Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.Sounds good! And since we are living it through him, we don't take the physical actions described in the law of Moses, such as circumcision.
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 6:18 - New International Reader's Version
Brothers and sisters, may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.www.biblegateway.com
Are we talking about the same thing? It looks to me like it's commanded with some detail.Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.
Thanks! I had forgotten about the brief reference to it in Leviticus. That passage is very much focused on what a woman must do following childbirth and only mentions circumcision in passing. Although Genesis has multiple references to circumcision, it is not one of the Ten Commandments nor does God seem to have commanded it directly in the Sinaitic covenant. It seems to have been so deeply embedded already in Jewish identity and practice that no further commandment or specific instructions were required.Are we talking about the same thing? It looks to me like it's commanded with some detail.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:12 - New International Reader's Version
It must be done for all time to come. Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised. That includes those who are born into your own family or outside it. It also includes those bought with money from a stranger.www.biblegateway.com
Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 12:3 - New International Reader's Version
On the eighth day the boy must be circumcised.www.biblegateway.com
To me it seems specific enough.Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.
I think this is the reason for the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was for all of Abraham's descendants (i.e. prior to the 10 commandments), whereas the Sinaitic covenant was for the Israelites who covenanted with God at Sinai (already circumcised in order to remain Israelites).Thanks! I had forgotten about the brief reference to it in Leviticus. That passage is very much focused on what a woman must do following childbirth and only mentions circumcision in passing. Although Genesis has multiple references to circumcision, it is not one of the Ten Commandments nor does God seem to have commanded it directly in the Sinaitic covenant. It seems to have been so deeply embedded already in Jewish identity and practice that no further commandment or specific instructions were required.
I apologize for the confusion I inadvertently created in my post. I should have said that circumcision is not directly commanded in the Sinaitic covenant. Its relationship to the Abrahamic covenant is problematic and has been debated on several levels. At a very basic level the Abrahamic covenant is considered to be non-conditional (God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required for them to do on their part) whereas the Sinaitic covenant is conditioned by God on the obedience of Israel. If Israel obeys God's commandments they receive His promised blessings, but if they disobey they received His promised cursings. Of the many commandments given specifically on Mount Sinai, curiously circumcision is not one of them. Thus, there is no stipulated blessing for those Israelites who circumcise their sons, nor any stipulated curse for those who do not.To me it seems specific enough.
Genesis 17:9-11 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Circumcise just means to cut around (although we associate it with circumcision of the foreskin, as that is the context it is primarily used in). And foreskin is the unneeded skin barrier covering the male member at birth. When the flesh of the foreskin is circumcised, the male member is freed from the excess skin (also making it easier to clean, more difficult for bacteria to build up, and other hygiene benefits). Or were you referring to what tools were to be used, what the ceremony should entail, or something like that?
I think this is the reason for the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was for all of Abraham's descendants (i.e. prior to the 10 commandments), whereas the Sinaitic covenant was for the Israelites who covenanted with God at Sinai (already circumcised in order to remain Israelites).
My understanding was there were two covenants with Abraham. One was unconditional - God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required of them. The second is conditional - to be considered a descendant of Abraham, the males had to be circumcised. The promise to Abraham would be fulfilled irrespective, but for those to come, to inherit Abraham's promise, they had to circumcise and be circumcised. Finally, the Mount Sinai commandments presumed circumcision was already in place. If one hadn't been circumcised, he was cut off from Israel already, and not a partaker in the Mount Sinai commandments.I apologize for the confusion I inadvertently created in my post. I should have said that circumcision is not directly commanded in the Sinaitic covenant. Its relationship to the Abrahamic covenant is problematic and has been debated on several levels. At a very basic level the Abrahamic covenant is considered to be non-conditional (God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required for them to do on their part) whereas the Sinaitic covenant is conditioned by God on the obedience of Israel. If Israel obeys God's commandments they receive His promised blessings, but if they disobey they received His promised cursings. Of the many commandments given specifically on Mount Sinai, curiously circumcision is not one of them. Thus, there is no stipulated blessing for those Israelites who circumcise their sons, nor any stipulated curse for those who do not.
One could turn the Abrahamic covenant into a condition covenant if one were to view circumcision as being the condition for Abraham and his descendants to receive the land. This view is problematic because circumcision is not directly tied to the promise in the covenant.
What do you think?
I think your position is consistent with scripture. Others have viewed the Abrahamic covenant as being completely unconditional in contrast to the Sinatic covenant. Hence, Paul, in Romans, contrasts the two in his presentation of the gospel. I think there is merit to both views. I also agree that circumcision was so firmly established by the time of the Exodus that it really did not need further commandments and clarification. That may be one of the arguments at the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) by which Gentile believers in Jesus Christ were not required to be circumcised.My understanding was there were two covenants with Abraham. One was unconditional - God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required of them. The second is conditional - to be considered a descendant of Abraham, the males had to be circumcised. The promise to Abraham would be fulfilled irrespective, but for those to come, to inherit Abraham's promise, they had to circumcise and be circumcised. Finally, the Mount Sinai commandments presumed circumcision was already in place. If one hadn't been circumcised, he was cut off from Israel already, and not a partaker in the Mount Sinai commandments.
Depends on context. No one rigid wooden rule fits all cases.Right, and we see just a bit earlier in Galatians that Jesus was born under the law. The general logic of "those who break the law are under the law" doesn't really fit imo.
Mt Sinai was a nation covenant not an individual covenant.,My understanding was there were two covenants with Abraham. One was unconditional - God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required of them. The second is conditional - to be considered a descendant of Abraham, the males had to be circumcised. The promise to Abraham would be fulfilled irrespective, but for those to come, to inherit Abraham's promise, they had to circumcise and be circumcised. Finally, the Mount Sinai commandments presumed circumcision was already in place. If one hadn't been circumcised, he was cut off from Israel already, and not a partaker in the Mount Sinai commandments.
It's different words in Greek,Depends on context. No one rigid wooden rule fits all cases.
In Rom 3:19-20 "under the Law" is clearly "under the condemnation of the Law".
But in Gal 4 we see that Christ is also born "under the Law" which is to say under the Old Covenant agreement we find in Gen 2 "obey and live" which is also stated in Gal 3.
Christ only had one path of success - complete 100% obedience. And that is what He did.
So too all mankind is under the law - under that Gen 2 old covenant of "obey and live" and since all have sinned - then all are lost. So then all need the Gospel
And yet - we can all read Rom 3:19 to see that condemnation context in the term "under the Law"It's different words in Greek,
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ
compared with
ὑπὸ νόμον
Romans 3:19 is "in the law", so Paul may not necessarily mean the same thing as "under the law" in GalatiansAnd yet - we can all read Rom 3:19 to see that condemnation context in the term "under the Law"
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
At some point - attention to Bible details repeatedly posted need to enter into your responses.
Romans 3:19 says "UNDER THE LAW"Romans 3:19 is "in the law", so Paul may not necessarily mean the same thing as "under the law" in Galatians
You may wish to check out the footnote in the NASB,Romans 3:19 says "UNDER THE LAW"
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Not at all, just dealing with the Greek.Are you employing some creative writing?
Not at all,Is it your view that "only some" humans need the Gospel??
There are lots of interesting details in this text. One thing is that Paul quotes from places like Psalms and Isaiah and seems to refer to that as "the law".Do you not look at any of the details in the text ??
Well, they do it by reinterpreting the seventh day Sabbath as Sunday.Do you ever wonder how it is that almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today and that they apply to all the world -- "the whole world" as Paul says in Rom 3:19?
Probably because the same Holy Spirit is leading them.How is it that Christianity is so united on this one point in your view?
They claim it was Saturday as God gave it in the OTWell, they do it by reinterpreting the seventh day Sabbath as Sunday.
The references that I've been able to find say things like this:They claim it was Saturday as God gave it in the OT
Indeed they affirm all ten -- but edit one as per man made tradition.As John Paul II wrote,
"...the underlying reasons for keeping "the Lord's Day" holy — inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments — remain valid, though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday.
.."
You may need to read more of their documents on the subject:The references that I've been able to find say things like this:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?