The ritual of circumcision has always made me uncomfortable. It seems so barbaric, bloody...and permanent. Paul seems to say we don't need to fulfil this law, and the church certainly seems to agree.
Am reading Genesis 17 this week, and began to research and think...
Walk BEFORE Me and be perfect (blameless, complete)
There is a picture here of walking according to God's sight, not ours. Walk through 'God's eyes', not our eyes.
The next line reads 'I will set my covenant between Me and you...'
Here's a picture of something between God and man. A go-between, a mediator, something bonding one to an unlike thing. Like can bond with like, but like with unlike requires a mediator. The Covenant seems to be pictured as this mediator.
There is a picture here of walking according to God's sight, not ours. Walk through 'God's eyes', not our eyes.
The next line reads 'I will set my covenant between Me and you...'
Here's a picture of something between God and man. A go-between, a mediator, something bonding one to an unlike thing. Like can bond with like, but like with unlike requires a mediator. The Covenant seems to be pictured as this mediator.
The
name God chooses to describe Himself to Abraham is 'El Shaddai'. This name means 'the mighty one who is able, who has sufficient power to
grant His mercies, to fulfil His promises'.
God calls Abraham 'the father of many nations', which calls to mind the part of Adam's commission to be fruitful and multiply. Adam was fruitful, but only after he'd failed and been corrupted through adultery; through partaking of the tree of the adulteration of good with evil, of function with dysfunction, of 'tov' with 'ra'.
God calls Abraham 'the father of many nations', which calls to mind the part of Adam's commission to be fruitful and multiply. Adam was fruitful, but only after he'd failed and been corrupted through adultery; through partaking of the tree of the adulteration of good with evil, of function with dysfunction, of 'tov' with 'ra'.
The Hebrew word translated 'covenant' is 'brit', and it literally means to cut. Cut pieces are joined through the covenant. The covenant is the mediator, the thing that brings together. There is a requirement of cutting in this word. The covenant is symbolically made by passing between pieces of flesh.
This is My covenant with you: you shall be a father of many nations...I will make you most exceedingly fruitful.
I will ratify My covenant between Me and you...as an everlasting covenant...I will be a Mighty One to you and your offspring after you...I shall give you and your offspring after you the land you are living in as an everlasting possession, and I shall be a Mighty One to them.
These are the things God promises. Next, God tell Abraham his part...what his responsibility will be in accepting this covenant...
And as for you, you shall KEEP My covenant - you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
Now it seems as if God gives Abraham a covenant for HIM to keep! God has made one with Abraham (which seems to have been the one in Genesis 15), now Abraham is given one to keep with God.
Covenants or promises had visible signs accompanying them. In Genesis 9 its the rainbow, in Genesis 20 it was silver, in Genesis 38:18 it was a staff and signet, in Exodus 4 it was the plagues.
Circumcision was the sign God gave for the covenant Abraham was to keep.
God was telling Abraham that this fruitfulness would come even though Abraham would cut off part of the very organ through which that fruitfulness would be accomplished! Not only that, but every member of Abraham's household would also be reduced in this way! And every child born to them.
What an astonishing test of faith!
What did Abraham do? He obeyed on the very day God had spoken to him (verse 23 and 26).
And what does the church say? And on whose words does it base its teaching on circumcision? Those are questions worth asking.
And it does bear repeating that no ritual serves to establish a real covenant that isn't there in spirit first. Its a sign of the covenant, its not the covenant itself.
Abraham obeyed Elohiym in Genesis 17:10-12 ...
ReplyDelete“This is My covenant which you guard between Me and you, and your seed after you: Every male child among you is to be circumcised.
“And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall become a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
“And a son of eight days is circumcised by you, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with silver from any foreigner who is not of your seed.
After circumcising himself, and all other males, we see then the command is for every male child on the eighth day as stated again in Leviticus 12:3.
As was also mentioned in Acts 7:8 and obeyed with the Messiah [Luke 2:21]. Acts 21:21 suggests that Sha'ul was falsley accused of teaching against the Torah in circumcising children (eight day olds). This may have been the true message of Acts 15 that since they had missed the eighth day it was not necessary.
However, we also see that Sha'ul circumcised Timothy as an adult for a specific purpose.
You’re saying that after the covenant was given to Abraham, all subsequent circumcisions were meant to happen on the eighth day…or not at all? Yes, perhaps that is what was referred to in Acts 15:1 as the 'custom of Moses', a phrase that only appears there. It's an interesting perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe Stone Edition Chumash renders Gen 17:12-14 this way: “At the age of 8 days every male among you shall be circumcised, throughout your generations – he that is born in your household or purchased with money from any stranger who is not of your offspring…He that is born in your household (could be circumcised at 8 days) or purchased with your money (it seems unikely that a slave would be bought as a newborn) shall surely be circumcised. Thus, my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. An uncircumcised male the flesh of whose foreskin shall not be circumcised – that soul shall be cut off from its people, he has invalidated my covenant.”
It’s not possible for an 8 day old to refuse circumcision, that last sentence refers to adults. A newly purchased slave is more likely to be past the age of 8 days, yet the command seems to be to circumcise him anyway.
There is surprisingly little in the Torah regarding circumcision. Except for the almost parenthetical insertion in Leviticus 12, it doesn’t seem to be restated anywhere with more specifics.
I find it intriguing that Moses’ son was not circumcised (until Zipporah apparently did it) and also that the Israelites were not circumcised during the wanderings. Yet they weren’t chastised for this. They didn’t seem to be cut off from the covenant. They actually entered the Promised Land uncircumcised; it wasn’t until they had to do battle that they were told to first be circumcised. Only after that, were they told that the reproach of Egypt had been removed from them. And these were adults, not 8 day olds (Joshua 5)!
As for what Paul was accused of or what Acts 15 or 21 really meant, I think it’s hard to know for sure without having access to both sides of the conversations. I don’t believe any of the Greek texts clearly support that Paul was introducing some new modification to the Torah though.
I am actually suggesting that from the Genesis 17 account on, the Scriptures state a command in Torah for eight day olds beginning in Genesis 17:12 with a 'second witness' of this command in Leviticus 12:3. This command is exampled by Abraham with his son, Yitsḥaq in Genesis 21:4 verified again in Acts 7:8 plus exampled with the Messiah in Luke 2:21. This could be the ultimate support to this command as He is our truest example as followers of Him.
ReplyDeleteThe refusal of circumcision would naturally not be by the child :) but by the parents as again the Genesis 17 account may just be the beginning to get everyone circumcised and then carry on from now on with every 8 year old male. Commanded in verse 12, seconded in Lev 12:3, exampled as obeyed by Abraham with Yitsḥaq, and again with the Messiah.
Yes, I agree that Sha'ul would not be modifying Torah as he stated he believed in all the Torah as did the Way in Acts 24:14. He also bragged about his own 8th day circumcision in Philippians 3:5 but he explain in 1 Corinthians 7:18 if you missed the 8th day, don't worry about it.
This supports his thoughts in Acts 15 that those newly converted that were not circumcised on the 8th day were not unable to be saved. However, I see that Acts 21:20,21 is addressing that circumcision of a child at 8 days old as these verses mention Torah and Mosheh as Acts 15:1-5 does. If he was suggesting to the Yahudim that they could skip circumcision of 8 day old children he would be seen to be trying to modify Torah. This Acts 21 passage seems to state he was not.
One last concern may be the command in Exodus 12:48 that uncircumcised males are not to perform/eat the Passover. Hhhhhmmm, interesting topic, hey? :)
Yes, this could be the way Paul saw or thought of the matter. Did you find any historical evidence from his days to give support that this was the/an accepted custom? That would be interesting.
ReplyDeleteThough regardless of any accepted custom, the statement in Genesis 17:14 does not say or even imply that it's referring to the parents refusal to circumcise their 8 day old. It clearly says its the man himself who has failed to carry out HaShem's requirement.
Here's another way you might have heard of to read 1 Corinthians 7:17-24. For 'circumcision' substitute 'in Judaism' and for 'uncircumcision' substitute 'not in Judaism'. It makes far more sense that Paul is referring to a life situation rather than a physical state.
Were you in Judaism when you were called? Then don't seek to leave. Were you not in Judaism when you were called? Then don't seek to become a Jew. Jewishness or Goyishness is nothing...keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't worry about it. Though if you are able to obtain your freedom, them make the most of the opportunity.
He goes on to continue to talk about life situations.
If Paul is telling people not to bother doing what the Torah does seem to clearly command...then he is a liar and misrepresenting God. I don't really see proof of that, though I do see some instances where translators have chosen an interpretation according to a particular understanding they have.
And yes, the command in Exodus 12:48 is pretty clear, and quite in line with Genesis 17:14
Definitely an interesting topic. I appreciate the discussion.