Circumcision

[mauricioalejandro]

Mauricio I wish we could give you the speedy version of understanding these passages...

You guys these topics should have stickys on them as they come up soooooooooo often

Who can dig them all up for Mauricio?
Are you interested in them M?

Got scripture? I'm all ears....
M

 

[Tishri1]

Having said this, where I DO find Paul being inconsistent with Yeshua and Torah is when Paul scolds Peter for keeping Kosher in the company of Gentiles at a gathering in Antioch. I find it hard to accept that Peter can be exempt from the Sinai Law under any circumstances (in spite of the dream that is mentioned in NT where all things are made lawfull to eat).... but that is probably a topic for a different thread....

Mauricio

has any body addressed this yet...I wish we had all those threads sticky'ed so we could point them out ....but I will start a new thread and post an article there and we can go from there ok?

 

[Tishri1]

Got scripture? I'm all ears....
M

*Tish wipes Some Hebrew Letters off her upper lip* Yeh I started a new thread but I have to go for a while so I will see if anyone else has GOT TORAH hehehe....or else I'll get back later ok?

 

[Tishri1]

you guys there must be more explaination as to why Paul is sooo upset about them Circumsizing for salvation reasons and accepting circ* for other reasons...I mean there must be more there, no one has found it yet?


did any one read that article? I wish I could paste part of it here so we could discuss it but it's not gonna work it's in that weird form that wont let you....some one go read it and tell me what you thought!

http://www.torahresource.com/English Articles/CircumcisionETS.pdf

 

[Espada]

The last verse of this has already been quoted but I couldn't find the rest and felt it worthy of use:

1 Cor 7:17-19
17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Co 7:17-20). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

 

[Wags]

"What matters is keeping the commands of God"

Isn't circ a command of God???

 

[DanielRB]

"What matters is keeping the commands of God"

Isn't circ a command of God???

Shalom, Wags

That really is the key, isn't it? It really makes it seem as though Paul is throwing out circumcision as not a commadment of God, even though it plainly is.

Even if one was to say "Paul was wrong!" I think it's fair to say that Paul wasn't stupid. Why would he say something so clearly untrue, that circumcision wasn't a commandment of God? So I think Paul must have meant something else here than (as many people say) "ceremonial commandments are no more, just follow the moral law."

I'll admit that I'm still puzzled, and I don't understand it at this point.

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[Tishri1]

another can of worms

why didn't Israel
1. circumcise in the wilderness?
2. celebrate Passover in the wilderness?
3. eat meat in the wilderness?(weren't they sacrificing?....yet they only ate quail and manna?)


my thought is that the answer to these questions may lead us to a solution about the times we are in now and about circumcision

 

[Wags]

Paul used the term "circumcised" to mean a person of Jewish birth and the term "uncircumcised" to mean gentile/pagan. If you read the verse with that in mind it isn't nearly as confusing.

Paul says if you are a gentile you don't have to covert through the ritual set up by the rabbis - you just need to follow torah. And if you are Jewish don't turn your back on Torah and start acting like a pagan.

 

[Wags]

another can of worms

why didn't Israel
1. circumcise in the wilderness?
2. celebrate Passover in the wilderness?
3. eat meat in the wilderness?(weren't they sacrificing?....yet they only ate quail and manna?)


my thought is that the answer to these questions may lead us to a solution about the times we are in now and about circumcision

Well that whole quail thing came about becuase of their whinning and complaining, so I don't think it was what God really wanted. Afterall the first couple on earth were pretty strict vegans.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

Genisis 1:29 God also said, "Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you, 30 for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for every creature that crawls on the earth-everything having the breath of life in it. [I have given] every green plant for food." And it was so.

[/FONT]

 

[mauricioalejandro]

It really makes it seem as though Paul is throwing out circumcision as not a commadment of God, even though it plainly is.

Even if one was to say "Paul was wrong!" I think it's fair to say that Paul wasn't stupid. Why would he say something so clearly untrue, that circumcision wasn't a commandment of God? So I think Paul must have meant something else here than (as many people say) "ceremonial commandments are no more, just follow the moral law."

I'll admit that I'm still puzzled, and I don't understand it at this point.
Daniel

Greetings Daniel,
I would agree with Wags' response. My view is that Paul is not saying "circumcision isn't a commandment of God" (which would be untrue of course), but rather Paul is saying that "circumcision isn't a commandment for Gentiles". Notice that Paul also said to the gentiles: 'IF you want to go and get circumcised, then you must follow ALL of the law that applies to Jews'. In other words, Paul believes that the law of the Jews is for Jews and that it is still valid (for Jews). He's letting the gentiles know that they can be included in the family of YHWH without having to become literal followers of the Sinai Law.

I'm not sure if this solves some of the quandry for you...

Mauricio

 

[Tishri1]

Got scripture? I'm all ears....
M

I made a new thread for us.....ahhhhhh what did I call it Some thing like "Did the Apostles Break the Kosher Laws" or something like that...do you want to go find it or want me to bring the link to you?

 

[plum]

Greetings Daniel,
I would agree with Wags' response. My view is that Paul is not saying "circumcision isn't a commandment of God" (which would be untrue of course), but rather Paul is saying that "circumcision isn't a commandment for Gentiles". Notice that Paul also said to the gentiles: 'IF you want to go and get circumcised, then you must follow ALL of the law that applies to Jews'. In other words, Paul believes that the law of the Jews is for Jews and that it is still valid (for Jews). He's letting the gentiles know that they can be included in the family of YHWH without having to become literal followers of the Sinai Law.

I'm not sure if this solves some of the quandry for you...

Mauricio

i just wanna say how CONFUSING the statement "this is not a commandment for Gentiles" can be to a Torah-submissive group of people. that is an argument "churchianity" uses against torah-observance in general. So how do we respond? By saying "it's ok to pick and choose... but yet it isn't?

now, you might not be a Torah-observant person and I respect your choice whatever it is. But for those of us who strive to be... that statement just makes the whole thing more complicated and harder to discuss.

 

[jgonz]

Well that whole quail thing came about becuase of their whinning and complaining,

Good point Wags! LOL

My view is that Paul is not saying "circumcision isn't a commandment of God" (which would be untrue of course), but rather Paul is saying that "circumcision isn't a commandment for Gentiles". Notice that Paul also said to the gentiles: 'IF you want to go and get circumcised, then you must follow ALL of the law that applies to Jews'. In other words, Paul believes that the law of the Jews is for Jews and that it is still valid (for Jews). He's letting the gentiles know that they can be included in the family of YHWH without having to become literal followers of the Sinai Law.

I don't think that's what Paul is saying at all... circumcision is not a matter of SALVATION. I don't believe that Paul is addressing circumcision as part of obedience to Torah at all. Also, if Paul says it's not required for Gentiles to be circ'd at all, but it's still a requirement for Jews, then there is a wall of separation there.... 2 ways to G-d, which is not Scriptural.

 

[DanielRB]

Greetings Daniel,
I would agree with Wags' response. My view is that Paul is not saying "circumcision isn't a commandment of God" (which would be untrue of course), but rather Paul is saying that "circumcision isn't a commandment for Gentiles". Notice that Paul also said to the gentiles: 'IF you want to go and get circumcised, then you must follow ALL of the law that applies to Jews'. In other words, Paul believes that the law of the Jews is for Jews and that it is still valid (for Jews). He's letting the gentiles know that they can be included in the family of YHWH without having to become literal followers of the Sinai Law.

I'm not sure if this solves some of the quandry for you...

Mauricio

Shalom, Mauricio,

The main difficulty I have with this point of view is how it relates to statements concerning the Gentiles in the Tanakh. For example, those who wish to participate in the Passover are commanded to be circumcised. If the Lord's Supper is a Passover, then would this not apply?

Also, what about Isaiah 56? It doesn't address circumcision as a requirement for being "better than sons or daughters", but it talks about following the Sabbath and 'choosing the things that please me and holds fast to my covenant.' But what covenant in Scripture is there made with the Gentiles? Certainly not the New Covenant, which is clearly made with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah."

Can we determine from the Tanakh if there is a seperate law for Gentiles? I know that Rabbinical Judaism has the Seven Noahic laws, but I don't find them particularly compelling (in other words, I don't see how they arrive at their conclusions based upon the relevant Scriptures).

Are there "two" laws in effect today? Should a Jewish believer exclude the uncircumcised from the Passover table, in obedience to Torah?

I don't have an easy answer to this quandry myself.

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[Wags]

Greetings Daniel,
I would agree with Wags' response. My view is that Paul is not saying "circumcision isn't a commandment of God" (which would be untrue of course), but rather Paul is saying that "circumcision isn't a commandment for Gentiles". Notice that Paul also said to the gentiles: 'IF you want to go and get circumcised, then you must follow ALL of the law that applies to Jews'. In other words, Paul believes that the law of the Jews is for Jews and that it is still valid (for Jews). He's letting the gentiles know that they can be included in the family of YHWH without having to become literal followers of the Sinai Law.

I'm not sure if this solves some of the quandry for you...

Mauricio

Color me confused!

I said that gentiles didn't have to undergo a rabbinical conversion - they just needed to keep torah. You say that gentiles don't need to keep torah. How does that add up to you agreeing with me?

 

[mauricioalejandro]

Shalom, Mauricio,

The main difficulty I have with this point of view is how it relates to statements concerning the Gentiles in the Tanakh. For example, those who wish to participate in the Passover are commanded to be circumcised. If the Lord's Supper is a Passover, then would this not apply?

Hello Daniel, thanks for your response and for quoting scripture!
On the topic of participating in the Passover, i believe the mitzva applies to gentiles who are resident aliens in the land. They are commanded to circumcise if they want to participate in the passover. My take is that gentiles who are not Ger Toshav can celebrate passover outside the land without being circumcised.

Also, what about Isaiah 56? It doesn't address circumcision as a requirement for being "better than sons or daughters", but it talks about following the Sabbath and 'choosing the things that please me and holds fast to my covenant.' But what covenant in Scripture is there made with the Gentiles? Certainly not the New Covenant, which is clearly made with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah."

The only other convenant i am aware of is the one in Genesis 9:1 thru 7, concluding with 9:8 :"Adonai spoke to Noach and his sons with him and said 'As for me, I am hereby establishing my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...". So I would say Isaiah 56:6 talks about what Adonai will do for Foreigners in the Land who, both, keep the Sabbath and are true to the covenant (of Genesis 9). It is not talking about Goyim outside the Land because it says 'I will bring them to my holy mountain {i.e. Jerusalem}... and their burnt offerings will be accepted on my altar {i.e. the Temple}'.
Having said this, I know Seventh Day Adventists who apply "Foreigner" in Isaiah to Goyim OUTSIDE the Land because they believe that they need to be prepared for that day when Adonai will bring them TO the holy mountain... therefore for them Isaiah 56:6 is probably another reason why they need to follow the Sabbath, and not just "the covenant" ("Noachic covenant"?) mentioned in Isaiah 56:6.

Can we determine from the Tanakh if there is a seperate law for Gentiles? I know that Rabbinical Judaism has the Seven Noahic laws, but I don't find them particularly compelling (in other words, I don't see how they arrive at their conclusions based upon the relevant Scriptures).
Are there "two" laws in effect today? Should a Jewish believer exclude the uncircumcised from the Passover table, in obedience to Torah?

I see Torah giving different laws to various (at least 4) groups of people:
- Torah gives in Gen 9 a law (& covenant) for all people. We can debate whether the are "Seven" laws contained here, but it's clear there is a covenant with some requirements to be followed by Noach's seed.
- Then Torah says that God gives the law (& covenant) of physical circumcision for Abram and his seed (Ishmael, Isaac).
- Then Torah says that God gives Jacob's descendants the 613 Laws thru Moses at Sinai. These Laws include also some laws for non-Israelites living in Israel (e.g. exodus: Foreigners must Circumcise if they want to celebate Pesach).
- Then there are post-Tanach scripture like Isaiah, which add additional covenant "t&c's" for Ger Toshav, like Isaiah 56:6.
So i imagine a person can know what Adonai expects of him/her according to which of the above groups that person is part of (thru birth or choice).

Now, (getting back to Paul's writings) with respect to Moschiach I think Paul is saying that all of these groups (regardless of whether Noach seed, Abraham seed, Jacob seed, or Ger Toshav) are able to join in on Moschiach's salvation without having to switch to a different covenant.

Therefore (sorry for a long-winded answer), yes, I see many covenants in the Torah (all equally holy).

Shalom,
Mauricio

 

[mauricioalejandro]

Color me confused!

I said that gentiles didn't have to undergo a rabbinical conversion - they just needed to keep torah. You say that gentiles don't need to keep torah. How does that add up to you agreeing with me?

Sorry. Your statement "gentiles didn't have to undergo a rabbinical conversion - they just needed to keep torah." is very true to me. However now i see that we have different definitions of "keeping Torah".
For me, Torah = Sinai covenant for Jacob's tribe, and Noachic covenant for Gentiles (plus the additional GerToshav laws for gentiles who are Foreigners Living In The Land of Israel).
For you, "gentiles just need to keep Torah" means "gentiles need to keep the whole Sinai Law, i.e. the 613 mitzvot", correct?
Again, sorry if i misread you. Shalom,
Mauricio

 

[Wags]

Sorry. Your statement "gentiles didn't have to undergo a rabbinical conversion - they just needed to keep torah." is very true to me. However now i see that we have different definitions of "keeping Torah".
For me, Torah = Sinai covenant for Jacob's tribe, and Noachic covenant for Gentiles (plus the additional GerToshav laws for gentiles who are Foreigners Living In The Land of Israel).
For you, "gentiles just need to keep Torah" means "gentiles need to keep the whole Sinai Law, i.e. the 613 mitzvot", correct?
Again, sorry if i misread you. Shalom,
Mauricio

Yes - we apparently have very different views of what it means to keep Torah.

I believe that all of Torah (in as much as it can be carried out without the temple) is incumbent upon everyone who calls themselves a child of Abraham.

I find no basis in scripture for the notion of the Noahide laws for gentiles. That would mean that there are two different requirements for the redeemed.

I've said it before and I'll say it til I'm blue in the face -
There is only ONE way to salvation, and there is only ONE way for a redeemed person to do the will of Adonai.

 

[Tishri1]

Why were they not circumcising in the wilderness?