Circumcision - The Everlasting Covenant

[razeontherock]

What exactly is the blessing of Abraham?

This is something much of the modern church seems to neglect. On a much lesser note than what the above posters mentioned, Abe's wife was not just beautiful but hot, at least well into her 60's. There are other particulars to that too ...

The relevant point being that this Blessing is not limited to the Spiritual realm, nor to "the next life."

 

[golgotha61]

Compare this with what Paul says.



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


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.

First of all I would like to reference that some of what I am going to write is from the Journal of the Evangelical Society and the article that I will use for some of my reference is authored by Jeffrey J. Niehaus (Sept 2010) Pp. 535-559. Also, I would like to preface what I am going to relate with the fact, I am a dispensationalist who believes Israel and the church are separate and treated so in the covenants of the Bible. I say this because it would be easy to assume I hold to covenant theology which considers the church as the replacement for Israel, a position I do not hold.


Although it may seem a small detail, I think it important to reevaluate the eternality of the Noahic covenant. Genesis 9:16 uses the term “everlasting covenant” or eternal when the word that is translated as such can also mean remote in time and not yet having an end or beginning. Once we have the new heavens and new earth as described in Revelation, the Noahic covenant, which applies to the present heavens and earth, will no longer be applicable to humans or their world. But until that time, we are all still under the Adamic covenant, which brought us death, and Noahic covenant with the sign of the rainbow.

While mankind was still under the Adamic and Noahic covenants, God chose Abraham and his decedents to become a nation of priests. God established a covenant with Abraham that included posterity, land, and blessings, in order to re-enter human history and re-establish a relationship with mankind that was lost in the Garden of Eden. That is what the Promised Land was for; it was another place on earth for God to enjoy a relationship and fellowship with His created image, remember that the Promised Land was referred to as a land of “milk and honey”(Exodus 3:8). A sign of participation in the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision.



The Abrahamic covenant anticipates and relates to the covenants that follow it; The Mosaic, Davidic, and the new covenant through Christ’s blood. It remains to be noted that the Abrahamic covenant, although it contains the promise of the Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants, is itself no longer a functioning covenant. This becomes instantly obvious if we consider that the covenant sign, circumcision, is no longer a covenant sign for God’s people. The sign of participation in the new covenant is baptism.

What is left then is for Israel to become a participant in the new covenant of Christ which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant before it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is left then is for Israel to become a participant in the new covenant of Christ which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant before it.

Interesting point. Note that Paul addresses this very thing in Hebrews 8:

6 But now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers (which included circumcision) in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Notice in verse 8 that Paul addresses the Jews and 'the house of Israel' separately. Mmmmmmmmm.

 

[golgotha61]

Notice in verse 8 that Paul addresses the Jews and 'the house of Israel' separately. Mmmmmmmmm.

[/QUOTE]

The reference to verse 8 in Hebrews chapter 8 is pointing back to Jeremiah 31:31, where Jeremiah refers to Israel and Judah separately. I think the reason for this is not a matter of exclusion but one of inclusion since at the time of Jeremiah’s ministry, Israel was in captivity and Judah was still intact.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Interesting point. Note that Paul addresses this very thing in Hebrews 8:

6 But now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers (which included circumcision) in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Notice in verse 8 that Paul addresses the Jews and 'the house of Israel' separately. Mmmmmmmmm.

Paul is referencing Jeremiah 31: If you keep going in this passage God also say He will forgive their iniquities and remember them no more. Doesn't this sound like the Good News to you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

Subscribing

 

[razeontherock]

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

Good thinking! I like to see that. There are other everlasting things, that do not pertain to us. (Let's get to the rainbow later; it's kinda hard to say there's anyone it doesn't pertain to )

1. The term "replacement theology" is seen by it's endorsers as a villainizing distortion, creating anti-semitism where there is none. I say Scripture makes it clear that God has NOT cast off His chosen people Israel, and so no aspect of Christianity invalidates any everlasting Covenant. This much is plain to me, others don't see it. A search through the Scriptures is pretty conclusive.

2. Jews have Covenants unique to them. I'm not a Jew. I'm not a born Jew, nor have I voluntarily joined myself to the Lord via conversion to Judaism. While it is possible and a couple of people on CF have done it or are going through the process, Jews themselves discourage conversion to Judaism. This speaks volumes to me!

3. Christianity is a New Covenant, made in Christ's shed blood. Circumcision is in the heart, and the rest of the Covenant is likewise patterned after everything we see in the Old. The Jews have the figure, we have the reality. They have the physical, we have the Spiritual reality even w/o the encumbrance of physical ritual.

Both speak to the same Truths!

This is why we keep the old testament, even though we are not under and do not keep to the Old Covenant. Every detail of the OC, has it's fulfillment in Christ. This is an advanced concept, not to be taken lightly! Some of this we may be able to "see" or understand via our own learning and that certainly helps, but what really matters is for G-d to make these things living reality within us. And that is when this ceases to be mere talk or theology, and becomes relevant to daily life. (And allow me to point out, that this journey is depicted as the journey Israel made, going from Egypt to Canaan.)

 

[razeontherock]

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).

It's more involved.

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.

A valid observation! Before I clarify it, let me throw all the "moves" in:

Stage 1: bloody sacrifice. G-d shows Adam and Eve all about this in the process of making them clothes from animal skins. They understand the consequences of sin, and why they didn't physically die then and there. There is such a profound sense of remorse they kinda wish they'd died, physically. This is repentance, and there is a lot of tradition about how Holy they were, best of mankind, etc.

Stage 2: Flood / washing / Baptism. God Baptized the world. Yes, this also pertains to all of us, like it or not, as the rainbow clearly shows.

Stage 3: Law of Moses

Stage 4: Direct union with God, actual reconciliation.

This is as far as we know, but we do know in the future G-d will
"fold the heavens, like a man changes his garment."

These 4 steps here, form the shape of the Cross, and follow the pattern G-d showed Moses in Mt Sinai as he fasted for 40 days. These are all pictured in Moses' Tabernacle in the wilderness, even though stage 4 wasn't really accessible to anyone yet.

You could consider each stage a "dispensation," and A.D. to be "the fullness of times."

And finally, God scraps all of this and decides to impregnate a women, becoming his own father and sacrifices himself to himself

Hopefully you do see the flaws in presenting the Incarnation this way? Jesus really was 100% human; this is quite significant to us.

thus doing away with the two previous "everlasting" covenants.

I think it's important to see the flaw in this as well, but maybe less so since you're not a Jew.

[ETA: didn't see our thread necromancy]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This shows that the 'everlasting' covenant can be annulled.


Isaiah 24: 5

King James Version (KJV)

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

This shows that the 'everlasting' covenant can be annulled.


Isaiah 24: 5

King James Version (KJV)

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

Fair enough. It pretty much concludes this thread. Although, it does raise the question of why an omnipotent God would willingly create an "everlasting" covenant whilst knowing that the Israelites could not, and would not live by it. Paul himself says the law was designed so man could not live by it, but come to Jesus.

However, I'll put this down to one of those odd and inexplicable mysteries of the Bible.

 

[razeontherock]

Fair enough. It pretty much concludes this thread. Although, it does raise the question of why an omnipotent God would willingly create an "everlasting" covenant whilst knowing that the Israelites could not, and would not live by it. Paul himself says the law was designed so man could not live by it, but come to Jesus.

However, I'll put this down to one of those odd and inexplicable mysteries of the Bible.

You need to account for the fact that Jesus both lived by it, and fulfilled it in His death, becoming both Lord and Christ

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

You need to account for the fact that Jesus both lived by it, and fulfilled it in His death, becoming both Lord and Christ

From a Christian perspective yes, I can see this. From a Jewish perspective though; the Jews, to this day, still practice circumcision. As far as they seem concerned, the Law is still in effect.

 

[Steve Petersen]

From a Christian perspective yes, I can see this. From a Jewish perspective though; the Jews, to this day, still practice circumcision. As far as they seem concerned, the Law is still in effect.

Yeah, shame on them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

From a Christian perspective yes, I can see this. From a Jewish perspective though; the Jews, to this day, still practice circumcision. As far as they seem concerned, the Law is still in effect.

Perhaps because they focus just on the OT/OC and not the Christian NT/NC

2 Corin 3:14 But was calloused the minds of them.
For until the today, the same covering/veil upon the reading of the Old Covenant/Testament is remaining, no being up-covered.
That In Christ it is being-taken-away
[Revelation 1:1]