Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision

[cygnusx1]

Abraham did not have both his sons chosen , neither did Isaac........... so one may receive many benefits whilst being in the community of God's people and also be a none inheritor of the promises . The sign of circumcision is part of the old system , a physical sign for a physical nation , a teaching aid , symbolising the new birth , seperate to baptism which they also experienced.

The Gentiles are not circumcised not because Baptism has replaced it , Jews are still circumcised even if they are from Christian parents , but because that sign was a typical sign of God's covenant with the Jews only , it was also a sign that seperated Jew from Gentile , much like eating pork .

seeing God's covenant signs and symbols with Israel and how they worked on a physical nation may instruct us , but we have no more warrant , I believe , to steal or manipulate Covenant signs to our Gentile offspring , as if these signs and symbols were meant for us whilst foolishly rejecting God's Covenant with the JEWS .

The simple truth is in one respect Circumcision means nothing NOW , no Gentile needs to be circumcised

Gal:5

6 For in Yeshua Messiah neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal.6

15 For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature​

, but for the JEW it still means something

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. ​

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? ​

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. ​

there is continuity of Covenant signs and symbols within the physical nation Israel , there is discontinuity outside of that nation.

 

[cygnusx1]

Galatians is refering to salvation (so is Romans 9) , yet Romans 11 is dealing with God's Covenant promises to Israel , they are enemies of the Gospel but and this cannot be stressed enough , they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers !

Romans 11

[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
[29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

if being in covenant with God is not to do with the seed / decendency then Isaac and Jacob etc would not have been chosen .............


(God said to Abraham) I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND THEE AND THY SEED AFTER THEE IN THEIR GENERATIONS FOR AN EVERLASTING COVENANT-Gen 17:7. ISAAC...I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH HIM…AND WITH HIS SEED AFTER HIM-Gen 17:19. IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED-Gen 21:12.
(God said to Isaac) I WILL PERFORM THE OATH WHICH I SWARE UNTO ABRAHAM THY FATHER-Gen 26:3.
(To Jacob from Isaac) GOD ALMIGHTY...GIVE THEE THE BLESSING OF ABRAHAM, TO THEE, AND TO THY SEED WITH THEE-Gen 28:3,4.
(God said to Moses) I APPEARED UNTO ABRAHAM, UNTO ISAAC, AND UNTO JACOB...AND I HAVE…ESTABLISHED MY COVENANT WITH THEM...I HAVE REMEMBERED MY COVENANT-Ex 6:3-5.
(God said to Abraham) I will BE A GOD UNTO THEE, AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE-Gen 17:7. I WILL BE THEIR GOD-Gen 17:8.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't find Paul vaulting to quite such high figurative langauge to make this argument. Maybe it's my covenantal wish to be more Biblically literal (in contrast with dispensational spiritualizing), but I just see the thing operating in quite a different way.

The other side of this though is, "We are the circumcision" (Pp 3).

The physical act of circumcision isn't required; but Paul is saying something in a very straightforward way. Should we spiritualize it? But doesn't that mean we have to conclude circumcision is an outward sign of a spiritual grace, and thus a sacrament?

Circumcision wasn't required, because Gentiles (the goy, the uncircumcised nations, Gen 22) were to be blessed through Abraham as well. How can you circumcise when those blessed are intentionally described as uncircumcised?

And so to me Paul is talking directly about these two groups of the House of Abraham, the House of God, in Romans 4. Circumcision or uncircumcision -- natural or grafted-in -- that's not what makes you a son of Abe, a son of God.

 

[heymikey80]

So you guys know, CygnusX1 and I have been discussing this as it relates to baptism on Semper Reformanda.

http://foru.ms/t6056980&page=13

It began spinning into CT and NCT distinctions that really belong here, and my friend cyggie posted 'em. But I didn't realize 'til now ...

 

[GeratTzedek]

I don't find Paul vaulting to quite such high figurative langauge to make this argument. Maybe it's my covenantal wish to be more Biblically literal (in contrast with dispensational spiritualizing), but I just see the thing operating in quite a different way.

The other side of this though is, "We are the circumcision" (Pp 3).

The physical act of circumcision isn't required; but Paul is saying something in a very straightforward way. Should we spiritualize it? But doesn't that mean we have to conclude circumcision is an outward sign of a spiritual grace, and thus a sacrament?

Circumcision wasn't required, because Gentiles (the goy, the uncircumcised nations, Gen 22) were to be blessed through Abraham as well. How can you circumcise when those blessed are intentionally described as uncircumcised?

And so to me Paul is talking directly about these two groups of the House of Abraham, the House of God, in Romans 4. Circumcision or uncircumcision -- natural or grafted-in -- that's not what makes you a son of Abe, a son of God.

nice summation, mike.

Folks need to remember that while we hope the entire world comes to understand Yeshua is Messiah, G-d certainly did NOT want the entire world to be Israel.

 

[GeratTzedek]

well said, cygnus

The Gentiles are not circumcised not because Baptism has replaced it , Jews are still circumcised even if they are from Christian parents , but because that sign was a typical sign of God's covenant with the Jews only , it was also a sign that seperated Jew from Gentile , much like eating pork .

 

[Librarian]

The sign of circumcision is part of the old system , a physical sign for a physical nation , a teaching aid , symbolising the new birth , seperate to baptism which they also experienced.

The sign of circumcision was the seal of the covenant of grace during its Abrahamic administration. It symbolised regeneration as well as repentance and was replaced by baptism in the New Testament.

 

[cygnusx1]

The sign of circumcision was the seal of the covenant of grace during its Abrahamic administration. It symbolised regeneration as well as repentance and was replaced by baptism in the New Testament.

pure conjecture.

baptism was already a factor even during circumcision of infants , Israel was baptised into their covenant head Moses as well as continuing the practice of circumcision , seeing as these two symbols are concurrent in the OT , a simple replacement theory is without substance.

 

[Librarian]

You are quite welcome to your views. I just beg to differ.

 

[heymikey80]

pure conjecture.

baptism was already a factor even during circumcision of infants , Israel was baptised into their covenant head Moses as well as continuing the practice of circumcision , seeing as these two symbols are concurrent in the OT , a simple replacement theory is without substance.

But ... it doesn't need to be a simple replacement theory for one to replace the other in practical terms.

Circumcision signified the same things we signify in baptism today.

The same God instituted both to signify the same things.

This God instituted circumcision at eight days of age. This sacrament that signifies our ingrafting, our new birth, our purification, our faith, it was instituted directly by God at eight days of age, bereft of all other aspects of Mosaic membership. Eight days.

What trouble does this God have with a sacrament that signifies our ingrafting, our new birth, our purification, our faith, being applied to our children at eight days?

The experience of the Jewish people were not all and entirely passing through the Red Sea in baptism. In fact I'm pretty sure not a single Jewish person alive when Paul wrote 1 Cor 10, actually experienced baptism into Moses in the Red Sea, nor even in the cloud. If this were a direct statement about baptism in Judaism, it wasn't pervasive.

But I'm pretty sure here Paul isn't speaking directly to a pervasive practice in Moses. Paul is talking about events in Israel's history that should serve as examples to us. He's not pushing the systematic treatment of the Red Sea passage as normative for baptism.

Were we to try to make this normative Mosaic baptism -- was it solely directed toward adults? Did the Israelites leave their minor children behind in Egypt? How about their infants? Were the firstborn saved from the Destroying Angel, only to be left to the rage of Egypt? Were this a normative practice the parallels actually feed into the view of infant baptism.

 

[cygnusx1]

But ... it doesn't need to be a simple replacement theory for one to replace the other in practical terms.

Circumcision signified the same things we signify in baptism today.

The same God instituted both to signify the same things.

This God instituted circumcision at eight days of age. This sacrament that signifies our ingrafting, our new birth, our purification, our faith, it was instituted directly by God at eight days of age, bereft of all other aspects of Mosaic membership. Eight days.

What trouble does this God have with a sacrament that signifies our ingrafting, our new birth, our purification, our faith, being applied to our children at eight days?

The experience of the Jewish people were not all and entirely passing through the Red Sea in baptism. In fact I'm pretty sure not a single Jewish person alive when Paul wrote 1 Cor 10, actually experienced baptism into Moses in the Red Sea, nor even in the cloud. If this were a direct statement about baptism in Judaism, it wasn't pervasive.

But I'm pretty sure here Paul isn't speaking directly to a pervasive practice in Moses. Paul is talking about events in Israel's history that should serve as examples to us. He's not pushing the systematic treatment of the Red Sea passage as normative for baptism.

Were we to try to make this normative Mosaic baptism -- was it solely directed toward adults? Did the Israelites leave their minor children behind in Egypt? How about their infants? Were the firstborn saved from the Destroying Angel, only to be left to the rage of Egypt? Were this a normative practice the parallels actually feed into the view of infant baptism.

my point is it is far more logical to see baptism in the OT as replaced by baptism in the N.T. and as seeing circumcision which is indeed done to us Gentiles by the Spirit as being different and distinct from baptism and in a very real way ongoing , not needing a shift into another sign and symbol..... would this shift be so hard pressed but for a prior commitment to the place of infants in salvation , probably not.


baptism into Moses now replaced by baptism into Christ.

circumcision of the flesh is now (for the gentiles) replaced by circumcision of the heart.

baptism is dealing with the conscience , circumcision is dealing with the fallen nature.

 

[Librarian]

Were this a normative practice the parallels actually feed into the view of infant baptism.

Indeed, families crossed and were sprinkled

 

[heymikey80]

Indeed, families crossed and were sprinkled

ROFL!

 

[GeratTzedek]

Paul did not circumsize Titus because he was gentile. Yet Paul circumsized Timothy, a hellenistic Jew.

Gentiles today, whether they are believers in Jesus or not, are not to be religiously circumsized.

Jews today, whether they are believers in Jesus or not, are to be religiously circumsized.

Paul went around teaching gentiles they did not need to be circumsized, just as he was instructed to do by the council of Jerusalem.

Paul was also FALSELY ACCUSED of teaching that Jews should not be circumsized. He and James tried to counter these false accusations by having Paul participate in ritual sacrifice at the Temple, so that all could see he was Torah observant. When he was arrested anyhow, he testified under oath that he kept every law and tradition, and was being falsely accused.

Whatever interpretation we give to Paul's epistles MUST be in line with his ACTIONS as recorded in the book of Acts. We need to remember that his epistles are written not to Jews, but to gentiles, who of course are not to be circumsized. Paul never wrote to Jews.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Circumcision is a sign of the Jewish covenant, no more no less. It has NOTHING to do with purification. NOTHING.

The usual Jewish rite of purification is that of water, either the washing of hands, or immersion in the Mikveh.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Galatians is refering to salvation (so is Romans 9) , yet Romans 11 is dealing with God's Covenant promises to Israel , they are enemies of the Gospel but and this cannot be stressed enough , they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers !

Romans 11

[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
[29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

if being in covenant with God is not to do with the seed / decendency then Isaac and Jacob etc would not have been chosen .............


(God said to Abraham) I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND THEE AND THY SEED AFTER THEE IN THEIR GENERATIONS FOR AN EVERLASTING COVENANT-Gen 17:7. ISAAC...I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH HIM…AND WITH HIS SEED AFTER HIM-Gen 17:19. IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED-Gen 21:12.
(God said to Isaac) I WILL PERFORM THE OATH WHICH I SWARE UNTO ABRAHAM THY FATHER-Gen 26:3.
(To Jacob from Isaac) GOD ALMIGHTY...GIVE THEE THE BLESSING OF ABRAHAM, TO THEE, AND TO THY SEED WITH THEE-Gen 28:3,4.
(God said to Moses) I APPEARED UNTO ABRAHAM, UNTO ISAAC, AND UNTO JACOB...AND I HAVE…ESTABLISHED MY COVENANT WITH THEM...I HAVE REMEMBERED MY COVENANT-Ex 6:3-5.
(God said to Abraham) I will BE A GOD UNTO THEE, AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE-Gen 17:7. I WILL BE THEIR GOD-Gen 17:8.

You are my kind of guy. Check my signature tag.

 

[billwald]

Where does the OT list the people who are not circumcised?

 

[heymikey80]

Circumcision is a sign of the Jewish covenant, no more no less. It has NOTHING to do with purification. NOTHING.

The usual Jewish rite of purification is that of water, either the washing of hands, or immersion in the Mikveh.

The problem there is that while it currently has nothing to do with purification in modern Judaism, it's clear something in First Century Judaism made it a contact point with Judaism, and which Paul took advantage of:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. Rom 2:25-27

He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Rom 4:10
​

I think Christians would agree that it's not primarily a purification ritual -- but we don't quite distinguish purification and sanctification as being completely different. Circumcision admittedly sets apart the Jewish person from the Gentiles. That's what a sanctification ritual does. We tend to confuse this separation with purification because they're often associated with one another.

To say circumcision has NOTHING to do with purification, though, it seems to me there are incidental references to circumcision that associate the two.

And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Dt 30:6

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD;remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire,and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." Jer 4:4

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. Rom 2:29
​

While the reference isn't directly to the ritual, the allusion to the ritual seems clear enough.

 

[heymikey80]

my point is it is far more logical to see baptism in the OT as replaced by baptism in the N.T. and as seeing circumcision which is indeed done to us Gentiles by the Spirit as being different and distinct from baptism and in a very real way ongoing , not needing a shift into another sign and symbol..... would this shift be so hard pressed but for a prior commitment to the place of infants in salvation , probably not.

I think this shift took place because to Paul, Gentiles would enter the covenant. And so circumcision was unnecessary. And so lawkeeping was unnecessary (as this was a citizenship requirement resulting from Abrahamic circumcision).

With the departure of circumcision, baptism remained as the initiatory rite in the Kingdom of God. But you find baptism appearing in Moses as well. You find baptism in Jewish tradition for adult converts as well. You find baptism -- however figuratively -- occurring to the entire nation of Israel, irrespective of age.

It just doesn't stop there.

baptism into Moses now replaced by baptism into Christ.

Baptism into Moses was with the entire household of Jacob/Israel. (1 Cor 10).

circumcision of the flesh is now (for the gentiles) replaced by circumcision of the heart.

Ummmm, I find heart circumcision to be the basis for Judaism (cf Rom 2:29). There wasn't a replacement here. The sole difference is that -- for non-Jews, mind you -- Gentiles aren't circumcised, and yet are still parties to the Abrahamic Covenant by Christ, and through faith without being circumcised: "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well" Rom 4:11b (cf Gen 22:18, Rom 4:13-18, Gal 3:7-9,14,24-29).

baptism is dealing with the conscience , circumcision is dealing with the fallen nature.

I don't really see that division occurring in Scripture. So that may be why I take it very differently.

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. Rom 2:28-29
​

So to me it's not some attempt to "back-in" infant baptism. Infant baptism isn't the "johnny come lately" of Christianity; quite the reverse.

I do agree, people can make too much of the circumcision parallels in pressing the rhetoric and debating the issue. I'm trying to keep focused on what Scripture says, though, and it's not embracing either "total replacement" or "separate replacement". Baptism is a sign of faith. Circumcision is also a sign of faith. Their treatments can't be completely separated; they needn't be completely the same. Scripture's treatment of them shows an implication of the water of purification being applied in practice as the sign of faith the way circumcision is applied in Moses. The way Acts reads, baptism is being applied in the pattern of God's earlier covenants. And that pattern is with households, the minors in the household included.

 

[tyyppi13]

youre right