[OPEN] Should we Circumcise or not? [split from "Searching for a Messianic Mohel"]

[Charles YTK]

I do not think anyone was speaking about OSAS.

Gal 6: [15] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. [16] And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

 

[ContraMundum]

What we have here is the conflict between the new modern One Law teaching (sure, a minority position, but still popular in some circles) and the more historic "Jews and Gentiles: equal but not the same" position.

I would have thought that Acts 15 dealt with this, but it does rear it head up from time to time.

For the record, I agree somewhat with this article: http://www.tikkunministries.org/articles/jack-whichlaw.htm

I don't think Gentiles need to be circumcised, and that's easily found in the NT. Yet, I believe the physical descendants of Abraham do. This is why Paul told the Galatians to resist being circumcised and yet he himself circumcised Timothy (who was Jewish, having a Jewish mother).

I really think it's important to remember that usually Gentiles only need to be circumcised when they convert to Judaism. The Jerusalem Council said in effect that no Gentile had to convert to Judaism to become a Christian, and therefore, need not be circumcised. They were already saved and Spirit-filled as Gentiles. The testimony of the NT says that there were "certain Pharisees" who thought that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). The Council disagreed, calling such a doctrine "subversive" (Acts 15:24) yet declaring other laws binding (Acts 15:28,29).

I agree with the Council too.

 

[Charles YTK]

Contramudum,

Exactly. However just one poit of clarification:

Paul told the Galatians to resist being circumcised and yet he himself circumcised Timothy (who was Jewish, having a Jewish mother).

Timothy was a Gentile, having a Gentile father. Determination of linage was by the fathers blood line not the mothers, until Rabbinical changes were made to this biblical law in order to protect the Jews from assimilation during the Diaspora. At the time of the apostles Timothy was considered a Gentile, but he was raised in the knowledge of Torah by is Grandmother a Jewess. He sort of fell in that difficult spot of being a Mamzar. His choice to be circumcised was his own and represented a sort of ethnic reassignment. The change from Paternity to Maternity was to protect Jewish identity in the Diaspora.

 

[ContraMundum]

Contramudum,

Exactly. However just one poit of clarification:



Timothy was a Gentile, having a Gentile father. Determination of linage was by the fathers blood line not the mothers, until Rabbinical changes were made to this biblical law in order to protect the Jews from assimilation during the Diaspora. At the time of the apostles Timothy was considered a Gentile, but he was raised in the knowledge of Torah by is Grandmother a Jewess. He sort of fell in that difficult spot of being a Mamzar. His choice to be circumcised was his own and represented a sort of ethnic reassignment. The change from Paternity to Maternity was to protect Jewish identity in the Diaspora.

Yeah, yeah, I used to think that too. I think the Torah makes it clear that it is through the mother - just do a Google and you'll see what I mean. Here's one simple article...

http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/10-11.html

...and there's heaps of texts too. I haven't got time now.

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

Another thing to consider.


While both Ishmael and Issac were both sons of Abraham... Only 1 was the son of Sarah.

 

[ContraMundum]

Another thing to consider.


While both Ishmael and Issac were both sons of Abraham... Only 1 was the son of Sarah.

Exactly- and in the eyes of G-d, Abraham only had one son. Although Abraham fathered two boys only the one born through Sarah- not the one born of the Egyptian Hagar- was considered a son.

Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah;

 

[Charles YTK]

Another thing to consider.


While both Ishmael and Issac were both sons of Abraham... Only 1 was the son of Sarah.

The issue here is one child was the child of promise what we call Election. What about the thre sons of Noach? And Esau and Jacob? These are Election by God, His choosing of the right one. The other was an act of the flesh. And when it comes down to it, Sarah was the one who initiated the taking of her hand-maiden to get a child for herself.

What about Ruth? And what about her children, two of which are David and Yeshua?

And what determined which tribe you belonged to? Were you the tribe of your father or the tribe of your mother?

The sons of Joseph were both born to a Pagan princess the daughter of the high priest on On. But they are considered Hebrews. And by the Adoption by Jacob they become head of tribes making them in a sense bothers to Joseph. Yes wierd, but his sons became his brothers. There is no tribe of Joseph. There are the tribes of Ephraim and Mennasseh.

I may be wrong on this but I believe the change from Patiachal to Matriarchial took place in the council of Yavneh after the Jews were expelled from the land in 135 CE.

Prior to that it seems like there was no hard and fast rule but a decision was made according to the character of each person and their parents. As Lomg as one Parent was a failful Jew the child would be accepted if he was also faithful.

 

[Charles YTK]

Yeah, yeah, I used to think that too. I think the Torah makes it clear that it is through the mother - just do a Google and you'll see what I mean. Here's one simple article...

http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/10-11.html

...and there's heaps of texts too. I haven't got time now.

I did go back and Google a bunch of articles but nearly every one of them were written by Rabbinical Jews who want to make a case for Matriarchal ethnicity and Wikkipedia tied it to Yavneh. Cases from Torah can demonstrate either case of parenting.

 

[Charles YTK]

Exactly- and in the eyes of G-d, Abraham only had one son. Although Abraham fathered two boys only the one born through Sarah- not the one born of the Egyptian Hagar- was considered a son.

Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah;

However God seems to work through the men doesn't he. The women are not even mentioned too often. And when God made the covenants he made it through Abraham and not Sarah, through Jacob and not Rachel Through Moshe not Zipporah.

God is known as the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

He is not called the God of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel.

Rebekah was a kinsman of Abraham from the city of Nahor part of the ancient Babylonians or Chaldeans of Mesopotamia. Rachel was not Jacobs first wife. Leah was his first wife and sister to Rachel. This goes back to the importance of Election over Ethnicity.

 

[ContraMundum]

However God seems to work through the men doesn't he. The women are not even mentioned too often. And when God made the covenants he made it through Abraham and not Sarah, through Jacob and not Rachel Through Moshe not Zipporah.

God is known as the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

He is not called the God of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel.

Rebekah was a kinsman of Abraham from the city of Nahor part of the ancient Babylonians or Chaldeans of Mesopotamia. Rachel was not Jacobs first wife. Leah was his first wife and sister to Rachel. This goes back to the importance of Election over Ethnicity.

I'm not sure the idea that the scriptures are basically patriarchal has any real bearing on the matter at hand. Just because women are mentioned a little less often does not nor could not diminish their divinely given roles in Jewish society and history. Anyway, women are very important in the scriptures.

I think the Issac/Ishmael example pretty much hammers any argument for patriarchal alone lineage. If lineage was patriarchal alone, then Ishmael's descendants would have to be Jews too, but they're not. Just ask some of them! There would be no argument at all. But, Issac was his "only" son, so there you have it.

The thing you should remember is that there is also common sense on the side of matriarchal lineage- there is never any doubt whose mother a baby is, but one could always question who the father is.

Now, having said all that, the lineages can be traced through the fathers- provided the mothers are Jewish. There is no example I can think of where a lineage is traced through the fathers where the mothers are not Jewish.

Now, election over ethnicity is a false dilemma in regards this particular matter. In the case of the Jews, election is ethnicity. We're not talking about election in regards soteriology.

As for the cases being presented only by Rabbinical Jews- I don't see how that is relevant. After all, the common MJ position is an open one (more like the Reform Jews, or even the wildly imaginative Two-House theory), so you won't get a presentation of the matriarchal argument from any sources other than orthodox Jews, but I believe they are right.

Still, we are all free to believe as we wish, aren't we? I honestly don't think I will change anyone's mind.

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

I'll touch on the issue with Ruth for now, and save the rest for another time. As Ruth is the easiest off the top of my head to explain it.

Ruth, was a converted Jew. Ruth while born a Moabite, became a Jew.


Think of it as an opening for the Gentiles to be grafted in. As Ruth was grafted in from Moab and is the grand matriarch of the house of David. Gentiles, have been grafted in under the Grace of our Lord.

(there is more to my thought but I'm tired and my back hurts)

 

[Hadassah]

Shalom everyone,​

I'm sorry if there has been some confusion over the thread split.​

Since the Original Thread was begun on the premise of finding a Messianic Mohel, we did wish to keep that thread on the level of Brit Milah for infants, rather than the digression/debate on whether or not one should have Brit Milah for their infant child or if it should be something done for those who have now found faith in Y'shua.​

Again, sorry if there is any confusion, please let the debate continue by all means (within the perameters of the rules... ).​

Shalom​

MJ Moderation Team;​

Tishri1
Hadassah Sukkot​

 

[ChazakEmunah]

Shalom All! I have a long post ahead, so I thought I'd forewarn you. Also, please note that although I may be brief in my responses, I am not in any way seeking to malign anyone. Shalom!

His observance means nothing without faith.

And likewise this so-called "faith" means absolutely nothing without an outward observance. You can say you have faith in something till you are blue in the face, but it is all empty if you do not practice it.

Very foolish indeed to lead gentiles into Jewish customs and tradtions with the notion they ARE JEWS under an 'eternal Mosaic' law.

You're half-right. A Gentile does not become a Jew unless he/she converts. However, a Gentile is at a minimum obligated to observe the sheva mitzvot, with the understanding that they will learn and do more as they attend the Beit Knesset every Shabbat.

The law that was given to men to keep at Sinai was the 10 commands.

Actually no. The Torah that was given at Har Sinai included the 613 mitzvot and their oral interpretation. Far, far more than just 10. These "Ten Words" are actually understood to be categories of mitzvot.

The law for the Kingdom has to change and did change.

This contradicts two things. One, HaShem is unchanging and immutable - forever. Two, the Torah was given for all time. Only after everything has been accomplished will it change in the least.

The law was changed. With the New Covenant comes a New Torah, the Torah of Yeshua the Torah of the Kingdom. The Torah of Sinai only had authority over those living in the lands of Israel. The Torah of the Kingdom is for all those who live in the Kingdom of God, a world wide Kingdom on every continent. It is a different Torah with different regulations. Yes it has some things in common with the Torah of Moshe, but it is not at all a word for word copy. As we see in the change of priesthood and the lack of the temple and the way the Torah of the Kingdom functions according to the teachings of Yeshua.

Disagree 100%. There is no such thing as a "new Torah."

Later in the Sinai covenant we see that gentiles who live in this way, attached to some family of Hebrews must become Abrahamic covenant members before they can kill and eat the Pesach sacrifice.

Correct. And that means that no one who is not circumcised is not allowed to observe Pesach.

Timothy was just such a Gentile.

You might want to re-read that. His mother was Jewish, thereby making him a Jew.

Some want to raise it back up and make a line of distinction between Gentiles and Jews.

Sorry, HaShem himself delineated this separation. The argument that it was somehow "torn down" by the Mashiach is mistaken. Gentiles can only become a sharer in the inheritance promised to Avraham if they join themselves to Israel. There are not two separate paths that arrive at the same destination.

If he does it to enter the broken Sinai covenant, he is fooling himself, because Even the Jews can not keep that Covenant any longer. It is impossible. All they can keep is Rabbinical traditions and ordiances that are loosely based on the Torah of Moshe.

You are grossly mistaken on several points. 1)HaShem does not break his promises. The covenant re-iterated at Sinai still stands. 2)HaShem did not give us something that was impossible to keep. I don't know who you are referring to, but my G-d is just and merciful and would never ask us to do something he knew we couldn't. 3)The Oral Torah holds as much weight as the Written Torah and since it was ordained by HaShem and followed by the Mashiach himself, so too we should follow in his example.

And when he wrote that the church was still living as a trans-covenant church, with both a Temple system and priesthood (which did not end until 135 AD) and the Gospel.

Your dates are wrong. The Beit HaMikdash was destroyed in 70 CE. The Apostasy was born in 135 CE with the crushing of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

they say your in a new covenant because of the work Yeshua did for us.

No they don't. The terms of the "New Covenant" are merely a restatement of the Torah. And look again at Yirmeyahu. HaShem says that the covenant will be made with "Israel and Judah." Israel and Judah did not exist together in the land at the time of the Mashiach's death. So this "New Covenant" hasn't even been ushered in yet!

Not they will return to the law of sin and death.

The "law of sin and death" is the yetzer Ra, not the holy Torah.

Sin is defeated, Yeshua reigns, we are his children, holy spotless and pure.

This is what will happen. Not what has happened.

Timothy was a Gentile, having a Gentile father. Determination of linage was by the fathers blood line not the mothers, until Rabbinical changes were made to this biblical law in order to protect the Jews from assimilation during the Diaspora. At the time of the apostles Timothy was considered a Gentile, but he was raised in the knowledge of Torah by is Grandmother a Jewess. He sort of fell in that difficult spot of being a Mamzar. His choice to be circumcised was his own and represented a sort of ethnic reassignment. The change from Paternity to Maternity was to protect Jewish identity in the Diaspora.

I think you're confused. Tribal lineage is determined through the father, while Jewish lineage is determined through the mother. This has been in effect since Moshe. And the definition of mamzer is one who is conceived through a prohibited union (ie... adultery or incest).

The sons of Joseph were both born to a Pagan princess the daughter of the high priest on On.

Umm... It's actually recorded that she converted. Thereby making her a former pagan.




So, to sum it all up... If you are a Jew, then you should definitely circumcise your son. If you are a Righteous Gentile who has attached themselves to Israel, then you are probably already circumcised, and will circumcise your son in accordance with the Torah. If you are a Gentile who is just starting on this path, then you are not required to be fully observant yet, and therefore not required to circumcise or be circumcised.

Shalom,
Chazak Emunah

 

[Charles YTK]

Chazak,

I think the problem here is that you are trying to live in the Sinai covenant (Old Covenant) because that is the Jewish thing to do. I say that because the Jewish people have not received Messiah Yeshua and therefore can not and will not obtain the New Covenant. However for those of us who have faith in God through Messiah Yeshua, we have entered the New Covenant. Some as first fruits from the age of th eApostles until today, and others at the end of the age in the final harvest.

The old Covenant is expired. It was broken by Israel long ago as God himself declared. (Jer 31) You can not keep the old covenant. It is/was doomed to failure. It was a place holder pointing us to faith in Yeshua. That was its purpose. The old all centers on the temple system with its sacrifices and Levitical priests and things like purification with the ashes of the Red Heifer, all things that held the place until that which is perfect, Messiah Yeshua, came at the appointed time. Without these necessary features you can not keep the Old Covenant. But there should be no desire to, beause that which is better and that which is perfect is come.

The Apostles understood ths and spoke of it constantly. It is the Good news. Paul said in Eph 2 that even the Gentiles who never had the Torah of Moshe have entered the New Covenant through faith and therefore they keep the righteous requirements of the law, without having the Torah because the necessary laws of God are written on their hearts. This shows the work of the spirit in them. Yeshua himself said nothing about perfection of Torah winning our acceptance in God, but faith in Him, believing in him, and Abiding in Him and being obedeint to his sayings, his commandments which is to love one another. (John 14-16)

The writer of Hebrews is even more specific and offers as proof that the New Covenant has come and the old is finished, that the Torah had to change in order to function in the New Covenant proven by the fact that there is no longer any sacrifice for sin., no sacrifices, no priesthood, and the Man Yeshua who is from Judah is now our high priest, something never allowed in the Torah of Moshe. If we were not under the New Covenant and it's Torah and still under th eold Sinai covenant then your salvation is tied to a Levite and a goat every year in the temple. But because our New Covenant is based upon better promises and is a better covenant and has a Torah that fits the needs of God's plan, A Man from Judah is our high priest and his perfect blood our final offering presented one time for us all.

Don't you realize that we are living in the new covenant. All these things including our salvation and the new life in the spirit are the product of living in the New Covenant. And the New Covenant has a Torah that fits that covenant just as the sriptures say.

Here are the attributes of those who are in the New covenant, either as first fruits and later as the full harvest when Messiah returns:

I will put my Torah in their inward parts,

and write it in their hearts;

I will be their God

they shall be my people.

they shall all know me,

I will forgive their iniquity,

I will remember their sin no more.


EZE 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,

ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols,

I will cleanse you.

A new heart also will I give you,

a new spirit will I put within you

I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,

I will give you an heart of flesh.

I will put my spirit within you,

I will cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

ISA 56:5 Even unto them (Eunuchs) will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters:

I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off

the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; [7] Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer:

their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar;


for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

[8] The Lord God which gathers the outcasts of Israel says,Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.

[16] But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; [17] And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: [18] And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


All these are what we have today since the time of the Apostles because we are living in the New Covenant. The Jewish brothers have not experienced this because they are trying to continue in the expired covenant of Sinai, a covenant impossible to keep without Tabernacle Priest or sacrifice. Many who are messianic desire to join them rather than live in the New Covenant thinking that their attention to that old covenant will win them Gods approval. The work we have been given is to believe in His Son and to love one another. He will show us the rest moment by moment by the spirit in us.

Charles

 

[stone]

isn't this old covenant made with Abraham made for the land of milk and honey and the new made with Y-shua to inherit the kingdom when the mortal flesh is done away with and the immortal is put on?

or something like that, i'm still trying to understand a few things here.

 

[Charles YTK]

The Covenant with Abraham is concerning his progeny, his seed and becoming a special people.

The Sinai covenant was for the establishing of a people in the promised land who would prepare the way for Messiah and be Gods witness in the earth until Messiah comes

The New Covenant is made to establish the Kingdom of God in all the eath and is made with all men through Messiah.

The New Covenant has two phases, the first fruits and the final harvest. In the final harvest the righteous flesh becomes immortal. This is when Messiah returns.

The Abrahamic covenant was unilateral, made by God and kept by God

The Sinai is Bilateral made by God and conditional of Israel maintaining the covenant.

The New Covenant is unilateral made by God and kept by God. He does the work. We only accept it and allow God to exercise his will through us.

 

[ChazakEmunah]

I think the problem here is that you are trying to live in the Sinai covenant (Old Covenant) because that is the Jewish thing to do.

Well, I actually consider it to be the eternal covenant, but you can call it what you like. And yes, I, like my fathers before me, live according to the terms of the covenant, as all Jews are required to do so.

I say that because the Jewish people have not received Messiah Yeshua and therefore can not and will not obtain the New Covenant.

First, those who have rejected the Christian "Messiah" have done so rightfully. To accept the Christian "Messiah" is to forsake G-d and his Torah. Second, considering that the "New Covenant" hasn't even been ushered in yet, how can you make such a claim that we will not be part of the "New Covenant"? Is not the promise given to Israel and Y'hudah?

The old Covenant is expired.

Incorrect. This covenant was re-affirmed by Rabbi Y'hoshua himself. I would like to see anyone to claim otherwise.

It is/was doomed to failure. It was a place holder pointing us to faith in Yeshua. That was its purpose.

All three statments are incorrect. HaShem did not set us up for failure, and it was never intended as a placeholder. The Torah was given to stand l'olam (forever).

Without these necessary features you can not keep the Old Covenant.

Sure you can. Daniel and Ezra did, and so do we.

The Apostles understood ths and spoke of it constantly.

I know you can't be speaking of Rabbi Y'hoshua's talmidim. They kept all of Torah, as evidenced by them still offering sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash.

Don't you realize that we are living in the new covenant.

Again, we are not living in the "New Covenant."

The Jewish brothers have not experienced this because they are trying to continue in the expired covenant of Sinai, a covenant impossible to keep without Tabernacle Priest or sacrifice.

No. They have rightfully rejected the Christian "Messiah" and are living according to the will of HaShem by faithfully observing his Torah. Again, it is not impossible. Please see Duet. 30 if you have any confusion.

Shalom,
Chazak Emunah

 

[Charles YTK]

If you are not living in the New Covenant then you do not have the spirit living in you or have the Law written upon your heart. You do not have a persoanl relationship with God. This all happen through the rebirth in the spirit as part of the New Covenant. It did not take place in the Sinai covenant.

The New Covenant is with Judah and Israel. Yes it was offered to them first. And then they are reunited as one Israel and the covenant is made with them. This is faithful Israel those who accepted Yeshua as Messiah and have received the New Covenant. And it includes faithful Gentiles, Have you never read that the Lord said that there were others that he would draw to himself. And that he would make a name for himself among the Gentiles.

All the New Testament is about the New Covenant made through Yeshua. New Testament is translated from New Covenant. The New Covenant was made with the faithful, not forced upon the faithless.

 

[Charles YTK]

Quote:
Don't you realize that we are living in the new covenant.[/quote]

Again, we are not living in the "New Covenant."

Heb 7: [6] But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 9: [14] How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

HEB 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Heb 10: [12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; [13] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. [14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [15] Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, [16] This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; [17] And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [18] Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

[Yovel]

It sounds to me Charles that you think the Torah has been done away with since Yeshua came. Yeshua didn't changed the Torah. He taught Torah. What He taught against was what the Pharisees and Sadducee's were propagating as Torah.

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

If G-d changes not I don't see how Exo 12:48 has changed.

Jos 5:7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them did Joshua circumcise: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

Because there was no circumcising during the 40 years in the wilderness the young men had to be circumcised before going into the promise land. I believe all the young men were circ'd even the strangers among them. By the time they entered the promise land all the so called strangers were not strangers at all. They became part of the tribe they lived with.