Circumcision

[Prodigal Girl]

Wow, I can't believe this has not been discussed here. What I have come up with so far from the limited studying I have done on the topic, is the following; correct me if I am wrong on any points:
1) Circumcision was commanded in the Bible for Abraham and his descendants, as well as any males who wanted to join in with Israel and be able to join in on Passover. Those not circumcised are not to eat the Passover (or maybe that just refers to the Passover sacrifice)
2) The latest news health-wise is that it is now being advocated in Africa because it has been found to significantly reduce occurrences of HIV Aides there.
3) The apostle Paul is generally believed to teach that circumcision for Gentiles is completely unnecessary at best, and at worse a threat to a person's salvation.

I am having trouble resolving the apparent contradiction with teaching it for Gentiles who want to join in with Israel, and Shaul saying it should not be done by Gentiles. I think I need to learn a little more about the context and history behind this. If it was originally a sign of the covenant between Abram and his descendants as well as those who wanted to join with G-d's people, why would that have been changed by Shaul?

[Nachshon]

When Sha'ul referrs to it not being necessary to be "circumcised" I think he is saying that it is not necessary to undergo a prostletization (which I've just misspelled) process, and it is not necessary to join mainstream Judaism before becoming a N'tzariy.

[Prodigal Girl]

nachshon said:

When Sha'ul referrs to it not being necessary to be "circumcised" I think he is saying that it is not necessary to undergo a prostletization (which I've just misspelled) process, and it is not necessary to join mainstream Judaism before becoming a N'tzariy.

So in other words, it is not necessary for a Gentile to join with Israel (involving circumcision and then being permitted to eat the Passover sacrifice) to be saved. This is so confusing! Especially since Paul did have Timothy circumcised. The harshness in which he speaks of Gentiles undergoing circumcision is also confusing.

[Yitzchak]

Prodigal.

You must keep in mind that context is very important when discussing the issue of "circumcision" and Shaul.

At that time, many of the Pharisee's who had come to faith were demanding that Gentiles who came to faith be circumcised, and basically convert to Judaism in order to have salvation. Shaul taught that the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised in order to be saved. He taught that as far as salvation goes, "circumcision" was nothing, and "uncircumcision" was nothing. Why? Because the issue was one of "circumcision of the heart."

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Mark]

First we need to look at the command to circumcise very closely. Genesis 17:12 specifies very clearly, "He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..." To whom is the command to circumcise given? Is it to the child? No, it can't be. The command is given to Abraham (though the child will suffer the consequences of Abraham's disobedience.) Evidence of circumcision being the father's reponsibility is validated in Exodus 4:24-26.

In Leviticus 12:1-3, the command to circumcise is given to the whole house of Israel. Again, the command is very specific: circumcision is to be done on the eighth day of the child's life.

There are two specific things that the uncircumcised are excluded from: access into the Holy Tabernacle to offer sacrifices (Ezekiel 44:7) and partaking of the Passover sacrifice lamb (Exodus 12:48). Both of these exclusions also apply to any circumcised person who is unclean. Interestingly enough, uncircumicision is mentioned on equal terms as uncleanness in Isaiah 52:1.

In Acts 15:1, we see the argument that Paul must combat throughout his entire career of ministry: that unless one be circumcised one cannot be saved. What had been forgotten is that circumcision is "a token" of the covenant relationship. It was not a "condition" of the covenant relationship. Paul argues this point in Romans 4:8-11.

Sudddenly the apparent inequity between Paul having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1-3) and Titus not being circumcised (Galatians 2:3) is dissolved. Timothy was a Jew (at least enough of one to have access to the Temple and participate in sacrifices, if circumcised). Titus was a Greek. There was no way he was going to be able to get into the Temple.

Should gentiles circumcise their sons? Absolutely... on the eighth day, as commanded. I have four sons. Not all of them are circumcised. Those who are were circumcised had their brit milan on the eight day. The others are given the choice and may make that choice at any point in their lives and I will pay for it. It is my responsibility. It was my sin to have not completed this mitzvah to begin with. It is not their sin to be uncircumcised. It is their uncleanness, though. When the day comes that Adonai restores the Temple and if they be alive to have the opportunity to participate in that worship, they will first need to be circumcised.

[Nachshon]

prodigalgirl said:

nachshon said:

When Sha'ul referrs to it not being necessary to be "circumcised" I think he is saying that it is not necessary to undergo a prostletization (which I've just misspelled) process, and it is not necessary to join mainstream Judaism before becoming a N'tzariy.

So in other words, it is not necessary for a Gentile to join with Israel (involving circumcision and then being permitted to eat the Passover sacrifice) to be saved. This is so confusing! Especially since Paul did have Timothy circumcised. The harshness in which he speaks of Gentiles undergoing circumcision is also confusing.

Yes. I believe circumcision would be part of the continued walk of a believer. Sha'ul's only contention, the way I see it, was that it was not necessary to have them circumcised at the beginning. This is in keeping with the decision of Acts. 15, when the conclusion was that they didn't need to start of keeping all of because "Moses has those reading him in the synagogues every Sabbath from ancient times."

Shalom,
David

[Nachshon]

Mark, Abraham had himself circumcised, and circumcised Ishmael when he was probably about 13 years old. Just some interesting thoughts to throw into the mix.

[Mark]

All of the nation of Israel was also circumcised in Joshua 5:1-7; but the prescriptive need for circumcision was there for both Abraham and the nation at those points.

Circumcision should not be discouraged for men who are inclined to worship as an anticipation of the rebuilding of the Temple; but it is not sin to be uncircumcised; nor does it affect one's status in the assembly of the congregation, nor their hope of eternal rewards.

Otherwise, Paul would have been in violation of to write Romans 4:11-12, 1st Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:6, and Galatians 6:15. The example of Titus in Galatians 2:3 would have been deceptive if there was any expectation that he would be circumcised in the future.

[Mpossoff]

Hi all,

It's kind of sketchy.

Paul circumcised Timothy but...

The main contention is how Gentiles will 'get in'.

The Jews of that day and today believe if you are a ethnic Jew you are righteous and 'automatically' have a place in the world to come. If you are part of the covenant you're in, that's all is necessary.

So for a Gentile to be partaker in the covenant it was required if you will ritual conversion then you would be an 'Israelite indeed.

That was the main Halacha and it still exists today in rabbinical Judaism. To be a part of the covenant you had to be a Jew, sort of like a closed door type of thing.

Paul uses Abraham alot in his letters. Paul makes it a point to say when was Abraham accounted for righteousness? Before circumcision or after circumcision? The circumcision was a seal of the covenant. The point is when was Abraham accounted for righteousness.

So I believe circumcision which is ritual conversion into Judaism wasn't and isn't necessary if one wants to be a part of the covenant and to be in the body of Messiah.

But then again Paul circumcized Timothy. Hmmm.

The main argument is and was can Gentiles be 'saved' without ritual conversion? Or you have to be a Jew.

Marc

[Prodigal Girl]

Another thing to add to all this, is that Shaul was FALSELY accused of letting uncircumcised gentiles into the temple. That seems to be the main thing he had to go before the San Hedrin about. He was accused of abolishing the law and teaching others of abolishing it. Same thing Stephen was falsely accused of. It says right in there (ACTS) that it was a FALSE accusation. So what exactly was happening here? I am missing something.
And yes, Yitzchak, what I am trying to get at is the context; but the factual context not just hearsay. Enough of a context that this all makes sense, at least. Context is widely touted in the church, as is sticking with the Bible, going by what the Bible says. But saying it and claiming to do it, and actually doing it are not necessarily the same thing. Context is not the answer if the context offered is not factual. When an explanation given does not make sense, I dig further and try to learn more, see if there is something I am missing. I also check the "facts".

[Mpossoff]

I believe when the Bible refers to circumcision it's not just the physical act(foreskin) but more on the lines of ritual conversion to Judaism. To become a Jew.

I also believe Paul and the Apostle's realized this. That as long as a Gentile attached themselves and has faith in the G-d of Israel they are an 'Israelite indeed' without ritual conversion.

In the TaNaK that's pretty evident.

Marc

[Prodigal Girl]

mpossoff said:

I believe when the Bible refers to circumcision it's not just the physical act(foreskin) but more on the lines of ritual conversion to Judaism. To become a Jew.

I also believe Paul and the Apostle's realized this. That as long as a Gentile attached themselves and has faith in the G-d of Israel they are an 'Israelite indeed' without ritual conversion.

In the TaNaK that's pretty evident.

Marc

So if they are an Israelite indeed, then why go through circumcision? Or why not, on the other hand? Paul was saying not to.

[Prodigal Girl]

Shaul took Timothy (and others, if I remember correctly) to be circumcised. Yet he said others should not do that.Why? Why would it be ok for him to take people to be circumcised, but not for others to do the same? What is the difference there? If he is saying that Gentiles should not be circumcised, which appears to be what he is saying, then wouldn't he be going against or changing what the law says to do, for those who want to be a part of Israel?
It is funny, this whole thing reminds me a little of how baptism is looked at by a number of churches. Definitely expected, required after conversion. No, baptism is not what saves you. But it is what we are supposed to do. By the way, how does the ritual cleansing (mikvah) that new converts to Judaism do tie into all this? Somehow it is related.

[jo-b]

Shalom Prodigal Girl,
Rav Sha'ul had Timothy circumcised because Timothy was Jewish, not gentile. Timothy had a gentile, Greek father, and a Jewish mother. Timothy had been raised in a Greek pagan home, and came to faith in Yeshua as an young adult, so had never been circumcised at 8 days old; the proper time for a Jewish male to have his B'rit Milah (circumcision). As a Jewish male coming into the Jewish faith of Yeshua HaMashiach, he had to follow ALL Halakhah.

Jodi

[Mpossoff]

As a Jewish male coming into the Jewish faith of Yeshua HaMashiach, he had to follow ALL Halakhah.

What about a Gentile male coming into faith Yeshua HaMashiach?

The main Oral Law was that a Gentile converting to the 'Jewish' faith was ritual conversion.

At that time, many of the Pharisee's who had come to faith were demanding that Gentiles who came to faith be circumcised, and basically convert to Judaism in order to have salvation. Shaul taught that the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised in order to be saved. He taught that as far as salvation goes, "circumcision" was nothing, and "uncircumcision" was nothing. Why? Because the issue was one of "circumcision of the heart."

What's the written Word say?

Let's not base this on 'rabbinical' but what the written Word says.
Rabbinical laws at that present time said one had to be a Jew for right standing before G-d and had to be a Jew to have a place in the world to come. Not biblically true!

While it is true that in the natural there is some benefit to being circumcised, the law of circumcision was only given to descendants of Abraham (#25} Gen 14:9-11)

Why then was Timothy circumcised? To make him more acceptable as a leader in the Messianic Jewish community. Not because it was necessary for salvation but for the legalistic concerns of other Jewish believers in his region. If Timothy was to be respected in the eyes of the Jewish believers in his region, he would have to be circumcised.

In that we would be circumcised in our hearts which makes us truly Jewish (#29} Deut 30:6).

When Paul talks about the Law you have to be careful to dicern what he's talking about. He may be talking about the Oral Law.

Works of the Law maybe be the Oral Law. Works of the Law such as circimcision doesn't save you.

Marc