In Gen. 17, Abraham is given the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession and the rite of circumcision as a sign of an everlasting covenant. Strong's number for this is 7569, I think and it says that this word is also used to describe God as everlasting in Ps. 90:2 and His kingdom is everlasting in Daniel. Now, not getting into the "discussion" about whether or not the Jews have Israel as an "eternal" possession, I wish to find out why circumsion is considered a sign of an eternal covenant when in the NT, it plainly states that circumsion does not get you into heaven. It's unnecessary.
Make sense? How can the same word for everlasting accurately describe God being eternal and yet plainly state that circumcision is a sign of an everlasting covenant which was eventually replaced by Christ's dying and rising again?
Make sense? How can the same word for everlasting accurately describe God being eternal and yet plainly state that circumcision is a sign of an everlasting covenant which was eventually replaced by Christ's dying and rising again?