One of the most disturbing features of contemporary Adventist theological discourse is the extent to which certain folks wearing the “progressive” theological label persist in treating issues long considered settled by Seventh-day Adventists as though they aren’t settled. And tragically, this is being done without any coherent Biblical rationale.
The following question was recently posed on a liberal Adventist website: “Should we circumcise our baby boy?” [1]. The question proceeded with the following explanation:
My husband insists that the Bible requires male children to be circumcised. In the Old Testament it’s the mark of God’s chosen, he says, and in the New Testament it is a metaphor for conversion. He also thinks there’s some medical reason for it, though he’s not quite sure what it is [2].
We won’t in the present context explore the medical issues raised here—unqualified as I am to consider such factors—though articles have lately been written in prestigious journals as to the medical advantages of males being circumcised [3]. But one is quite dumbfounded to read of Seventh-day Adventists being unclear as to the Biblical stance on circumcision as a requirement for Christians in the New Testament age. The following statements by the apostle Paul are as clear as noonday that circumcision is not required of the Christian, but that the new birth experience and obedience to God’s commandments are in fact required:
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (I Cor. 7:19).
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love (Gal. 5:6).
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature (Gal. 6:15).
The Two Laws
Few tenets in Seventh-day Adventist theology are as pronounced as the distinction in Scripture between the moral and ceremonial laws, both in the requirements given to Old Testament Israel and which of these requirements remain binding on the Christian conscience in the New Testament age. The first of the above verses draws a very clear contrast between the keeping of God’s commandments and the ordinance of circumcision—stating plainly that while the latter is no longer in force for the follower of Christ, the former most assuredly are.
The identification of God’s commandments with the Ten Commandments proclaimed on Mount Sinai is especially clear in the Epistle of James, in which the standard of ultimate divine judgment is spelled out:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:10-12).
The ceremonial law, by contrast, is described in the following passage from Paul’s writings:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.
And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days,
Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Col. 2:14-17).
The Old Testament is clear as to which body of law is being described in the above passage, when in Deuteronomy 31:26 God commanded Moses: “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” This book of the law, placed in the side of the ark, stands in contrast with the tables of stone on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments, which was put “into the ark” (Ex. 40:20). Thus when Paul speaks of “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” (Col. 2:14), he is speaking of the ceremonial law that was placed in the side of the ark of the covenant, as distinct from the tables of stone which were placed within the ark.
The apostle Paul clarifies this point in another New Testament passage, when he writes in the book of Hebrews:
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect (Heb. 10:1).
Notice how the language here is similar to that used in Colossians 2, regarding the law that was “a shadow of things to come” (Col. 2:17), and identifies this law with the sacrificial offerings which in the Old Testament age pointed forward to Jesus. Those outside Adventism who equate the seventh-day Sabbath with the “sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come” (verses 16-17) have forgotten that the seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial of God’s creation (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:11), the eternal token of a sinless earth (Isa. 66:22-23), not a shadow pointing forward to a Savior whose redemptive work would only be needed when God’s law had been broken.
This Biblical distinction between moral and ceremonial laws is a key cornerstone of Seventh-day Adventist theology, and it is nothing short of appalling that any Seventh-day Adventist should be so unaware of this Bible truth as to wonder whether or not God still requires male children to be circumcised. When one places the above passages alongside the ones considered earlier regarding the abrogation of the circumcision requirement, the case becomes unassailable. No one, inside or outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, has offered any substantive reason as to why this distinction between moral and ceremonial laws is not fully sound on the basis of Holy Scripture.
Stoning a Disobedient Son
We see a similar disregard of this key Bible principle in contemporary Adventist discussions about the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) issue. From time to time, online and elsewhere, one encounters those who dispute the present relevance of the Old Testament’s condemnation of same-gender sexual intimacy (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) because the same Old Testament commands the stoning to death of stubbornly rebellious sons (Deut. 21:18-21), a punitive remedy most contemporary Christians no longer recommend.
Such reasoning totally ignores the Biblical reality that the rules governing crime and punishment within the Old Testament Israelite theocracy do not carry over into the New Testament age, in which Jesus has declared that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). But the fact that neither same-gender sexual intimacy nor disobedient sons are marked for capital punishment in the New Testament church, in no way proves that such behaviors have become Biblically acceptable for Christians.
Conclusion
When the study of the inspired text is neglected, settled issues have a strange way of becoming unsettled. This isn’t because any sound Biblical basis exists for unsettling them, but rather, because too many have either forgotten various Biblical teachings or perhaps never learned them in the first place. When the weekly ministry of the pulpit includes less and less careful Bible study, when the education of the young focuses more on undirected but lively discussion of “felt need” issues rather than establishing a solid Biblical foundation for faith and practice, some of the most basic Biblical principles, even Biblical stories, can fail to take root in the spiritual consciousness of believers.
(Some years ago, friends of mine were involved in a discussion of music styles with some young people in a large Adventist community, in which the golden calf episode in ancient Israel was mentioned. Upon hearing this reference, one of the young people asked, “What’s that?”)
Whenever Bible doctrines and standards are devalued in deference to experience-driven, comfort-seeking spirituality, ignorance of the most basic Biblical principles can easily result. Leaders and laity alike bear the most sacred obligation to educate fellow believers regarding the content of Scripture and its amplification in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Such guidance must both govern and saturate the religious education of the church at every level, so that no informed Seventh-day Adventist need ever again ask whether the Bible requires the circumcision of male infants in the New Testament age.
REFERENCES
1. Dear Aunt Sevvy, “Aunty, should we circumcise our baby boy?” Adventist Today, Feb. 27, 2023 https://atoday.org/aunty-should-we-circumcise-our-baby-boy/
2. Ibid.
3. Hanna Rosin, “The Case Against the Case Against Circumcision,” New York, Oct. 15, 2009 https://nymag.com/health/features/60146/
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan