Circumcision

[Emanate]

Being circumcised would be calling us into salvation by custom and tradition (works) and not by faith.

Romans 4
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Circumcision has never been a matter of justification. It was not salvation for Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Y'shua, Paul; nor is it salvation for any of us. Saul never taught against circumcision, in fact he calls it the seal of righteousness by faith. The issue was conversion to Judaism, which was finalized by circumcision. Which, as you have stated, is not necessary or encouraged or needed.

[kenrank]

HI Ken,

I would be curious as you where you get this. I mean.. what if the kid's father died before they were born. Then the kid can be left uncircumcised because it was only the father's responsibility?

Even a stranger in the land who wanted to share in the passover was asked to circumcise his every male in his family regardless their age. Exo 12:48. And of course to keep the law one is required at all the feasts.... You get where I could go from here.

To believe that Paul was arguing about circumcising children is, I believe, a huge understatement of the struggle against the Judaizers that Whatchinginawe has brought up in this post and that continues to this day.

Peace,
Joe

Joe...I will dig out the verse for you. In the meantime, I wasn't saying Paul was arguing about children. His point was simple, having to circumcise an adult who was not circumcised in order for them to be "saved," was wrong. He fought against it, the Jerusalem counsel agreed, and the letter sent out to the Gentiles said to not eat anything strangled or with blood, have nothing to do with idols, and avoid fornication.

Peace Joe.
Ken

[Walstib]

Saul never taught against circumcision, in fact he calls it the seal of righteousness by faith.

Hi Emanate,

Your conclusions seem to be similar to mine but I don't know as I would agree with this statement. How would you say in these verses Paul does not teach against it? As He sugests the agitators who teach it should cut the whole bunch off is pretty strong I would say. How I read things...

Peace,
Joe


Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. (1Co 7:18-20 NIV)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Gal 5:6-12 NIV)

[Walstib]

I wasn't saying Paul was arguing about children. His point was simple, having to circumcise an adult who was not circumcised in order for them to be "saved," was wrong.

I thought you were saying an adult Hebrew male could be uncircumcised while living in pre Ascension times and still be following the Law while in this state. Sorry for any confusion, it does sound like our post Ascension conclusions about how it relates to justification agree.

Peace indeed,
Joe

[kenrank]

I thought you were saying an adult Hebrew male could be uncircumcised while living in pre Ascension times and still be following the Law while in this state. Sorry for any confusion, it does sound like our post Ascension conclusions about how it relates to justification agree.

Peace indeed,
Joe

I was....but like I said, I have to dig that verse out. In post-ascension times though, when Jewish believers were saying you had to be circumcised in order to be saved, they were wrong. This is why Paul disputed that and was unltimately found to be correct.

Now, if you were to ask me if we should be circumcised in the flesh today, I would have to answer, "I don't know." While I do not believe the Law was nailed to the cross or stake, done away with...there are many aspects of the Law that simply don't apply to everyone. A rabbi named Rambam codified the law and came up with 613 commands. My small Saturday morning study group is actually going back over the Torah to do the same...but we are taking it a step further by making sure the conditions for each law is understood. For example, is it still a law that we don't serve any other gods? Are we allowed to kill, steal, cheat on our wives? of course not....but some laws are specific to priests, some to woman, some to men, some to kings, and some to anyone.....as long as you are "in the land." Of the 613 laws (if it turns out that is actually how many there are) in the Tanach (OT), probably about 200 apply to most people living outside the land of Israel today. Some Messiah fulfilled, some are treated slightly differently based on what he did for us. It's another thread Joe...maybe in a couple of weeks we can chat about how...or if...Torah applies to Christians.

Peace.
Ken

[matthew7and1]

My understanding is that there were many "demoninations" of jewish faith for quite a while. What finally separated christians from the ranks of these was the rejection of circumcision. It was a huge political and social movement of the time. I'm sorry I can't site my resources....

[Walstib]

I was....but like I said, I have to dig that verse out.

When you have time though you do have me confused now. I guess you could divide the “Pre ascension law” into “pre Sinai law” and “post Sinai law” and then that Passover regulations are not part of the law the Hebrews were called to follow. But with it stated in Numbers that the ordnances of the Passover previously described should be kept I think it hard to divide away that being circumcised at the Passover was not part of the law to be followed to remain in the covenant and be found clean.

Now, if you were to ask me if we should be circumcised in the flesh today, I would have to answer, "I don't know."

You are welcome to keep that answer but I would suggest giving careful consideration to the verses in my post to Emanate. We accept Paul’s words or we don’t. This assuming the “we” you speak of are reasoning adults and not a child as I think children are not the real focus of this thread.

Some Messiah fulfilled, some are treated slightly differently based on what he did for us. It's another thread Joe...maybe in a couple of weeks we can chat about how...or if...Torah applies to Christians.

Please do not assume I am not well versed on this issue or the Torah. Nor does saying “we should not kill anymore” to me encompass what was accomplished by the “the death of the testator” towards the new covenant. The Book of the Law as compared to pre-Mosaic law or post Ascension law, the Law and the law, Levitical law, the Royal Law….. Rightly dividing all of this, as you mention, has relevance to all we discuss here. Another thread, sure, but don’t I think it is so confusing it can’t be discussed within this topic as it relates. In a way rightly dividing this is the essence of this thread I think.

Peace in love to my brother,
Joe

[kenrank]

Joe my brother, I don't assume anything. I don't know you...but what I have seen so far, I like very much. You clearly have a hunger for truth.

We can get into some deeper Torah related items soon. We can start a new thread, correspond by e-mail...whatever works best. I have views that I can back in scripture that do not align with many in the mainstream...and I don't want to get anyone all ruffled up. Discussion is great, strife isn't. Not saying that would be the case with you Joe, but some others, I am not so sure.

As for Paul...my understanding of Paul was always one sided. I saw him as the catalyst of the understanding that we do not live according to Torah. In other words, it is his writings above the others, that seem to really put the nail in the coffin. However, over the last few years, I have begun to look at scripture in a different way. What if, for example, God doesn't change? What if His commands are indeed everlasting as he said they were? So I began to explore scripture from that perspective, and then started to see things a bit differently. What if I told you that Paul denied EVER teaching against Torah? What if I could show you that he told us to go on keeping the Passover Feast by name? What if you saw that after his meeting with Yahushua, he took the Torah vow of a Nazirite? Some say he was coerced, I say that would make Paul weak...he was anything but weak! There are many things Paul writes about that are saying the opposite of what I always thought he was saying.

I guess what I am saying is I am not a dispensationalist. I see a progression of covenants in scripture, one leading to the next, each pointing to salvation and Messiah. The Laws of YHWH were not given at Sinai Joe, they were put in writing at Sinai because Israel was about to become a nation and these would become their national laws. The Laws themselves had been in existence from the beginning...see Gen 26:5 for an example. Prosecution under the Law did not exist until they were in writing...when they were, all the laws were read to the children of Israel, they accepted the terms of them, the covenant was reached.

Anyway, I will leave you with that. I have to shower. I am going to a UK (University of Kentucky) basketball game tonight...a needed bit of R & R.

Peace my friend...I look forward to talking with you some more!!
Blessings.
Ken

[Walstib]

We can start a new thread......Discussion is great, strife isn't. Not saying that would be the case with you Joe

It's all good Ken,

Just passion here, no strife. Another thread or whatever for that stuff would be appropriate to stay focused here.

Peace,
Joe

[Walstib]

Emanate,

I was thinking about how Paul also taught the freedom to do what we want to for worshiping our Lord. Romans 14 theme. In that spirit I could agree there is freedom to circumcise yourself that Paul teaches if one wants to, the same way one can decide they only want to eat peanut butter on Wednesdays. If you do it to glorify God all the power to you.

The seal that you mention has merit in being addressed as it was very true for Abraham. The seal it shadowed that is available for us now is a true blessing.

I would add I think it is great the agreement in this thread that it has nothing to do with our justification before God. Nice to see that much agreement.

Peace,
Joe