Circumcision - An Alternative Perspective

[Shimon]

Acts 16:1-3: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

According to this passage, Paul had Timothy circumcised. The passage strongly hints that Timothy’s father was *not* a Jewish proselyte, or a God-fearer, and that his mother was a Jew. Had Timothy’s father been a Jewish proselyte, or a God-fearer (a Gentile on his way to becoming a proselyte), I believe the passage would have labeled him as such. I think we can safely conclude that Timothy’s mother was Jewish, because in 1 Timothy 1:5, Paul says:

2Timothy 1:5: For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you [Timothy], which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois, and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.

Paul speaks of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, but doesn’t speak of Timothy’s father as the source of his training in the scriptures. This adds further evidence for us to suggest that Timothy’s Greek father was not God-fearer, and that his religious training was done by his mother and grandmother.

According to the Mishnah (m.Kiddushin 3:12f.), Jewish lineage could only be determined in marriages ruled valid. The “marriage” of a Jewish woman to a Gentile would not be considered valid, and therefore the children from such a union would not be considered Jewish. Timothy, therefore, would have been considered a Greek, and not a Jew.

So, at this point, we find Paul circumcising a Gentile.

HOWEVER, in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Paul tells us:

1 Corinthians 7:18-19: Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Do you see an apparent contradiction here? Paul has Timothy circumcised, and then turns around and tell us *NOT* to circumcise someone who is uncircumcised!

Right here, this should send off alarm signals in our heads, warning us that maybe we need to look a little deeper to find out what Paul meant!

Does Paul deliberately contradict himself? Is he preaching a “Do as I say, not as I do” gospel? Is he failing to lead by example? Is he being hypocritical by giving us instructions that he was unwilling to follow himself?

If we accept Paul’s epistles as inspired Scripture (which I believe we should), this prevents us from concluding that he deliberately contradicts himself. If we accept Paul as an Apostle and representative of Yeshua (which I believe we should), this prevents us from concluding that he is giving us instructions that he was unwilling to follow himself. Therefore, I believe that we have to conclude that maybe, just maybe, there is some meaning behind his words in 1 Cor. 7:18-19 that isn’t clear if we look only at the verse itself, and don’t dig a little deeper to find out what he meant. In order to understand what he meant in these verses, we need to develop a better understanding of the Judaisms of Paul’s day – what the Jews of his day believed – so that we may better understand the issues he had to deal with during his ministry.

According to the Mishnah:

All Israel have a portion in the world-to-come, for it is written, Your people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

-- m. Sanhedrin 10.1, the gemara is b.Sanhedrin 90a.

What did the Sages mean by this statement? They often spoke of Israel as wayward and rebellious, so it is clear they do not mean that all Israelites were without sin. Rather, righteousness is attributed to all who are members of the covenant. Righteousness, according to the Sages, was a matter of God’s willingness to reckon the pious deeds of the fathers to their offspring and to forgive and show mercy when Israel sins. Thus, the place in the world-to-come which belongs to all of Israel was a matter of God’s grace, not something earned or merited.

To put it in simpler terms, the Jews believed that salvation was granted to members of the covenant, and that the members of the covenant were the Jews. In order for a Gentile to become a member of the covenant, they believed, he had to become a Jew. Circumcision, then, was the method by which they believed a Gentile could become a Jew.

So, the Jews believed that the status of “righteous” before God and “unrighteous” was determined by one’s status as a Jew.

This, then, is the reason why we read in Acts 15:1 that “certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], ‘Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.’” They believed that the covenant was made only with the Jews, and that Gentiles had to become Jewish through the proselyte ceremony of circumcision, before they could be saved.

It is this same issue that Paul was addressing in the book of Galatians. It is these Jews who Paul refers to as the “circumcision group” or “the circumcision faction” in Titus 1:10. The “circumcision group” or simply “the circumcision” were those Jews who were teaching that one had to become a Jew in order to be a member of the covenant family.

“B’rit milah,” the Hebrew term for “circumcision,” means “covenant in the flesh.” It is the means by which they believed a person became a member of the covenant.

But, in Genesis 17:9-14, we read:

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Here, we read that God instructed Abraham to circumcise his entire household, including those born to him, and those NOT born to him.

God was not creating a nationality here. That wasn’t His intent. His intent was to have a separate, set-apart people who would worship Him in Spirit and in Truth from WHATEVER nationality! He wasn’t designating “Jew vs. Gentile,” but was calling a people unto himself, from whatever nationality they may come from, to separate themselves from the things of the world, and be a holy and righteous people who obeyed His commandments. He was designating “righteous vs. unrighteous,” “worshipers of God” vs. “worshipers of false gods,” “those who chose His salvation” vs “those who did not,” “those who accepted His covenant” vs “those who rejected His covenant.”

"Grace" is not the freedom to live however we please. "Grace" is the empowerment to live a holy and righteous life in a sick and perverse world. We are called to separate ourselves from the things of the world, and become a separate, set-apart people unto God, and it makes no difference what nationality or ethnic status we come from.

Within His covenant family – His separate, set-apart people – there is no distinction between “Jew” or “Greek.” One’s ethnicity or nationality has absolutely no bearing on one’s status before God. The only status that makes a hill of beans of difference is the status of “in Messiah.”

This is what Paul meant when he said:

Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is neither Jew nor Greek because *BOTH* are one in Messiah!

Circumcision, then, is the sign by which we designate which group we belong to: God’s people, or not His people. It is just like the lamb’s blood that was placed on the doorposts in Egypt – its purpose is to distinguish those who accept His salvation that the spirit of death may pass over us, and those who do *not* accept His salvation and choose death. By being circumcised, we are declaring “I’m one of His people.”

"Gentile," then, doesn't mean "not Jewish," it means "of the world" as opposed to "separate and set apart from the world."

Throughout the Torah, God made it clear that there was One Torah For All, whether Jew or Gentile:

Leviticus 16:29: And [this] shall be a statute for ever unto you: [that] in the seventh month, on the tenth [day] of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, [whether it be] one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you

Leviticus 17:12: Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Leviticus 18:26: Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you

Leviticus 19:34: [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.

There was no distinction between "Jew" and "Gentile" among God's people. There was no set of laws given to "Jew" and a different set given to "Gentile."

So, when Paul said "let him not be circumcised," what he was trying to say is: "Don't think you have to become a Jew, because that has no bearing on your status of 'righteous before God.' It is your *faith* that gets you into the covenant, and not your ethnic status." He isn't saying "don't become circumcised," he's saying "it makes no difference whether you are Jew or Greek!

So, 1Cor 7:18-19 could be just as accurately interpreted as:

1 Corinthians 7:18-19: Was any man called already "Jew?" Let him not become "Greek". Has anyone been called "Greek?" Let him not be "Jewish." "Jewish" is nothing, and "Greek" is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God {i.e. having the status of "in Messiah" ).

So, he wasn't talking about the *act* of circumcision per se, he was talking about the creation of a "Jew" from a "Greek" through the ritual of circumcision.

Shimon

 

[Andrew]

"Circumcision, then, is the sign by which we designate which group we belong to: God’s people, or not His people."

I'm a little confused by your long post (didnt have time to go thru the details). In a nutshell, are you saying that Christians ought to be circumcised in order to "belong" to God's "people"?

can u plse summarise your point?

 

[Shimon]

"Circumcision, then, is the sign by which we designate which group we belong to: God’s people, or not His people."

I'm a little confused by your long post (didnt have time to go thru the details). In a nutshell, are you saying that Christians ought to be circumcised in order to "belong" to God's "people"?

can u plse summarise your point?

I'm saying that Christians should be circumcised, but definitely *not* for the purpose of becoming a member of the covenant. It is by faith alone that we become members of the Covenant Family. Circumcision is our signature at the bottom of the contract, indicating that we agree to abide by the terms of the covenant.

Shimon

 

[Caedmon]

Circumcision is unnecessary. I don't plan on having my boys circumcised.

Baptism brings us into God's covenant. That is the way we are enrolled into the Christian faith.

 

[Shimon]

Circumcision is unnecessary. I don't plan on having my boys circumcised.

Baptism brings us into God's covenant. That is the way we are enrolled into the Christian faith.

And who told you that? God or Man?

Shimon

 

[adam332]

Shimon,
I like much of what you said and the way you put it. But, I think your conclusion was scripturally a little off.

Just so as you know where I stand, I'll first give you a little info that I believe is common ground. My view is that scripture portrays that Israelites will be the only humans that will be received of God. And, when I say Israelites I synomously mean, wheat, of the cicumcision, sheep, the church, Jews, saints, in Christ, righteous, elect, Abraham's seed, the body, etc....

That said, now on to some discussion....

What I think you may be missing is; that Paul never made any claims in Acts 16, that righteousness or faith was accounted to his circumcision. Nor did he hint that this was instruction to the church assemblies. Paul has stated firmly that circumcision was an act performed by Abraham AFTER he was found righteous!

_________

Rom. 4:1  What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
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:
12  And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13  For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

_________

What I believe we are seeing in Acts 16, is neither an example that 1. we should be circumcised nor 2. an act of righteousness.

But, instead it is a simple matter of doing what is required by that culture. Such as paying taxes to Rome, or even perhaps getting a flue shot before you enter into public schools. As long as circumsion isn't against God's laws then there was nothing wrong with him getting himself cut, so he could fellowship with the Jews.

Paul has expressed over and over that circumcision of faith is that of the heart. Why? Because we have always been saved by faith through God's grace. Nothing has changed in the method of salvation.

Phil. 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

We are all circumcised if we are in Christ, because it is our faith that makes us righteous never the physical act.

It was a "seal"/"token" between God and Abraham, after righteousness had been accounted to him(Rom. 4, Gen. 17). 

Re: 1Cor. 7

The contradiction actually lies not in the writings of Paul, instead it's in the ommittance of context. In plain English; "Ya' left out a verse.". Also, I would say that you left out the guidelines for the instruction of whether to be circumcised or not. The verses clearly emphasize the importance of the statement directly related to ones "calling".1Cor. 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

These verses don't forbid becoming circumcised. I'm sure you know that Israelites/Jews of the flesh were known as "of the circumcision", right(Gal. 2:12)? It was a descriptive and almost derogatory term, such as the Jews considering themselves clean and Gentiles to be unclean. 

Now let's look at this passage in the context of what we know these terms to represent. And let's rightfully  consider this as instruction towards Jewish and Gentile Christians. How do you think this might have come across in todays English. Maybe a little something like this....

"If when you were called to be a Jew, then stay as a Jew. If you weren't called to be a Jew, then don't try to become one. Because, whether you are a Jew of the flesh or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that you obey God. So each person stay on the path to which you were called."

If you look at it a little less rigidly, and apply the language that Paul was known to use(Gal. 2:12), you would see there is no conflict. Especially, considering your own statements regarding Timothy, you said; ".....his religious training was done by his mother and grandmother".

Ahhh.... so you are like me and are under the impression that he was trained according to the Jewish faith. So the only possible descrepency is if Timothy was not on the path to being a Jew when he was called of God. Because we have to remember the context, right?

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

I believe the whole of Pauls writings paints a clear picture that physical circumcision doesn't matter. And, that some have been called as Jewish Christians and some Gentile Christians. And, that the only thing that really matters is if we are circumcised in our hearts. Thus, we have our righteousness sealed by our hearts faith. That is the only circumcison my Bible indicates as ever having any bearing.

 

 

[Andrew]

But, instead it is a simple matter of doing what is required by that culture. Such as paying taxes to Rome, or ...

Exactly my sentiments!

Acts 16: Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

The reason Paul had him circumcised is simply the bolded part. That's it. No need to build a doctrine of circumcision from there.

 

[Shimon]

Adam332 and Andrew:

Ahhh, but here's the catch:

Moses taught the children of Israel that if any man came along, performing signs and wonders and yet taught the children of Israel to abandon the Torah, they were to recognize him as a false prophet and put him to death:

Deuteronomy 13:1-4: If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

So, with that in mind, how could Paul expect to preach to Jews if he disobeyed the Torah commandment of circumcision? He would, in essence, be teaching them to abandon the Torah and be worthy of death.

Shimon

 

[Higher Truth]

Shimon,

As far as being Jewish or non-Jewish, God decides that before birth, and we have no say in it. There has been a movement as of late, created by a false teaching, and now there is a group of non-Jewish believers claiming to be 'born again Jews' Romans 11 is very clear about the root and the branch. People of non-Jewish origin must be careful so that they do not become like the Judaizers referred to many times in the scriptures by Paul.

 

[Andrew]

Adam332 and Andrew:

Ahhh, but here's the catch:

Moses taught the children of Israel that if any man came along, performing signs and wonders and yet taught the children of Israel to abandon the Torah, they were to recognize him as a false prophet and put him to death:

The verse you quoted says nothing abt this false prophet teaching others to abandon the Torah. It simply says " whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" ie worshipping and serving other Gods.

It does say, however, "Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments,"

But all Christians already know that the law of the NT is the Law of Christ -- which is to believe in Him and love one another.

He would, in essence, be teaching them to abandon the Torah and be worthy of death.

that wld make just abt every one of us non-Messianic Jewish Christians a false prophet, according to your interpretation, since we dont tell new believers to go circumcise themselves in order put their "signature" as you say, on the covenant.

 

[Higher Truth]

Shimon,

So that we can all be on the same page, who's translation are you using?

 

[adam332]

Shimon,
Paul did not abandon the Torah, neither did he disobey the Torah commandment of circumcision. He showed them the fulfillment of circumcision in the gentile believer. Again, this is NOTHING NEW,
and is beginning to sound abit like the agruement that OT saints were saved by works and NT saints were saved by faith.

Grace has always been through faith by the grace of God. Circumcision was of the flesh in a symbolic manner because Christ dwelled with them physically in tabernacles. He was the Shikinah Glory and the one who made the covenant with Abraham in the first place. But, now the dwelling is spiritual and it is better. For He ascended to heaven that He may send His spirit to indwell His believers hearts.

This is why when the true seed of Abraham came(Christ), he fulfilled circumcision in the heart of the believer, where His spirit dwells and has engraved His commands.

Deu. 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu. 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer. 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

It appears that circumcision of the heart was what God was paying attention to all along. Had you ever consider that Paul was inspired of God and knew this and the Jews didnt? And maybe Paul understood Christ's spirit fulfilled this circumcision of heart, which was the objective all along?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Shimon
And who told you that? God or Man?

Shimon

God

 

[ZiSunka]

I believe that Paul hd Timothy circumcised so he would ba accepted by the Jewish believers, not as a fruitful ritual that has meaning to Christians today.

Timothy's mother was Jewish and his father was not. BUT, it was the Jewish father that was to circumcise his son, not the mother, therefore, since the tradition meant nothing to his Greek father, he didn't circumcise Timothy or recognize him as a Jew. That's the reason he wasn't circumcised as a baby.

When Timothy grew up, it was done to him, perhaps even at Timothy's own request, to solidify his status as a Jew, a faith he adopted but was not fully born into. Keep in mind that most believers at that time were Jews and Gentiles were being converted, too.

Do you remember in the book of acts where they had a big conference about what to do about circumcision? Should they keep doing it and do it to Gentile converts? Or should they cease the practice now that the old covenant was completed? They decided to stop, since circumcision didn't have any magical powers and that it was the state of the heart that determined who was a Christian, and not the presence or absence of a foreskin. It could be that Timothy's circumcision preceded this conference and that he was circumcised as a part of his conversion experience.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Shimon]

Andrew:

The verse you quoted says nothing abt this false prophet teaching others to abandon the Torah. It simply says " whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" ie worshipping and serving other Gods.

Following after false gods *IS* an abandonment of the Torah commandments. Recite the 10 Commandments, what is the first one?

*Every* sin is an act of disobedience to God and an act of obedience to HaSatan. That's what Adam's sin was: He followed after HaSatan and not after God.

But all Christians already know that the law of the NT is the Law of Christ -- which is to believe in Him and love one another.

That's where Christianity is wrong. The *Torah* is the "Law of Christ." Every commandment that Yeshua spoke was already written in the Torah.
The Beattitudes are the attitude with which we are to obey His Torah. Jeremiah 31:31-34 tells us that the "New Covenant" is the Torah written on the heart -- that's what Yeshua was doing, writing the Torah on our hearts, telling us how to obey His Torah with the proper attitude.

that wld make just abt every one of us non-Messianic Jewish Christians a false prophet, according to your interpretation, since we dont tell new believers to go circumcise themselves in order put their "signature" as you say, on the covenant.

Yes, exactly. What were Yeshua's own words? "He who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven." What had Yeshua just gotten through telling us? "Think not that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Obviously, "fulfill" cannot mean "abolish," He had just said He didn't come to abolish. "Fulfill" means "to confirm," and "to establish." He came to *fulfill* and to *establish* His Torah, not to give us license to start transgressing His Torah all over again.


Shimon

 

[Shimon]

Higher Truth:

Shimon,

So that we can all be on the same page, who's translation are you using?

I use several translations, but the quote that I provided was King James.

Adam332:

Paul did not abandon the Torah, neither did he disobey the Torah commandment of circumcision. He showed them the fulfillment of circumcision in the gentile believer. Again, this is NOTHING NEW,
and is beginning to sound abit like the agruement that OT saints were saved by works and NT saints were saved by faith.

Yes, it *is* new. That isn't the gospel that the Apostles preached. God doesn't change and His commandments are *eternal.* Last time I checked, "eternal" meant "forever."

Malachi 3:6: For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

You can take it to the bank: God doesn't change. The commandments He gave from the very beginning are still given today. Once a command is given, it stays given. God never repeals His commandments.

Grace has always been through faith by the grace of God.

Yes, but "faith" can *never* be divorced from "faithfulness." There is no such thing as "faith in God" without exhibiting faithfulness to His commandments. We have a covenant relationship with God, just like a marriage covenant between husband and wife. One cannot simply have "faith" in their spouse and expect their marriage to be healthy. One must *BE FAITHFUL* themselves. Why was Israel so often called a "harlot?" Because she was *unfaithful* to her marriage covenant.

James 2:14: What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

*Faithfulness* to His commandments is the method by which we have "faith." If one does not obey His commandments, one does not have "faith" in Yeshua, and has not accepted His sacrifice.


HumbleJoe:

God

That's informative. Was this revealed to you through scripture? By divine revelation? How?

If by scripture, what is the reference?


lambslove:

Do you remember in the book of acts where they had a big conference about what to do about circumcision? Should they keep doing it and do it to Gentile converts? Or should they cease the practice now that the old covenant was completed? They decided to stop, since circumcision didn't have any magical powers and that it was the state of the heart that determined who was a Christian, and not the presence or absence of a foreskin. It could be that Timothy's circumcision preceded this conference and that he was circumcised as a part of his conversion experience.

Did you read my post at the beginning of this thread? This has already been explained in great detail.


Shimon

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Shimon
HumbleJoe:

God

That's informative. Was this revealed to you through scripture? By divine revelation? How?

If by scripture, what is the reference?

I know it through the support of 2000 years of Scriptural scholarship.

 

[Andrew]

You can take it to the bank: God doesn't change. The commandments He gave from the very beginning are still given today. Once a command is given, it stays given. God never repeals His commandments.

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

2 Cor 3:11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor.

both cant be permanent and in force at the same time.

 

[adam332]

Shimon,
Yes they law must be obeyed, but it doesn't always have to be physical.
The ceremonial laws that pointed to Christ work during His ministry were physically fulfilled. we no longer have to sacrifice lambs because the real lamb came, etc...., right.

All the rituals and laws of the sanctuary are still in effect and have their place either in the spiritual walk of the believer, and/or in the heavenly sanctuary where we have the real High Priest(again fulfilled in Christ), acting on our behalf.

Did not these very physical things, find spiritual fulfillment upon Christ' work here on earth? Then, why would you focus on one item and not the hundred others? I've already shown Biblically, that in the OT and NT the circumsised heart of the believer is what was considered, never the physical act. And I showed that Paul never instructed anyone to disobey the laws of God.

But, if you insist on being inconsistant and focusing on one thing and not the rest, and you feel that it's absolutely necessary for you, then by all means get yourself circumcised.
As Paul says; whichever direction you were called by God, whether it be circumcision or uncircumcision, then stay on the path you were called? Because, to be cut or not to be cut, matters not.