If You Circumcise Your Son Is He Severed From Christ?

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. (Galatians 5:2-3 ESV)

“You’ve got a healthy baby boy,” exclaims the nurse as she slaps your new child on the bottom. In no time you’ll be signing papers, taking a ton of pictures, and answering all sorts of questions. One of those questions—one you likely haven’t thought much about, is whether or not junior is going to be circumcised.

If you are Catholic and adhere to the Council of Florence you’d better not circumcise your son, as it “strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.” Notice too that little part where it says, “whether or not they place their hope in it”. That is clearly saying that if your child is circumcised he is—as Paul argues in Galatians 5—cut off from Christ.

Now, this particular article has nothing to do with the particular merits or demerits of circumcision. My concern is with the way we interpret the Bible. Is Paul saying in Galatians 5 (or even Philippians 3) that if you are circumcised or have your child circumcised that you/they are cut off from Christ?

The key here is to consider the context. The Judaizers are arguing that circumcision is an eternal covenant. Therefore, if Christians want to be part of the family of God and receive the Abrahamic blessings (see Genesis 12:1-2) then they had better participate in the sign of the covenant. But this, Paul says, is contrary to the gospel. To receive circumcision—for the purpose of adhering to the law—would be to place oneself entirely under the law. Paul’s argument is that the Abrahamic blessing comes to those who are in Christ and not to those who are under the law, because you cannot fulfill the Law. Either Christ fulfilled the Law in your place or the full weight of God’s righteous requirements will crush you.

Paul extends his argument even further in Galatians 5. Even though circumcision and uncircumcision “count for noting” it does matter. If one accepts circumcision in the hopes to gain favor with God then he has severed Himself from Christ. In other words, you are either all-in in trusting Christ or not. You cannot hedge your bets, you either trust Christ alone or not at all.

So what Paul means in Galatians 5 has nothing to do with medical procedure. If you believe that it is medically beneficial for your child to be circumcised, then Paul doesn’t have you in his sights in this passage. But if you become circumcised or have your child circumcised because you believe it marks them off as the people of God—or because you believe it will add to their righteousness, then by all means you are forsaking the gospel.

Really Paul’s point in this passage is that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything”. You cannot boast in your uncircumcision either. That doesn’t make you any more righteous. But what does matter is “faith working through love”. This is another way of saying a faith which is firmly rooted in Christ and is showing itself through the fruit of love.

I’d actually argue that the Council of Florence is more in line with Judaizers than with Paul. They are actually resting in uncircumcision when Paul clearly said it doesn’t count for anything. They’ve missed the context of Galatians and Philippians and Paul’s larger point about salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. All this to say, you really shouldn’t circumcise or not circumcise your child based on any biblical reason. It’s a non-issue according to the gospel.

—

Photo source: here