Circumcision - The Everlasting Covenant

[Grumpy Old Man]

Genesis 17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Abraham and the Covenant of Circumcision

1 Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty;
Walk before Me, and be blameless.
2 “I will establish My covenant between Me and you,
And I will multiply you exceedingly.”
3 Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,
4 “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
5 “No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. 7 I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Compare this with what Paul says.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Galatians 5:2
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

Galatians 5:3
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Galatians 6:15
For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Let's have a look at another "everlasting covenant" God made with man.

Genesis 9 (NASB)

16 When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Everyone knows this story. God makes a covenant with Noah, an everlasting covenant, that whenever he sees the rainbow, he'll remember not to wipe out mankind with another flood (this is proof, in my eyes, that the flood myth described in Genesis was a global flood and not a local flood as local floods happen on an almost daily basis). However, I digress and am not here to discuss the flood.

What I'm curious to know is how Christian apologists explain away the fact that circumcision was established as an everlasting covenant, yet was abolished in the New Testament by Paul (who himself was circumcised). I use the Noah story as another example because we clearly still see rainbows and there hasn't been a global flood since the Biblical record, so God could have been said to have lived up to his side of that everlasting covenant. Why then would he change his mind about circumcision? Why is the rainbow an everlasting covenant but circumcision not?

Or, to put it another way, did God break the covenant of circumcision? The Jews certainly didn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The old covenant of circumcision was for the "descendants of Abraham, throughout their generations", referring to ancient Israel. The old covenant was in force only as long as Israel existed as a nation. In Paul's day only the Jews remained, only a remnant of Israel. Also, Paul spoke mainly to gentile converts, and of the new covenant. Curiously circumcision is mostly practiced in the white anglo-saxon west, believed by many (including myself) to be the latterday remains of the tribes of Israel. Circumcision is a vestige of the ancient rite still carried on by the scattered descendants Abraham, even in the face of evidence that it is not a medically necessary procedure. The tradition is still pretty strong although more and more parents are choosing not to have their sons circumcised. Of course the Jews are still faithful to the tradition.

 

[jehoiakim]

I have a semi complicated answer so let me start here...

There is a very strong debate that Paul never broke Torah himself and never taught against it.It is a rather in depth argument. Generally it is called "a new perspective on Paul" I think an organization called First Fruits of Zion does an excellent job presenting this argument through their materials.

Anyways the teaching goes that it Jews were expected to continue in the covenant and keeping the laws so long as they aren't trusting in it to save them. Gentile believes were not required, but are invited to join in some of the traditions, they have been "grafted in" to Israel, but they are not expected to keep circumcision because they are not physical descendants of Abraham.

If you remember Paul argued against circumcision and pushed for example Titus a gentile not to be circumsized, but he also pushed Timothy to be circumsized who was half jewish with a greek father, (but whole jewish by the law because his mother was a jew.)

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

The old covenant of circumcision was for the "descendants of Abraham, throughout their generations", referring to ancient Israel. The old covenant was in force only as long as Israel existed as a nation. In Paul's day only the Jews remained, only a remnant of Israel. Also, Paul spoke mainly to gentile converts, and of the new covenant. Curiously circumcision is mostly practiced in the white anglo-saxon west, believed by many (including myself) to be the latterday remains of the tribes of Israel. Circumcision is a vestige of the ancient rite still carried on by the scattered descendants Abraham, even in the face of evidence that it is not a medically necessary procedure. The tradition is still pretty strong although more and more parents are choosing not to have their sons circumcised. Of course the Jews are still faithful to the tradition.

I expected an answer such as this. The problem I have with your answer is that the first Christians were Jews, descendants of Abraham. Jesus himself preached only to the Jews (and, as far as I remember, Jesus did not speak against circumcision, only Paul did).

Also, you say that the covenant was only in force as long as Israel existed as a nation. As far as I can tell from the passage I quoted in my OP, no such condition existed. In fact, in Genesis 17:8, God says this;

8 I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Israel was meant to be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants, which it obviously did not turn out to be. Perhaps another failed covenant by God? But I don't want to go into that. My questions are about circumcision. Jesus himself said nothing about it (please correct me if I'm wrong). So was this just something that bothered Paul? Was Paul really speaking for God when he condemned circumcision?

To put it another way, what do you personally believe the word "everlasting" means? If God came up to you and said he wanted to make an "everlasting" covenant with you, would you not presume that this covenant would, in fact, be "everlasting", and not temporary? I certainly would. It appears to me that there is a direct contradiction between Genesis 17 and Paul's teachings.

 

[jehoiakim]

I expected an answer such as this. The problem I have with your answer is that the first Christians were Jews, descendants of Abraham.

This is true which explains exactly why Jesus wouldn't say anything, Paul however was called to preach to the gentiles, that's why all almost his letters were written in Greek, perhaps Romans was Latin, I am not sure on that. This naturally stared quite a bite of controversy which is where the whole Judiazing argument came from. Some were arguing gentiles beleivers needed to become Jewish first and Paul argued against that. Peter also had similar difficulties defending himself in Jerusalem for going to the gentiles.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I have a semi complicated answer so let me start here...

There is a very strong debate that Paul never broke Torah himself and never taught against it.It is a rather in depth argument. Generally it is called "a new perspective on Paul" I think an organization called First Fruits of Zion does an excellent job presenting this argument through their materials.

Anyways the teaching goes that it Jews were expected to continue in the covenant and keeping the laws so long as they aren't trusting in it to save them. Gentile believes were not required, but are invited to join in some of the traditions, they have been "grafted in" to Israel, but they are not expected to keep circumcision because they are not physical descendants of Abraham.

If you remember Paul argued against circumcision and pushed for example Titus a gentile not to be circumsized, but he also pushed Timothy to be circumsized who was half jewish with a greek father, (but whole jewish by the law because his mother was a jew.)

I suppose the interesting thing about what you're saying here is that when God gave Abraham the pleasurable covenant of slicing off his own foreskin, the Law (of Moses) wasn't given yet. The Covenant of circumcision seems to be (in my mind) about God giving Canaan as a possession to Abraham's descendants forever (see verse 8). The problem is that this contradicts the Law of Moses (another covenant) because God then requires Israel to follow the Law in order to keep Israel as a possession. So basically, God seems to be constantly moving the goal posts; or so it appears to me. First he promises Abraham (and his descendants) Canaan in exchange for some foreskin. Then he (God) shifts when Moses comes along and demands Israel follow the law in order to have peace in Israel (see Deuteronomy 28 I believe, with its many curses for disobedience). And finally, God scraps all of this and decides to impregnate a women, becoming his own father and sacrifices himself to himself, thus doing away with the two previous "everlasting" covenants.

EDIT: It could be argued that Israel frequently broke the covenant with Moses by their repeated disobedience. But they never broke the covenant (and still haven't) with Abraham. God did.

 

[jehoiakim]

So don't you find it interesting that after almost 2000 years the land of Israel has been given back to the Jewish people?

Maybe I am wrong, I am certainly no expert, but from my reading of it I think that God was telling abraham that he "would establish" a covenant(another covenant) with his desecenants... this covenant of circumcision gave Isreal a blessing that made them a great nation of people and multiplied them... the Sinai covenant provided the land. I don't see it so much as moving the goal posts but building one covenant on another.

I don't know if I am completely satisfied with my answer, your question is a good one, I'll have to spend some time researching, hopefully I can find a little time to do so in the next few days.

 

[jehoiakim]

interesting point I am copying and reposting by
ChavaK... the Israelite broke their circumcision first

Circumcision was not followed when they were in the wilderness.
There is also some doubt about how well it was followed while in Egypt.

Yehoshua - Joshua - Chapter 5

1. And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, who were on the side of the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until they had passed over, that their heart melted, nor was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel.
2. At that time the Lord said to Joshua, Make for yourself sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
3. And Joshua made for himself sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4. And this is the reason why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, all the men of war, had died in the desert by the way after they came out of Egypt.
5. For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not circumcised.
6. For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the people, the men of war, that came out of Egypt, were consumed, those who did not listen to the voice of the Lord, to whom the Lord had sworn that He would not show them the land, which the Lord had sworn to their forefathers that He would give us, a land that flows with milk and honey.
7. And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised, for they had not circumcised them by the way.
​

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

interesting point I am copying and reposting by
ChavaK... the Israelite broke their circumcision first

Circumcision was not followed when they were in the wilderness.
There is also some doubt about how well it was followed while in Egypt.

Yehoshua - Joshua - Chapter 5

1. And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, who were on the side of the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until they had passed over, that their heart melted, nor was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel.
2. At that time the Lord said to Joshua, Make for yourself sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
3. And Joshua made for himself sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4. And this is the reason why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, all the men of war, had died in the desert by the way after they came out of Egypt.
5. For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not circumcised.
6. For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the people, the men of war, that came out of Egypt, were consumed, those who did not listen to the voice of the Lord, to whom the Lord had sworn that He would not show them the land, which the Lord had sworn to their forefathers that He would give us, a land that flows with milk and honey.
7. And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised, for they had not circumcised them by the way.
​

Interesting answer. However, it does seem a bit absurd that the Israelites forgot to circumcise their children. They were living with God's presence every day out in the wilderness. Moses himself told them several times the laws of circumcision;

Exodus 12:44
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

44 but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.

Exodus 12:48
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

48 But if a [a]stranger sojourns with you, and [b]celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to [c]celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

Leviticus 12:2-3New American Standard Bible (NASB)

2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:
‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

I find it hard to believe that Moses gave these laws and instructions and they were deliberately disobeyed and/or ignored. During Israel's stay in the wilderness God frequently deal swift and bloody justice to any who disobeyed the law.

Also, the covenant was an everlasting one. Let's say that the Israelites did forget, for one whole generation, to circumcise themselves and their children. Once they had repented and sliced off their foreskins, surely God would have remembered his part in the covenant, as he promised to do with the rainbow?

So don't you find it interesting that after almost 2000 years the land of Israel has been given back to the Jewish people?

Are you referring to that incredibly vague prophesy of Jesus' regarding the fig leaves and knowing the end is near? No, I don't really find it interesting. After WWII the Western powers didn't really have much choice but to reinstate the nation of Israel given the horrors of the holocaust. The fundies have been prophesying nonsense ever since, all of which haven't come true (Hal Lindsey comes to mind most especially).

 

[Sketcher]

Interesting that you ask this question while bringing up Noah. Circumcision didn't come to Noah, but to Abraham - yet everyone, Jew and Gentile, is under God's covenant with Noah. And Noah had God's basic laws for all mankind - circumcision is not one of them. The Law of Moses includes these laws, and adds others for the Jews to follow.

In the New Testament, it is very clear that God's plan of salvation is through Christ, and that both Jew and Gentile may come to Christ. Because Gentiles may come to Christ as Gentiles, we do not have to be circumcised - though Jews who come to Christ would have been circumcised already, and Messianic families of course would continue to circumcise their sons. The New Testament does not tell Jewish believers to be less observant or to cease to be Jews. Nor does it tell non-Jewish believers that they must become Jews.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Interesting that you ask this question while bringing up Noah. Circumcision didn't come to Noah, but to Abraham - yet everyone, Jew and Gentile, is under God's covenant with Noah. And Noah had God's basic laws for all mankind - circumcision is not one of them. The Law of Moses includes these laws, and adds others for the Jews to follow.

I brought up Noah only to compare another "everlasting" covenant. My point in creating this thread was to see how Christians explain the nullification of God's "everlasting" covenant with Abraham. The covenant with Abraham was regarding the possession of Israel (Canaan), not salvation (as far as I can tell).

 

[Sketcher]

I brought up Noah only to compare another "everlasting" covenant. My point in creating this thread was to see how Christians explain the nullification of God's "everlasting" covenant with Abraham. The covenant with Abraham was regarding the possession of Israel (Canaan), not salvation (as far as I can tell).

God's covenant with Abraham was to bless all people through him, and that blessing is the blessing of salvation. God made this covenant not after Abraham was circumcised, but before. Possession of the Holy Land was secondary - before Israel even took possession of it, God warned them that they would lose it if they fell into sin and did not repent (Deut 30:17-18). But the covenant goes beyond possession of the land, and because of that, Jews were able to call out to God in foreign lands after the kingdom was demolished and he returned the nation home.

 

[zaksmummy]

The Covenant with Abraham was about faith, because he had faith and believed the promise of God for a son and descendants before he was circumcised.

The reason that Christians or proselytes to Judaism are called "Sons of Abraham" is because of this beforeness.

When Paul speaks of "circumcision being of nothing and uncircumcision being of nothing", he is speaking of legal status (having legal status as a Jew in Pauls time gave you a way out of practising idol worship that was mandatory for all people living under Roman rule) ie "whether you are a Jew or whether you are a gentile you still required to have faith in Messiah to enter into the world to come". The reason Paul tells gentiles not to be circumcised is because of a prophecy that says that gentiles who bear the name of God will come to Jerusalem to worship him. This discussion was had in Acts 15 with the Apostles. James referred to the prophecy and decided that gentile believers in Jesus did not need to go through a ritual conversion to Judiasm to have faith in the Messiah Jesus, just as Abraham had faith in God before his circumcision. He also said that the prophecy could not come true if all the gentiles who believed became Jews.

Hope this help the discussion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I expected an answer such as this. The problem I have with your answer is that the first Christians were Jews, descendants of Abraham. Jesus himself preached only to the Jews (and, as far as I remember, Jesus did not speak against circumcision, only Paul did).

Also, you say that the covenant was only in force as long as Israel existed as a nation. As far as I can tell from the passage I quoted in my OP, no such condition existed. In fact, in Genesis 17:8, God says this;



Israel was meant to be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants, which it obviously did not turn out to be. Perhaps another failed covenant by God? But I don't want to go into that. My questions are about circumcision. Jesus himself said nothing about it (please correct me if I'm wrong). So was this just something that bothered Paul? Was Paul really speaking for God when he condemned circumcision?

To put it another way, what do you personally believe the word "everlasting" means? If God came up to you and said he wanted to make an "everlasting" covenant with you, would you not presume that this covenant would, in fact, be "everlasting", and not temporary? I certainly would. It appears to me that there is a direct contradiction between Genesis 17 and Paul's teachings.

A covenant is an agreement between parties, that can be nullified by 'failure to perform', which Israel was often guilty of. A 'promise' on the other hand is often unconditional but can be short-lived once fulfilled. An 'everlasting' covenant is good forever, IF all parties are faithful to it. God was not the unfaithful party to any of the covenants with Israel. God also knew beforehand that Israel would not, could not, remain faithful (that's part of the mystery) and that He would eventually have to save Her from her idolatrous ways.

Regarding the covenant in Christ's and Paul's day. Jesus upheld the law because it was still in force while he lived. It wasn't until the destruction of the temple and the priesthood that the old covenant finally ended. Much of Paul's writings explain the 'change in the law' from physical to spiritual. Jesus was the mediator, Paul the explainer.

 

[razeontherock]

to put it another way, did God break the covenant of circumcision? The Jews certainly didn't.

Sort out the misunderstandings behind your question have to start with the fact that the Jews certainly DID break their Covenant with God. That's all they ever did!! This is what the OT shows, first and foremost, over and over. And over.

Next you have to see that G-d is Faithful, and does not change. I'm not sure how you have mangled that concept due to the New Covenant, (Gospel) but many do that.

The law was never intended to give life.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Sort out the misunderstandings behind your question have to start with the fact that the Jews certainly DID break their Covenant with God. That's all they ever did!! This is what the OT shows, first and foremost, over and over. And over.

Next you have to see that G-d is Faithful, and does not change. I'm not sure how you have mangled that concept due to the New Covenant, (Gospel) but many do that.

The law was never intended to give life.

Yeah, we already covered that near the end of page 1.

Your point about Israel breaking the covenant raises an interesting question though, one that I'll leave for another thread perhaps.

 

[razeontherock]

My point in creating this thread was to see how Christians explain the nullification of God's "everlasting" covenant with Abraham. The covenant with Abraham was regarding the possession of Israel (Canaan), not salvation (as far as I can tell).

Sorry, but the purpose of the Gospel is to bring us into the Blessing of Abraham!

Paradigm shift time yet?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Sorry, but the purpose of the Gospel is to bring us into the Blessing of Abraham!

Paradigm shift time yet?

What exactly is the blessing of Abraham? We all get to live in Canaan? We get descendants as numerous as the stars? As far as I know, God didn't offer Abraham eternal salvation in exchange for a foreskin.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What exactly is the blessing of Abraham? We all get to live in Canaan? We get descendants as numerous as the stars? As far as I know, God didn't offer Abraham eternal salvation in exchange for a foreskin.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Gen 12:3


This is a reference to salvation through Christ, the greatest aspect of the Abrahamic blessing. These blessings were also prophecies, that God was going to fulfill in the descendants of Abraham.

 

[zaksmummy]

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Gen 12:3


This is a reference to salvation through Christ, the greatest aspect of the Abrahamic blessing. These blessings were also prophecies, that God was going to fulfill in the descendants of Abraham.