|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on May 5, 2007 7:50:56 GMT -8
QUOTE:
"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)" (QUOTE)
I do not get the sense from reading these comments, that anyone here is trying to base this on "rabbinical" as opposed to the written Word. What we are trying to do, is get an accurate understanding by becoming knowledgeable about the historical context. That does mean that we have a need to consult extra-biblical sources to gain this understanding. Just because something is "rabbinical" does not mean it is always and entirely false and inaccurate, any more than Christian sources. The alternative would be to make interpretations based on our own individual modern assumptions coming from our own cultural backgrounds. That does not necessarily lead to an accurate understanding; on the contrary often leads to twisted and even harmful views of scripture.
I am not convinced that circumcision of "ONLY the descendants of Abraham" is either biblically OR halachically correct. It appears to be a definite biblical practice and teaching to circumcise those wanting to be a part of the nation of Israel. Look at what happened in Genesis 34. So if you want to join with Israel including following the LAW (speaking Biblically here, not rabbinically), circumcision is part of the picture. Genetics don't matter. You are counted as the same as a genetic descendant if you join in, in this way.
Look at Exodus 12:43-49.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on May 5, 2007 10:24:46 GMT -8
I did find a thread on circumcision here, "A False Gospel" (don't know how to provide link to it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 5, 2007 16:40:52 GMT -8
One Law shall be for both the Israelite and the stranger that dwells among them; however, the stranger only need be circumcised if participating in the Passover sacrifice (Exodus 12:49). This means that the stranger is not trangressing  by remaining uncircumcised and "sojourning among" Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 6, 2007 3:24:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 10, 2007 4:49:03 GMT -8
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. Because it's not necessary for salvation. Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Jul 10, 2007 12:49:18 GMT -8
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. " So you are saying that it was a sin for you to not have circumcised your sons on the eighth day? I think I understand that Paul said it was wrong for the Gentiles to get circumcised in that situation for that time because it would have been circumcising for the wrong reason; caving into some group who was saying that circumcision was a salvation thing. This is very tricky, because it seems to be saying in Ex. 12:43, 48, 49 that circumcision IS required to be part of Israel. And the term "the circumcision" has frequently been used to refer to all those NOT of the people of G-d. Was it wrong for the temple authorities to restrict certain areas of it only to the circumcised? From a practical standpoint, it would make sense to control and limit the contact with things and persons that could make one ritually unclean. |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Jul 10, 2007 13:00:11 GMT -8
My main question is, correctly biblically speaking (not for salvation) why should a non-ethnic Jew ("Gentile believer") be circumcised as an adult? All I can discover so far, is so they can participate in eating the sacrified Passover lamb (which we no longer do at the moment because there is no temple). But I think there are other reasons given also in the Bible for it; just can't put my fingers on the references at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 10, 2007 14:00:25 GMT -8
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. " So you are saying that it was a sin for you to not have circumcised your sons on the eighth day? I think I understand that Paul said it was wrong for the Gentiles to get circumcised in that situation for that time because it would have been circumcising for the wrong reason; caving into some group who was saying that circumcision was a salvation thing. This is very tricky, because it seems to be saying in Ex. 12:43, 48, 49 that circumcision IS required to be part of Israel. And the term "the circumcision" has frequently been used to refer to all those NOT of the people of G-d. Was it wrong for the temple authorities to restrict certain areas of it only to the circumcised? From a practical standpoint, it would make sense to control and limit the contact with things and persons that could make one ritually unclean. What the Jerusalem Council said is that you don't have to be circumcised before you have faith. Since the Gentiles were to hear Moses spoken in the synagogues every Sabbath then when it comes time that they want to be a covenantal member then they can get circumcised. It's required to be a member of the covenant. Not required for salvation. It's a sign that you are in the covenant family. Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 10, 2007 14:10:15 GMT -8
To be apart of the covenant.
Example: I was circumcised on the 8th day according to the Law of Moses.
Now take a Gentile who really doesn't have any idea on what it really means to be circumcised.
This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;
and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you
He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant
He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant
And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Again a Gentile just coming into faith has no knowledge of what the sign of circumcision is.
So as they hear Moses spoken every Sabbath they will eventually want to get circumcised.
It was not to be shoved down there throats.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Jul 10, 2007 16:28:27 GMT -8
So what is/was the advantage of a Gentile to become in the covenant as opposed to just being saved? So you can eat Passover Lamb? If it is necessary for a Gentile to join the covenant, which goes along with the circumcision, why is it necessary? Or if it is optional, why would it be a good thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 11, 2007 2:05:08 GMT -8
So what is/was the advantage of a Gentile to become in the covenant as opposed to just being saved? So you can eat Passover Lamb? If it is necessary for a Gentile to join the covenant, which goes along with the circumcision, why is it necessary? Or if it is optional, why would it be a good thing? From the looks in the Old Testament it doesn't appear that circumcision was a requirement. In other words I don't see any indication of 'prejudice' if one wasn't circumcised. With that being said if one wasn't circumcised they couldn't eat the Passover. Scripture doesn't indicate anything else. So they advantage if you will that if you were circumcised you could eat the Passover. If not then you couldn't. Also with that being said we are now living in the New Covenant. Now I ask because this is really the bottom line is this true or not? Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Then Acts 15:19Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God Now let me ask you? We are in the New Covenant now... so how does this all apply now? We have many Gentiles in our congregation and they hear Moses read every Sabbath. We are not to trouble anyone or try to put a yoke around their neck saying you have to do this or must do that. So the bottom line for today is.... Can a person who isn't circumcised be accepted by God? How can a person be accepted by God? I'll be honest with you as I speak from experience. It's easy to fall in to the trap of what I'll call rabbinic and oral ways. And I'm not saying rabbinic or oral law is wrong but it can cause alot of confusion. Marc Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 11, 2007 3:38:43 GMT -8
The Scriptures that we hold are and compilation of exact documents: written with a technical percision that is unparalleled. We're not used to reading that way- even if the text is presented to us in our native tongue. How much more confusing it can often be when we are dealing with translations that may or may not have been given the level of precision that the Scriptures themselves maintain. Let me give you a completely unrelated example that may hopefully prove the point I'm going to try to make. We are commanded that there is to be one Law for both the native born and the stranger that sojourns (dwells or inhabits) among you. (Ex 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 15:16). Yet Deuteronomy 14:21 tells us that anything that dies of itself may be eaten by the stranger that is in your gates. This appears to be a contradiction in the text differentiating between the stranger and the native born. However, the defining quality is the that of one who is being "in your gates". This stranger is not sojourning among you. He is passing through, he is a resident alien: one who is only connected with Israel by geographic association. He identifies himself in no way to the nation of Israel. acknowledges this as a reality- just because you are physically present doesn't mean that you buy into everything that is offered. Circumcision may be thought of in the same way. It is not an all or nothing sort of relationship. There are degrees at which one may enter into communal relationship with the people of Adonai. It is not sin or wrong to be passing through. One does not have to enter into common fellowship with the people of Adonai to receive some of their blessing. We see this in theChrist ian Church today. Adonai has a blessing for them even as strangers and aliens. Yet, if they desire a more intimate relationshionship with Him, they may enter into the community and a whole new world opens up for worship and understanding within the community. There's nothing wrong with living the rest of your life in that position: as a resident stranger ( a God-fearer or righteous gentile ) as the Israeli Jews would call you. Yet, there is still a closer more intimate contact available. You are offered the full package if that is what you desire. Circumcision is a token representation of that new relationship. Here's where we enter into a great controversy. Are we talking about physical circumcision? Paul says not necessarily. Rom 2:25-29 KJV For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. (26) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (27) And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: (29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant relationship. It is not the essence of that relationship. In my covenant relationship with my wife I have several signs. There is a ring on my left hand. Yet, if I remove the ring, am I still married? There is a legal certificate in my safe under the bed. Yet, if it is left open and there is a fire, does that annul the marriage? In the same way, many Jews have misunderstood the difference between the substance of the covenant and the sign of the covenant. The substance is the word of Adonai Himself: and because He could sware by none greater, he swore by Himself (Hebrews 6:14). The circumcision is given as a sign of the covenant. One does not have to assume the sign of the covenant in order to enter into it, according to Romans 2:25-29. However, in the promised kingdom, circumcision will have a greater significance to us. We circumcise on the eighth day as is commanded as claiming for our children the promised covenant of Adonai. Yet, as an adult, one may choose to be circumcised as a testimony of the anticipation we hold for the day we may again enter into Temple worship and partake the Passover lamb. |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Jul 11, 2007 3:59:20 GMT -8
It appears that one purpose of circumcision also was/is so that intermarriage could/can occur. No marriage with physically uncircumcised. Again, today's Orthodox Rabbinic today is not necessarily the same as Tanach teaching however it does seem to be a biblical teaching, What is the whole significance of Joseph's brothers (after they sold him) murdering a whole group of men immediately after the men had circumcised themselves so their tribe could marry into the Hebrew tribe? They were getting blood vengeance for the rape of their sister, but went way beyond what the Law said to do in this situation, in my opinion. Now here we are wading into a controversial area; intermarriage.
And yes, there are prophetic statements about the uncircumcised not being allowed in the temple in the last days. I am assuming that it is talking about the physically uncircumcised but now I am not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 11, 2007 4:14:55 GMT -8
The Scriptures that we hold are and compilation of exact documents: written with a technical percision that is unparalleled. We're not used to reading that way- even if the text is presented to us in our native tongue. How much more confusing it can often be when we are dealing with translations that may or may not have been given the level of precision that the Scriptures themselves maintain. Let me give you a completely unrelated example that may hopefully prove the point I'm going to try to make. We are commanded that there is to be one Law for both the native born and the stranger that sojourns (dwells or inhabits) among you. (Ex 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 15:16). Yet Deuteronomy 14:21 tells us that anything that dies of itself may be eaten by the stranger that is in your gates. This appears to be a contradiction in the text differentiating between the stranger and the native born. However, the defining quality is the that of one who is being "in your gates". This stranger is not sojourning among you. He is passing through, he is a resident alien: one who is only connected with Israel by geographic association. He identifies himself in no way to the nation of Israel. acknowledges this as a reality- just because you are physically present doesn't mean that you buy into everything that is offered. Circumcision may be thought of in the same way. It is not an all or nothing sort of relationship. There are degrees at which one may enter into communal relationship with the people of Adonai. It is not sin or wrong to be passing through. One does not have to enter into common fellowship with the people of Adonai to receive some of their blessing. We see this in theChrist ian Church today. Adonai has a blessing for them even as strangers and aliens. Yet, if they desire a more intimate relationshionship with Him, they may enter into the community and a whole new world opens up for worship and understanding within the community. There's nothing wrong with living the rest of your life in that position: as a resident stranger ( a God-fearer or righteous gentile ) as the Israeli Jews would call you. Yet, there is still a closer more intimate contact available. You are offered the full package if that is what you desire. Circumcision is a token representation of that new relationship. Here's where we enter into a great controversy. Are we talking about physical circumcision? Paul says not necessarily. Rom 2:25-29 KJV For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. (26) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (27) And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: (29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant relationship. It is not the essence of that relationship. In my covenant relationship with my wife I have several signs. There is a ring on my left hand. Yet, if I remove the ring, am I still married? There is a legal certificate in my safe under the bed. Yet, if it is left open and there is a fire, does that annul the marriage? In the same way, many Jews have misunderstood the difference between the substance of the covenant and the sign of the covenant. The substance is the word of Adonai Himself: and because He could sware by none greater, he swore by Himself (Hebrews 6:14). The circumcision is given as a sign of the covenant. One does not have to assume the sign of the covenant in order to enter into it, according to Romans 2:25-29. However, in the promised kingdom, circumcision will have a greater significance to us. We circumcise on the eighth day as is commanded as claiming for our children the promised covenant of Adonai. Yet, as an adult, one may choose to be circumcised as a testimony of the anticipation we hold for the day we may again enter into Temple worship and partake the Passover lamb. Hi Mark you explained better than me! Great post. Marc |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 13, 2007 0:19:29 GMT -8
Shalom chaverim, Wow, good discussion. So much confusion on this topic and so much contention surrounding it. I have resisted getting on to much of a discussion on this topic because it can be such an intense topic for some. I agree with much of what has been stated thus far. But, I do hold a slightly different view on the subject. I would have to say that circumcision is without a doubt a command in incumbent upon all sons of Avraham (of the flesh or spiritual). Therefore, what is the definition of sin?... "Everyone who keeps sinning is violating — indeed, sin is violation of ." 1Yochanan (John) 3:4 There are many things that a Gentile before coming into covenant with the God of Yisrael has not practiced. is the definition for what sin is and what is not sin (regardless of one's level of observance or understanding). Obviously, when a Gentile comes to Messiah Yeshua he or she is not perfectly observant. Nonetheless, the breaking of any one command constitutes sin. Circumcision is certainly a command in . It was given to Avraham before Mt. Sinai and before any instruction was given regarding sojourners or foreigners in Yisrael. Like any mitzvah (save those concerning idolatry) it certainly is not required for salvation or as a prerequisite to becoming a believer in Messiah (as seen in Acts 15). A few other thoughts... When Sha'ul (Paul) uses words like "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" these were common terms to describe "Jew" and "Gentile" and not so much that one person was circumcised and the other not (although commonly there was a correlation). Much of Judaism only considered someone to be of the "circumcision" if they went through a ritual conversion according to their (men's) standards (not necessarily God's standards). For how does one keep..."the righteous requirements of the " without actually keeping the commandment therein? Circumcision was not for salvation purposes for new converts in Messiah according to Acts 15, although this does not mean that it is no longer a commandment for all those whom wish to live an obedient lifestyle in Messiah....The Word says the following for all those whom join themselves to the commonwealth of Israel and it's covenants... "This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin. It will be a token of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money from any foreigner who is not of your seed." - Beresheet (Gen.) 17:10-12 Are not believing Goyim (Gentiles) bought with a price by a Jewish man from Yisrael and are they not now of this Jewish man's household? To reiterate, what if someone wants to keep Pesach (Passover) and is male? "but every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat of it. A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat of it. In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth anything of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall you break a bone of it. All the congregation of Yisra'el shall keep it. When a stranger shall live as a foreigner with you, and will keep the Pesach to YHVH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one who is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. One law shall be to him who is born at home, and to the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you." - Shemot (Exo.) 12:44-49 Adonai does not change His mind as He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, for those whom wish to take hold of the covenant of the God of Yisrael...circumcision is still a commandment...but, not for salvation...it should be done out of a love relationship with our Heavenly Father. The idea of being circumcised in the heart does not replace the need for the physical carrying out of the mitzvah. Behold the future.... "And you shall say to the rebellious ones, to the house of Israel, So says Adonai YHVH: Enough to you, of all your abominations, O house of Israel, when you brought in the sons of aliens, uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, when you bring near My bread, the fat and the blood. And they have broken My covenant by all your abominations. And you have not kept the charge of My holy things, but you have set them as keepers of My charge in My sanctuary, for themselves. So says Adonai YHVH: No son of an alien, uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary, or any son of an alien who is among the sons of Israel." - Yechezkel (Ezek.) 44:6-9 Faith without works is dead - Yaakov (James) 2:17. So too, does the physical conform to the spiritual for those whom walk with Elohim. But, it is a process of sanctification and does not happen all at once just as Yisrael did not receive all at once. The following is not meant to offend, but I believe that it is relevant to share in this thread as many are coming into the Messianic movement and are later choosing to live a observant life. And, of course, people are free to object  I believe that if children are living in a home in which the head of the home has accepted the covenants of , the communicates that the head has a responsibility to circumcise all his male children, regardless of age. Ideally, it is done on the eighth day after birth, but this does not give us an excuse not to circumcise our children if we miss this ideal prescription. I understand that it is more difficult and often times more expensive to do later on, but as long as a child resides in a observant home, it shouldn't be left to their choice. The father has a responsibility to make that choice for them. Adonai shows us all His "chen v'chesed" (grace and loving kindness) as we are learning His . But, circumcision in Messianic observant families cannot be compromised. B'shem Yeshua HaMashiach, Reuel |
|
by remaining uncircumcised and "sojourning among" Israel. 
