Is circumcision a Christian rite?

[JDMiowa]

Joshua 3
After crossing the Jordan on dry ground that was made possible by God circumcising off His water from Heaven from the water that continued on to die in the Dead Sea for us, the lowest place on earth, so we (Israel) can get to the promise land in Heaven. After crossing twelve strong men from the twelve tribes went to where the Ark that contained God's Word was standing in the center of the Jordan, the lowest river on earth and picked up twelve stones at the feet of the priest holding God's Word to remember what they stood on the day God delivered them to the Promise Land.

 

[Dave-W]

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."

Timing. It is everything.

Paul was already NOT preaching circ. for gentile believers. That was what the whole issue of Acts 15 was all about. The apostles made their decision for gentile believers that did NOT include circ - just as Paul had been preaching; and it went out to all the congregations. But the next thing that happens in Acts 16 is that he circ's Timothy.

So the circ of Tim was AFTER Paul changed his message.

 

[Monna]

Timing. It is everything.

Paul was already NOT preaching circ. for gentile believers. That was what the whole issue of Acts 15 was all about. The apostles made their decision for gentile believers that did NOT include circ - just as Paul had been preaching; and it went out to all the congregations. But the next thing that happens in Acts 16 is that he circ's Timothy.

So the circ of Tim was AFTER Paul changed his message.

I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but I will say that authors of the Gospels and Acts are not always following a strict historical time line. They are trying to get a message across. So "after" and "before" in sequence in the book, is not necessarily sequence in historical time.

 

[JDMiowa]

I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but I will say that authors of the Gospels and Acts are not always following a strict historical time line. They are trying to get a message across. So "after" and "before" in sequence in the book, is not necessarily sequence in historical time.

Agree....Paul does learn the anti-typical act of Jesus being cutoff of God at the cross represents the fulfillment of the type God command Abraham to perform on himself. The Circumcision of God without hands started when Jesus took the fifth cup in the olive Garden. Read my original message.

 

[Joshua_5]

I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but I will say that authors of the Gospels and Acts are not always following a strict historical time line. They are trying to get a message across. So "after" and "before" in sequence in the book, is not necessarily sequence in historical time.

Acts 16:1-3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

The passage makes clear (by "then" at the start), that this part of the account comes after the Council in Jerusalem. It also gives the reason Paul circumcised Timothy - because his mother was a Jew. How could a man with a Greek father claim to be a Jew for preaching the gospel to other Jews, if he had not even been circumcised. They would have cause to respond that even though his mother was a Jew, if he also was a Jew, as a male, he should have been circumcised. As he was not circumcised, he would therefore be considered a Greek (after his father), so how could he teach them?

To say Paul had made a theological mistake by circumcising Timothy, or to claim that the passage did not come after the Council at Jerusalem (when plainest reading of text indicates it did) can lead to more serious theological issues.

 

[JDMiowa]

Acts 16:1-3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

The passage makes clear (by "then" at the start), that this part of the account comes after the Council in Jerusalem. It also gives the reason Paul circumcised Timothy - because his mother was a Jew. How could a man with a Greek father claim to be a Jew for preaching the gospel to other Jews, if he had not even been circumcised. They would have cause to respond that even though his mother was a Jew, if he also was a Jew, as a male, he should have been circumcised. As he was not circumcised, he would therefore be considered a Greek (after his father), so how could he teach them?

To say Paul had made a theological mistake by circumcising Timothy, or to claim that the passage did not come after the Council at Jerusalem (when plainest reading of text indicates it did) can lead to more serious theological issues.

My Jewish friends tell me only the mother matters, you never know for sure who the father is!

 

[JDMiowa]

Prophecy concerning Jesus circumcision from God.

Joshua 3
After crossing the Jordan on dry ground that was made possible by God circumcising off His water from Heaven, from the water that continued on to die in the Dead(Salt/ tears) Sea for us, the lowest place on earth, so we (Israel) can get to the promise land, a higher plain in Heaven. After crossing, twelve strong men from the twelve tribes went to where the Ark that contained God's Word was standing in the center of the Jordan, the lowest river on earth and picked up twelve stones at the feet of the priest holding God's Word to remember what they stood on the day God delivered them to the Promise Land.
God divided / Mikvah the waters of the Jordan to provide a way to the promised land. God divided Himself and the circumcised flesh of God died , so we can have life.
....
...

>

> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...

 

[Joshua_5]

My Jewish friends tell me only the mother matters, you never know for sure who the father is!

That's their religion today. In Bible times, both parents lineage was important, although the father's would usually take precedence, unless in a case like Timothy's, where he could demonstrate a preference for his mother's line (in this case, by being circumcised). Just look at the genealogies in the bible if you don't believe - mothers are rarely mentioned, and most of these men were Jews or Israelites.

 

[JDMiowa]

The main message in my post was how God circumcised Himself so we can have life. It took the shedding of His blood cutting off the Flesh of God!

 

[Owen GB5]

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.

I understand that circumcision is practised in the U.S.A. for health reasons but in European countries where it is rarely done they don't have the feared health problems. What do they do differently?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I understand that circumcision is practised in the U.S.A. for health reasons but in European countries where it is rarely done they don't have the feared health problems. What do they do differently?

You'll have to answer that one yourself because I don't know. I mentioned it only because of the religious motives for doing it.

 

[JDMiowa]

I'm not sure why Europe doesn't cercumcise like the Americans do? Maybe Americans have been more "religious" yet also unknowing the real reason was started to remind Abraham of when God cut the covenant with Himself. When the time to repent had passed as told by the angel Gabriel in Daniel nine, Israel had to receive the punishment in the cutting off from God. In the making of the covenant Abraham never walked through the cut animals, only God the Father represented as fire, followed by God the Son who also carried the spirit that was represented by the smoke coming off of him. Because God the Son walked/co-signed in Abrahams stead, Abraham and likewise us who also believed by faith doesn't have to be cut of from God. God cut Himself off starting in taking the fifth cup containing Gods wrath saved for all the nations on earth. Then ending when Gods own Flesh gave up life and gave His Spirit /breath back to God the Father. The price for the broken covenant was paid by God cutting Himself without human hands! Now after the death of Gods flesh, there is no longer any reason to remember what God will do, because He has done it at the cross. That is why the rite of cercumcisen was started and why it ended. If it was for health reasons God would have had Adam performed it on himself.

 

[OzSpen]

No..

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

G'day mate,

I agree that it is not a Christian right for males to be circumcised. That's from the Old Covenant dispensation.

However, for me as a bloke I'm blessed that my parents had me circumcised as an infant. I have avoided so many infections in that area by this removal of skin.

I know a Christian aged in his 70s who has had infections throughout his life because he was not circumcised.

I consider that circumcision for males is a practical, medical, and healthy decision.

Oz from Brissy

 

[Owen GB5]

G'day mate,

I agree that it is not a Christian right for males to be circumcised. That's from the Old Covenant dispensation.

However, for me as a bloke I'm blessed that my parents had me circumcised as an infant. I have avoided so many infections in that area by this removal of skin.

I know a Christian aged in his 70s who has had infections throughout his life because he was not circumcised.

I consider that circumcision for males is a practical, medical, and healthy decision.

Oz from Brissy

I suppose the thing that I don't understand is why males in the rest of the world, who are not circumcised, hardly ever have infections throughout their lives. The diseases that require circumcism seem to be endemic in the U.S.A. but they are hardly heard of elsewhere.
If we could find a less drastic cure for these penile problems than circumcision then American males could enjoy a normal sexual life with all the sensitivity that God gave them.

 

[Adstar]

G'day mate,

I agree that it is not a Christian right for males to be circumcised. That's from the Old Covenant dispensation.

However, for me as a bloke I'm blessed that my parents had me circumcised as an infant. I have avoided so many infections in that area by this removal of skin.

I know a Christian aged in his 70s who has had infections throughout his life because he was not circumcised.

I consider that circumcision for males is a practical, medical, and healthy decision.

Oz from Brissy

G'day mate I am from Maitland N,S,W ..

Anyway i am circumcised also and i am also glad my parents got me done. It is way healthier for us guys to be circumcised. And also healthier for our wives. A factor that is rarely mentioned in society. But that's a health issue thing only.. It is not a religious necessity, as we have already agreed..

 

[OzSpen]

G'day mate I am from Maitland N,S,W ..

Anyway i am circumcised also and i am also glad my parents got me done. It is way healthier for us guys to be circumcised. And also healthier for our wives. A factor that is rarely mentioned in society. But that's a health issue thing only.. It is not a religious necessity, as we have already agreed..

Adstar,

I'm on the Redcliffe peninsula of northern Brisbane, North Lakes 4509.

That's an important perspective you've given about health for both men (lack of infection) and women (men not passing on that infection).

Men I know have trouble throughout their lives with infection under the foreskin.

Oz