"everlasting" Gen. 17:8 and Gen. 17:13

Status
Not open for further replies.

lakesidelady

Active Member
Oct 19, 2004
81
6
✟233.00
Faith
Lutheran
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?
 

Nazarite

Paid In Full (1st John 1:9)
Aug 22, 2004
172
5
54
LA (Lower Alabama)
Visit site
✟7,829.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand this to mean that circumcision was a sign given regarding the everlasting covenant. Covenant seems to be the object of the descriptive word "everlasting." So, I don't believe that circumcision is being described as an everlasting sign.
 
Upvote 0

BalaamsAss51

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2005
476
35
73
North Carolina
✟15,864.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello lakesidelady.

You asked - "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?"

God did indeed set up the sign of circumcision forever. But God didn't change His mind, the people broke the covenant. If the people had not forsaken God circumcision would still be in effect.

Now of course Baptism is the new sign of the covenant. So now all people, male and female are given this sign, not just the males. Being a lady I'm sure you are glad to be included. Of course Baptism gives us more than just this aspect of sign. Victory over death and the devil, eternal life, forgiveness for instance. You're Lutheran, ask your pastor.

Pax
 
Upvote 0

ddub85

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2005
712
5
53
✟887.00
Faith
Christian
@ lakesidelady

Circumcision is the sign of the eternal covenant. But God's circumcision is, was, and always will be, the circumcision of the heart. God was circumcising hearts.

The circumcision of the flesh was for man. It was man's sign to the world that he was circumcised of God. It is the same as baptism today. True baptism, as John the Baptist explains, is the baptism of the spirit;

Mat 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
_________________________________________________________________________

The outward sign (circumcision of the flash, baptism of the flesh) is for man. The true gift (circumcision of the heart, baptism by the Holy Spirit) is of God, and God alone.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

lakesidelady

Active Member
Oct 19, 2004
81
6
✟233.00
Faith
Lutheran
I asked a certain website and this was the answer given to me:

In my view, it is important to note that God did not establish circumcision itself as an everlasting sign of the covenant given to Abraham, as if to imply that circumcision as a rite must be kept forever. In fact, this is exactly what the Judaizers claimed was the case, prompting Paul’s letter to that church in which he argues that to make circumcision as a perpetual condition for righteousness before God (i.e., obedience to the Law) is to destroy the Gospel (Galatians 1). Rather, circumcision was established as a token or sign of the everlasting covenant given by God to Abraham that through him and his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed—a promise that was fulfilled in the coming of Abraham’s Seed, Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:19) the Savior. Paul argues in Romans 4 and in his epistle to the Galatians that circumcision was merely a sign of the promise fulfilled in Christ and that when He came, circumcision became irrelevant: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal. 5:6).



In summary, the everlasting covenant given to Abraham was not replaced (it was fulfilled). But the sign of this covenant was replaced when Christ came.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.