Is circumcision a Christian rite?

[JDMiowa]

Paul was concern with people keeping the practices ( Genesis 17: 9-13) of the (Type) like Abrahams circumcision, after G-d's own circumcision was finished. G-d's flesh (anti-type) being cut off the living G-d and dieing on the cross. Because G-d's flesh died, circumcision of the male foreskin is no longer need. Now instead of looking forward as Abraham did, we can look back and see a clearer picture of Jesus being cutoff by His living heavenly Father and dieing, the Circumcised of G-d. If we keep on with circumcision of the male forskin for symbolic reasons, we would be denying Jesus was the Circumcised of G-d, then we would have to look forward for another. That is what Paul was opposed to. Not forgetting the understanding of how Type produced an image as though looking through a darken mirror of the Anti-type that we can clearly see. Thankfully Jesus is clearly G-d made into flesh that died in our place on the cross. If we don't understand Jewish knowledge we will never understand Jesus, and G-d's plan from the beginning of time. The Angel Gabriel told Daniel in chapter 9 first 25 to 26 the anointed one Jesus would be cut off and be put to death in the middle of the week, then in 27 told the end of sacifices which is a type of Jesus the anti-type. When type kiss anti-type there is no longer any reason to sacifice or have circumcision. Islam and the Jewish community still look forward so they continue to circumcise male babies, but we can look back at how G-d has already cut off His living flesh that became a symbol of our sinfulness to die, so we can join in the Resurrection of our Saviour who is no longer dead but risen forever more.
I had all three of my son's circumcised because of my lack of knowledge on this subject. In Islam girls are circumcised also because of a lack of understanding why their father Abraham had Ishmael circumsized.

 

[Adstar]

No..

There is no such call in Christianity for anyone to be circumcised...

 

[Daniel_]

Also Romans 2:28-29, "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul was quite direct about circumcision as a religious rite. He called it mutilation. Of course, circumcision is practiced in many Western countries for health reasons and not as a religious rite. That is something quite different - on the same level as some having their tonsils out at an early age.

 

[JDMiowa]

G-d created us perfect. There's no medical reason for circumcision. But good reasons not to circumcise.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hello

Circumcision is not compulsory. There is good reason to Circumcise to reduce cancer, stops 'Cheese' and for cosmetic looks.

Salvation through Jesus christ is whats important but imo Circumcision has benefits

 

[Dave-W]

Paul was quite direct about circumcision as a religious rite. He called it mutilation.

That is an extreme simplification of Paul's opinion. (to the point of obfuscation)

2 examples come to mind: Timothy and Titus. Both were disciples and close ministry companions with Paul. Timothy he circ'd in Acts 16, just after the Jerusalem council where they decided that Christians did not need to be circ'd. And that was about the same time that Paul wrote Galatians, where he said that he refused to circ Titus, and went on to write that anyone who is circ'd is obligated to the "Whole Law." (Gal 5.3)

So why did he circ Tim but refuse to do the same with Titus? Timothy's mother was Jewish. Titus was pure Greek.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That is an extreme simplification of Paul's opinion. (to the point of obfuscation)

2 examples come to mind: Timothy and Titus. Both were disciples and close ministry companions with Paul. Timothy he circ'd in Acts 16, just after the Jerusalem council where they decided that Christians did not need to be circ'd. And that was about the same time that Paul wrote Galatians, where he said that he refused to circ Titus, and went on to write that anyone who is circ'd is obligated to the "Whole Law." (Gal 5.3)

So why did he circ Tim but refuse to do the same with Titus? Timothy's mother was Jewish. Titus was pure Greek.

Paul said that among Jews he would conduct himself as a Jew, but around Gentiles he would conduct himself differently. It is significant that Timothy had a Jewish mother, and so it seemed appropriate for him and Timothy (obviously) that Timothy be circumcised. Not that his faith demanded it, but to ensure that there was no conflict with the Jews. I think this was Paul being all things to all men. Titus was a gentile and had no need for circumcision at all, and so this was also in keeping with Paul's attitude when around gentiles. I think that it is an example that gentile Christians did not need to adopt any Jewish cultural or religious practices. But Paul would have been aware of weaker believers with Jewish backgrounds who might be offended and would have known about Timothy's background so therefore circumcision may have been the right thing in his case. Who knows? We can only make educated guesses about it.

 

[JDMiowa]

Paul said that among Jews he would conduct himself as a Jew, but around Gentiles he would conduct himself differently. It is significant that Timothy had a Jewish mother, and so it seemed appropriate for him and Timothy (obviously) that Timothy be circumcised. Not that his faith demanded it, but to ensure that there was no conflict with the Jews. I think this was Paul being all things to all men. Titus was a gentile and had no need for circumcision at all, and so this was also in keeping with Paul's attitude when around gentiles. I think that it is an example that gentile Christians did not need to adopt any Jewish cultural or religious practices. But Paul would have been aware of weaker believers with Jewish backgrounds who might be offended and would have known about Timothy's background so therefore circumcision may have been the right thing in his case. Who knows? We can only make educated guesses about it.

...
The Day G-d Circumcised Himself.

Paul was concern with people keeping the practices ( Genesis 17: 9-13) of the (Type) like Abrahams circumcision, after G-d's own circumcision was finished. G-d's flesh (anti-type) being cut off the living G-d and dieing on the cross. Because G-d's flesh died, circumcision of the male foreskin is no longer need. Now instead of looking forward as Abraham did, we can look back and see a clearer picture of Jesus being cutoff by His living heavenly Father and bleeding in the Olive Garden and throughout the day and dieing, the Circumcised of G-d. If we keep on with the bloody circumcision of the male forskin for symbolic reasons, we would be denying Jesus was the bloody Circumcised of G-d, then we would have to look forward for another. That is what Paul was opposed to. Not forgetting the understanding of how Type produced an image as though looking through a darken mirror of the Anti-type that we can clearly see. Thankfully Jesus is clearly G-d made into bloody flesh that died in our place on the cross. If we don't understand Jewish knowledge we will never understand Jesus, and G-d's plan from the beginning of time. The Angel Gabriel told Daniel in chapter 9 first 25 to 26 the anointed one Jesus would be cut off (Circumcised) and be put to death in the middle of the week, then in 27 told the end of sacifices which is a type of Jesus the anti-type. When type kiss anti-type there is no longer any reason to sacifice or have circumcision. Islam and the Jewish community still look forward so they continue to circumcise male babies, but we can look back at how G-d has already cut off His living flesh that became a symbol of our sinfulness to die, so we can join in the Resurrection of our Saviour who is no longer dead but risen forever more.
I had all three of my son's circumcised because of my lack of knowledge on this subject. In Islam girls are circumcised also because of a lack of understanding why their father Abraham had Ishmael circumsized.
This is a good study to share Jesus with Muslim's and Jews. By showing Jesus is one with His Father until G-d's Flesh takes our sin upon Himself, then must be surgically removed by the Father Himself, shows G-d is one and Jesus was one and the same until He became sin on our behalf. G-d the Father and Jesus are not two G-d's but one. If you saw Jesus you saw the Father. A part of G-d died on the cross that day, G-d felt the pain of circumcision. It was His choice to take our sins upon Himself. The Spirit of God is the wind that allows G-d's vocal cords to speak to us. We worship One G-d.

 

[Dave-W]

Paul said that among Jews he would conduct himself as a Jew, but around Gentiles he would conduct himself differently. It is significant that Timothy had a Jewish mother, and so it seemed appropriate for him and Timothy (obviously) that Timothy be circumcised. Not that his faith demanded it, but to ensure that there was no conflict with the Jews. I think this was Paul being all things to all men. Titus was a gentile and had no need for circumcision at all, and so this was also in keeping with Paul's attitude when around gentiles. I think that it is an example that gentile Christians did not need to adopt any Jewish cultural or religious practices. But Paul would have been aware of weaker believers with Jewish backgrounds who might be offended and would have known about Timothy's background so therefore circumcision may have been the right thing in his case. Who knows? We can only make educated guesses about it.

I think you are missing a bigger point. Paul wrote Galatians in the wake of the decision of the council in Acts 15. He wrote this:

Galatians 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

IOW, by circ'ing Timothy, he obligated Tim to the keep the whole law.

 

[JDMiowa]

I think you are missing a bigger point. Paul wrote Galatians in the wake of the decision of the council in Acts 15. He wrote this:

Galatians 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

IOW, by circ'ing Timothy, he obligated Tim to the keep the whole law.

Paul was being faseisous, Timothy was probably circumcised so he wasn't a stumbling stone for his mother. Paul was wrong in circumcising Tim.

 

[Dave-W]

Paul was being faseisous,

Not at all. Paul was being deadly serious.

Paul was wrong in circumcising Tim.

Not necessarily. Read the discussion with James in Acts 21. Jews (and Tim was a Jew thru his mother) who came to faith in Jesus/Yeshua still were (and are) required to keep the Law.

 

[JDMiowa]

Not at all. Paul was being deadly serious.

Not necessarily. Read the discussion with James in Acts 21. Jews (and Tim was a Jew thru his mother) who came to faith in Jesus/Yeshua still were (and are) required to keep the Law.

Then he should also be making sacrifices also. When the Type kiss the Anti-type, there is no longer a need for the Type. The day G-d circumcised Himself, was the day Jews no longer needed to circumcise themselves.

 

[JDMiowa]

I've added to the article to make my point a little bit more clear.


...
The Day G-d Circumcised Himself.

Paul was concern with people keeping the practices ( Genesis 17: 9-13) of the (Type) like Abrahams circumcision, after G-d's own circumcision was finished. G-d's flesh (anti-type) being cut off the living G-d and dieing on the cross. Because G-d's flesh died, circumcision of the male foreskin is no longer need. Now instead of looking forward as Abraham did, we can look back and see a clearer picture of Jesus being cutoff by His living heavenly Father and bleeding in the Olive Garden and throughout the day and dieing, the Circumcised of G-d. If we keep on with the bloody circumcision of the male forskin for symbolic reasons, we would be denying Jesus was the bloody Circumcised of G-d, then we would have to look forward for another. That is what Paul was opposed to. Not forgetting the understanding of how Type produced an image as though looking through a darken mirror of the Anti-type that we can clearly see. Thankfully Jesus is clearly G-d made into bloody flesh that died in our place on the cross. If we don't understand Jewish knowledge we will never understand Jesus, and G-d's plan from the beginning of time. The Angel Gabriel told Daniel in chapter 9 first 25 to 26 the anointed one Jesus would be cut off (Circumcised) and be put to death in the middle of the week, then in 27 told the end of sacifices which is a type of Jesus the anti-type. When type kiss anti-type there is no longer any reason to sacifice or have circumcision. Islam and the Jewish community still look forward so they continue to circumcise male babies, but we can look back at how G-d has already cut off His living flesh that became a symbol of our sinfulness to die, so we can join in the Resurrection of our Saviour who is no longer dead but risen forever more.
I had all three of my son's circumcised because of my lack of knowledge on this subject. In Islam girls are circumcised also because of a lack of understanding why their father Abraham had Ishmael circumsized.
This is a good study to share Jesus with Muslim's and Jews. By showing Jesus was one with His Father until G-d's Flesh takes our sin upon Himself, then must be surgically removed by the Father Himself, shows G-d was one with Jesus until He became sin on our behalf. G-d the Father and Jesus are not two G-d's but one. If you saw Jesus you saw the Father. A part of G-d died on the cross that day after bleeding all day. G-d felt the pain of circumcision. It was His choice to take our sins upon Himself. The Spirit of God is the wind that allows G-d's vocal cords to speak to us. We worship One G-d. Thankfully the part of G-d that died has also risen and is now our brother interceding in our behalf before our Heavenly Father.

 

[Dave-W]

Then he should also be making sacrifices also.

Actually, he did. Go look up the discharging of the Nazirite vow in Num 6. It involved animal sacrifices. In Acts 21 Paul paid for discharging his own (abbreviated) Nazirite vow and the full Nazirite vows of 4 more from the Jerusalem congregation. That is 5 sets of sacrifices.

 

[GeorgeJ]

No.

 

[JDMiowa]

When the Anti-type kiss the Type, there is no longer a need for the Type. The day G-d circumcised Himself (The Anti-type), was the day Jews no longer needed to circumcise themselves (The Type).

 

[Soyeong]

Paul was concern with people keeping the practices ( Genesis 17: 9-13) of the (Type) like Abrahams circumcision, after G-d's own circumcision was finished. G-d's flesh (anti-type) being cut off the living G-d and dieing on the cross. Because G-d's flesh died, circumcision of the male foreskin is no longer need. Now instead of looking forward as Abraham did, we can look back and see a clearer picture of Jesus being cutoff by His living heavenly Father and dieing, the Circumcised of G-d. If we keep on with circumcision of the male forskin for symbolic reasons, we would be denying Jesus was the Circumcised of G-d, then we would have to look forward for another. That is what Paul was opposed to.

According to Isaiah 45:25, all Israel will be saved, so a number of Jews incorrectly thought that meant Gentile had to become Jewish proselytes in order to become saved, which meant going through the process of circumcision, and which meant joining the group of people who agreed at Sinai to do everything that Moses said (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 5:22-28). Moses had the power to make authoritative interpretations of the Torah and by the 1st century those who had this power passed down them were referred to as sitting in sitting in Moses' seat (Matthew 23:2-4) and it had become a large body of rabbinic oral laws, rulings, traditions, and fences that would later be recorded in the Mishna. So by agreeing to become circumcised, Gentiles were agree to become Jews and to live as Jews according to all of the oral laws of the Pharisees that Jesus referred to as a heavy burden, and doing all that in order to become saved.

Circumcision was required as a sign of the covenant, at no point does God's Law ever require it for all Gentiles everywhere, and not even Jews were required to become circumcised for the specific purpose of becoming saved, so by rejecting that man-made requirement in Acts 15:1, the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's Law. So nothing in regard to circumcision changed with respect to Jesus' death on the cross. If someone became circumcised for the purpose become saved, then they would have been fundamentally misunderstanding and perverting the purpose of circumcision, and they would be rejecting salvation by faith, so would be denying Christ, but that does not mean that that circumcision should not be done for its intended purpose.

Paul said that circumcision had much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2), that circumcision had no value, but what mattered was keeping God's commands (1 Corinthians 7:19), and that circumcision has value if you obey God's Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that the value of circumcision is entirely dependent on whether you obey God's Law. The way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah (Romans 2:26), which is the same as it was for Jews (Deuteronomy 30:6).

Not forgetting the understanding of how Type produced an image as though looking through a darken mirror of the Anti-type that we can clearly see. Thankfully Jesus is clearly G-d made into flesh that died in our place on the cross. If we don't understand Jewish knowledge we will never understand Jesus, and G-d's plan from the beginning of time. The Angel Gabriel told Daniel in chapter 9 first 25 to 26 the anointed one Jesus would be cut off and be put to death in the middle of the week, then in 27 told the end of sacifices which is a type of Jesus the anti-type. When type kiss anti-type there is no longer any reason to sacifice or have circumcision. Islam and the Jewish community still look forward so they continue to circumcise male babies, but we can look back at how G-d has already cut off His living flesh that became a symbol of our sinfulness to die, so we can join in the Resurrection of our Saviour who is no longer dead but risen forever more.
I had all three of my son's circumcised because of my lack of knowledge on this subject. In Islam girls are circumcised also because of a lack of understanding why their father Abraham had Ishmael circumsized.

The Anti-Christ is the man of Torah-lessness and he will put a stop the the offerings being made in the third temple, which implies that they will need resume before they can be stopped. In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making offering (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, he was on in his way to join in the purification rites of those who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove a false rumor that he taught against God's Law to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. Furthermore, Ezekiel 40-46 prophecies a time when offerings will resumed during Messiah's reign. So offerings did not stop at Messiah's death and resurrection, but only because there was no longer a temple in which to do them.

 

[Monna]

So why did he circ Tim but refuse to do the same with Titus? Timothy's mother was Jewish. Titus was pure Greek.

Is it beyond reason to suppose Paul changed his understanding and his view? He says in Galatians 5:11 (RSV) "But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed." This implies that there was a time when he did so, but that he altered his view. Perhaps, for example, when somewhere between Athens and Corinth he received the insight that the cross was not a mistake that God corrected by raising Jesus (the Messiah who according to current Jewish belief could not die especially hanging from a cross) from the dead, but was the whole point. Suddenly a whole lot of things became clear and he began preaching the "Christ and him crucified." Everything about the law, temple worship, rituals including circumcision appeared in a new light. God the judge and conquerer, applying the LAW, became the God of Love and grace, and the old law becomes what Jesus transformed it to be - "Love the Lord with everything you are and have, and love your neighbour as yourself."

 

[JDMiowa]

Is it beyond reason to suppose Paul changed his understanding and his view? He says in Galatians 5:11 (RSV) "But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed." This implies that there was a time when he did so, but that he altered his view. Perhaps, for example, when somewhere between Athens and Corinth he received the insight that the cross was not a mistake that God corrected by raising Jesus (the Messiah who according to current Jewish belief could not die especially hanging from a cross) from the dead, but was the whole point. Suddenly a whole lot of things became clear and he began preaching the "Christ and him crucified." Everything about the law, temple worship, rituals including circumcision appeared in a new light. God the judge and conquerer, applying the LAW, became the God of Love and grace, and the old law becomes what Jesus transformed it to be - "Love the Lord with everything you are and have, and love your neighbour as yourself."

Paul was still learning, as we should be. Very well said.