Gen 17:10
This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised. י. זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל זָכָר:
Pertains to Abraham's SEED.
Rashi says; Here Scripture repeated it [the commandment to circumcise a slave born in the house;] but did not state [that it is to be] on the eighth day, to teach you that there is a slave born in the house who is circumcised after eight days [other editions: at the age of one day], as is delineated in Tractate Shabbath (135b).
There has to be a distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the flesh.
In the Spirit, in the New Covenant no, circumcision and un-circumcision
means nothing.
However A Jew in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17. If there are no Jews in the flesh then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Jews who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. Romans 11 makes this distinction IN THE FLESH. Again IN the flesh. I repeat myself so I'm not misunderstood IN THE FLESH.
That's why believing Jews like myself still circumcise our male childs as per Gen 17. However if and when the male child who was circimcised on the 8th day comes to faith then his circumcision means nothing. But in the flesh it means something. When the male child comes to faith it's a fulfillment of Romans 11 per se and the Torah and the prophets.
.
For myself, I still find it intriguing that circumcision was of such importance when it was something that was practiced by the nations at large long before the Lord came to Abraham/asked for it.
The history of circumcision BEFORE Abraham is significant, especially when considering the spirtual purposes it was done for apart from the Lord. ...and plenty of scholars have noted the vast history of circumcision that has been around in the Middle East long before Genesis 17. Whereas it was a rite of obligation amongst Jews., the practice has a long history in the ancient Middle East and is closely related to the rituals dedicated to ancient gods and goddesses of fertility. In example, the ancient Mesopotamians had festivals where the testicles of a young boy was cut off and dedicated to the fertility goddess.and for more, one can go online/invesitigate the following:
Also, on the history of where circumcision was practiced amongst the nations, one can go to
Religious Traditions and Circumcision and
The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 - Page 469. I don't think there's any reason reason for anyone to argue against or deny the fact that being apart of Israel/inheriting had circumcision as one of the deals one had to keep in being in Covenant with God...but I do think its noteworthy when the subject of circumcision is taken to mean salvation since circumcision was already being practiced amongst the other nations long before God told his people to do such.
On where it was noted how other nations outside of Israel practiced circumcison---including those who were enemies of Israel--one can go to Jer 9:25-26 and Ezekiel 32:29. Jeremiah 9:25-26 is the most descriptive in discussing other nations that were only circumcised in the flesh. Circumcision went back to the time of Abraham and was practiced by pagan nations, but not as a sign of a covenant with God.
Some did so for health reasons, whereas others had their own symbolisms to go with the act. In Jeremiah's day, by the time he arrived on the scene, the Israelities had forgotten the spiritual significance of circumcision even though they continued to do the physical ritual.
Again...Jeremiah 9:25-26 speaks on the issue and circumcision went back to the time of Abraham. For the people of Israel it was a symbol of their covenant relationship to God (Genesis 17:9-14). However, circumcision was also practiced by pagan nations LONG before Israel/Abraham were in existence---and some notable examples of that would be places like Egypt, who did it for the purposes of cosmetic design as well as for health purposes. The other nations didn't do circumcision as a sign of covenant with God--and by Jeremiah's time, the Israelities had forgotten the spiritual significance of circumcision even though they continued to do the physical mark.
The issue of circumcision is NOT about whether it was commanded, as that's clear from the text. What can be problematic, IMHO, is the claim that the practice of it was in any way unique/first of its kind to be used for distinction...
There was far more to being with God's people than being circumcised---for it was an outward sign of an inward reality...
How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
It is a sign of the covenant, the covenant that was already established... as stated here: "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised".
Why did God require circumcision? It was a sign of obediance to him in all that matters. As a sign of belonging to his covenant people...once circumcised, there was no turning back. The man would be identified as a Jew forever...and as a symbol of "cutting off" the old life of sin, purifying one's heart and dedicating oneself to God. It was more than any other practice the way God's people seperated from their pagan neighbors......in Abraham's day. And this was essential to develop the pure worship of God.
Although other cultures used circumcision as a sign of entry into adulthood, only Israel used it as a sign of following God....though the practice in/of itself never gave one righteousness---as seen in Romans 4:3, Romans 2:24-26, and Jeremiah 9:24-26. For rituals did not earn any reward with Abraham. It was by faith alone.....as Genesis 12:1-14 tells of God's call to Abram when he was 75 yrs old....and the circumcision ceremony was introduced when he was 99years old. The outward symbols demonstrated inward trust/faith and as reminders of our faith--but by themselves, they could never bring justification. Nonetheless, to be considered apart of Israel in the OT, it was a BIG deal, (i.e., Exodus 12:43-45 , Leviticus 12:2-4, etc).
As it concerns the practice of circumcision, much of its importance can be seen clearly when studying the context of what occurred with Moses when he failed to circumcise his children, as seen in Exodus 4:25-27. To the best of my understanding, Moses was the most humble man on the earth ( Numbers 12:2-4, Hebrews 11:23-25, etc )..yet God was about to kill Moses had he not circumcised his son......and he may not have been too familar with God's laws, especially the requirements of God's covenant with Israel in Genesis 17 that had not been carried out for over 400years. And Moses could not actively function as deliverer of God's people until he had fulfilled the conditions of God's covenant....and one of those conditions was circumcision. Before they could go any further, Moses and his family had to fulfill God's commands completely. For under the OT, failing to circumcise your son was to remove yourself and your family from God's blesings.....and Moses QUICKLY learned that disobeying God was even more dangerous than tangling with an Egyptian Pharoah.
Exodus 2:23-25 makes clear that the Lord remembered his covenant promises....and his people were called to remember the conditions of the covenant. Moses was held responsible for the provisions of the covenant with Abraham that required him to circumcise his sons. And failure to be circumcised may have led to some severe form of punishment, Numbers 9:6-14 . Had it not been for Moses's wife coming through, the man would have died. And to say it was not a part of the requirement to be considered Israel, one would perhaps have to diminish the significance of the threat Moses had.
Much of the issue of circumcision also goes back to Joshua 5, where God required Joshua to circumcise all male before entering the land. For its interesting to see how those males were already citizens of Israel. However, the ones who entered the land were those who were children of the older Israelities who never entered in.
Illegal immigrants entering the U.S.A can give birth to children in the states, effectively making them "U.S Citizens".. even though they may not have all of the full benefits of the country at their disposal due to their background...and the things they must work through. Likewise, by "accident of birth" those males in Joshua 5 were already counted among the Hebrew Children, but in order to enter the Land as legitimate citizens of Israel, they HAD TO BE circumcized according to the LAW of Moses. Even though the children of the older generation of Israelities had fought in many battles during their time in the wilderness (Numbers 20-36, Deuteronomy 2-4, etc), its possible that many of the young men had never been circumcised. Joshua 5:5 makes clear that all of those men of military age died in the desert after leaving Egypt....and whereas all the people coming out of Egypt had been circumcised, those born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not. Its also possible that the new/second generation also had children who were uncircumcisd at this time.
But their circumcision had nothing to do with their being noted as apart of God's people.
For another example, the first covenant community was Abraham's household. It did not include only his immediate family but also slaves and strangers. They were all members of the household BEFORE they were circumcised. Gen. 17:14 says: " And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he has broken my covenant." For in Genesis 17:1 (also seen in Acts 7:7-9 ), God was making a covenant, or contract, between Himself and Abraham.
The terms were simple: Abraham would obey God and circumcise all the males in his household----and interestingly, those also who were NON-Jewish as well...including servants like Eleazer of Damascus ( Genesis 15:1-3, Genesis 15 ).......which is an Arab nation the last I checked...and of course, with Ishmael--the father of the Arab Nations ( Genesis 16 , Genesis 17:19-21 , Genesis 21, Genesis 25:8-10, Genesis 25, Genesis 28:8-10, Genesis 36:2-4, 1 Chronicles 1:27-29, 1 Chronicles 1 Romans 9:7, Galatians 4:21-31)--him being circumcised as well..Genesis 17:22-24 Genesis 17
In order for a person be be CUT off from his people, it seems logical to conclude that he needs first to be a part of the people...and the.slaves and strangers in Abraham household were all member of Abraham's people BEFORE they were circumcised. IMHO, Circumcision did not play a role for them to be part of the household.
As explained earlier, in Joshua 5, all the uncircumcised people in the covenant community at the time (the children of Israel) were members of the people. Requiring circumcision in order to enter the Land had nothing to do with them already being members of the covenant community. The circumcision was to fulfill the requirement as a a sign of the covenant, not to become citizens of Israel....or demonstrate faith in the Lord. For even those outside of the Covenant Community demonstrated faith in the Lord on many occassions....like Jethro or Melchizedek and the Roman Centurion of Matthew 8.
Thankfully, it was never the case that those who wanted to be apart of the community of God/believers had to be circumcised in all cases...and even more thankful in light of what Christ has done in the NT. For after the Cross of Christ, circumcision takes on an entirely different revelation:
Galatians 5:6
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.