the Gentiles that Paul baptized were compelled to be circumcised, as evidenced by Acts 15:1-3.

It is clear that circumcision was not a tenet revealed to the apostles. God had not commanded it one way or the other. It was not wrong for the Jews to practice it, nor was it wrong for the Gentiles to abstain from it.

So, what was the problem? The problem was that the Jews that came down from Judea were trying to bind something that God had not bound. It was not wrong for them, as individuals, to practice it, and the New Testament never condemns its practice. But the condemnation of those who would bind it is clear, e.g., see Galatians 5:1-6. To impose something on the entire church that God had not bound puts one in the place of God, and that is clearly sinful.

As if to add an exclamation to this point, after the debate of Acts 15 clearly concludes that Gentiles were not going to be compelled to be circumcised, we have the following event recorded in the very next chapter (Acts 16:1-3) “Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.”

Paul’s reason for having Timothy circumcised had nothing to do with it being right or wrong per se. It was strictly a matter of expediency so that the issue would not be a deterrent to the conversion of the Jews where Paul and Timothy were going to preach. Again, this illustrates that this is an individual, not a church, issue. It was not to be made a church issue one way or the other. The Holy Spirit was silent with regard to it being required of Gentiles or forbade to Jews, and thus, they were free to practice it either way. However, they were absolutely forbidden to bind it one way or the other on the church, as we can see in Galatians 5.

But is there not a broader principle being illustrated here? Namely, the difference between individual responsibility and church responsibility? Paul felt the responsibility as an individual, as did Timothy, to practice circumcision in order to expedite the work. However, if this were imposed upon the entire church, one way or the other, it would have been sinful. There are many such things in which we do not have a “thus saith the Lord” where individuals are free to use their judgment, but they are not at liberty to impose (or bind) this judgment upon the church.

When we take practices that cannot be substantiated by clear scriptural evidences and impose them upon the church, we are guilty of legislating where God has not. Even if these practices are perfectly innocent when practiced by individuals. This principle is also elaborated in detail in Romans 14.