I was recently asked by a secularist what my view of circumcision was, both of males (in Judaism, Islam and elsewhere) and of females. Needless to say this is a subject that arouses religious passions especially when it is broached by secular governments. When the Apostolic Council repudiated the need for circumcision, it provoked considerable persecution of believers amongst the Judeans for whom this principle was a sacred totem. It resulted in the mass excommunication of believers from Judaism in Jamnia in about 80 AD which though painful was in fact a providential blessing. It's sometimes hard letting go of old ways.
"Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the Torah (Law) of Yahweh of hosts, and despised the Davar (Word) of the Set-Apart (Holy) One of Israel" (Isa.5:24, NKJV).
We have, if we're not very careful, a tendency to pursue the proverbial 'gospel hobbyhorse' by emphasising one doctrine above all the others in order to cultivate a special identity. Historically the Baptists have emphasised baptism, the Pentecostals the speaking in tongues, the Seventh-Day Adventists the Saturday sabbath, the Mormons extra scriptures, the Jehovah's Witnesses theocratic government, the Quakers silent meditation, the Catholics apostolic succession, the Church of God of Prophecy prophecy, Messianics Torah-observance, Evangelicals salvation by faith, Black Hebrews the importance of black skin, British Israelites white skin, and so on. A lot of these are important and a necessary part of the true faith whilst others are to patently false. But when one of them gets abolished along with a whole stack of other observances because one covenant has been superceded by a new one, it can - understandably - provoke a violent backlash amongst those carnally determined to adhere to the old and not move on to the new. When Yahweh removed circumcision from the true emunah (faith), it challenged the whole foundation of Judaism. And to this day, Judaism hates and loathes both Christianity and Messianism because of it.
Not that there was anything wrong with circumcision for its time but under the New Covenant it became superfluous:
Here the apostle juxtaposes the Cross (the New Creation) with Circumcision and says: 'Take your pick! You can't have both - it's either one or the other'. Believers back then, as today (principally amongst messianics) insisted that new believers (gentiles) be circumcised in addition to receiving Messiah, and comitted a grave error belonging to the flesh and the "pride of life" (1 Jn.2:16). The emphasis on circumcision got so out of hand that it evolved into a cult which remains even today - the religious leaders, in order to make this the principle ordinance of the faith, changed the biblical Milah into Periah and essentially did what animists and Muslims do to girls in mutilating the genitalia but on boys. Today's circumcision is simply mutilation, even if they still call it Milah.
"As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Messiah. For not even those who are circumcised keep the Torah (Law), but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But Elohim (God) forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our master Yah'shua the Messiah (Lord Jesus Christ), by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus) neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal.6:11-15, NKJV).
Periah circumcision is actually a witness of apostacy in action - apostacy from what Yahweh originally ordained and apostacy from Yahweh for rejecting His Son. When messianics insist on circumcision - whether Periah or Milah (I don't know of any who practice Milah for real) - they are accepting Messiah with one hand and rejecting Him with the other. They are double-minded (Jas.1:8).
What, then, should those who have undergone Periah circumcision do, whether as a convert to Messianism or because of upbringing as a Jew? Renounce the spiritual basis of that Periah circumcision in the Name of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and confess that it is no longer required. Should one undergo the uncircumcision operation? No (unless he wants to for purely non-religious, cosmetic reasons). For as Paul says:
In other words, circumcision is not longer a mitzvah (commandment) in the B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant) . If you're wearing your truncated male organ as a badge of set-apartness (holiness), understand that you are walking in the flesh and not after the Ruach (Spirit). That also goes for those uncircumcised who take pride in still retaining their 'extra bit' too.
"Was anyone called [to Messiah] while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called [to Messiah] while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the mitzvot (commandments) of Elohim (God) is what matters" (1 Cor.7:18-19, NKJV).
Notice that Paul did not repudiate commandment-keeping but underlined its importance - he merely made sure that his readers understood that now circumcision is religiously useless. A regenerated life in Messiah is what matters now - circumcision of the lev (heart).
After so many centuries of indoctrination, I understand that this is as tough for those coming from a Jewish background for whom circumcision was the mark of righteousness, as well as for those evangelicals who have bought into the whole Zionist propaganda which is basically a back door for Pharisaic manipulation and control of na´ve believers. So much anti-messianic (and demonic) rage is (ironically) infused into the teaching of Periah circumcision that I actually feel very sad for those who dip into this anger and arrogance, and vent it on fellow Christians when the truth is both Christians and Messianics are still working out their salvation as they purify themselves of false traditions and practices. So many are turned off by messianics because of this holider-than-thou attutude which many espouse.
Today's scripture is a warning not to reject the Torah. Traditionally Messianics throw this at Christians for their lawlessness whilst we need to remember that the Torah of Messiah not only fulfils those parts of Moses' Torah that have been fulfilled in the work of the Cross (such as the covenant of circumcision) but has much added to it too - it has been 'filled' - which is what Yah'shua (Jesus) meant when He said that He had come to "fulfil" the Torah at Matthew 5:17. Yah'shua (Jesus) filled the Torah "full with their complete meaning, so that everyone can know all that obedience entails" .
The tensions and sometimes animosities between Christians and Messianics continue to exist because of the confusion over such issues. Here, at Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon, we have resolved these and brought the two together in divine tavnith (pattern). Christian are right to refuse circumcision of messianics and messianics are right to claim that commandment-keeping is vitally important so that everybody knows what obedience to Yahweh after salvation by emunah (faith) actually entails!
Our alliances to lawlessness and Judaism have to end if we are to come into the full emet (truth) and we are not promised immunity from judgment if we insist on resisting Yahweh's mitzvot (commandments) by ignoring His Davar (Word). As we rapidly approach the spring festivals and seek to get right with Yahweh before meeting with Him at Pesach (Passover) let us be particularly mindful of these things.
 Be careful of such writings as Avi ben Mordechai's Galatians: A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context which, though containing a fascinating amount of interesting historical information, is simply an attempt, by means of intellectual exegetical acrobatics, to twist the scruiptures to mean that circumcision is in actual fact still binding but not the Pharisaic understanding of it.
 David Stern, Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, Maryland: 1989), p.xxiii
 Numerous articles on circumcision.