Last night in our study the infant church was faced with a serious issue — whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved. The idea was actually brought up by saved Jews, but not the disciples or apostles. It first came up in Antioch, where some Jews came in and told the believers there they had to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas argued strenuously against it, but the debate was so serious they were sent to Jerusalem to get the “official word” from the apostles.
Even in Jerusalem it caused quite a debate. The Jewish believers who had been Pharisees argued strongly for it. However, Peter and Paul both had worked with Gentiles and seen them receive the Holy Spirit without having to be circumcised, so what was the point in having them be circumcised after the fact?
When you get right down to it, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant — the covenant of the Law. For the Gentiles to have been circumcised it would have in some effect placed them under the Law, which Christ had fulfilled. In essence, it would have been denying the grace that had brought them to salvation in the first place.
Likewise, we have to be careful not to place burdens on new believers that Christ has set them free from.
Girlfriend Theologian 