Shalom Mark,
Thank you for bringing these passages up. I believe that they make perfect sense without having to feel the need to relaxe the mitzvah of circumcision.
Remember the language being used here are well known idioms in Judaism "circumcision" means "Yehudah/Jew" and "uncircumcision" means "Goy/Gentile". Even if a Goy was circumcised and it was not done in the ritual manner and was not a full convert, than according to much of Judaism such a person would be of the "uncircumcision" regardless of his physical circumcision. So, we first need to realize that we are dealing with Jewish tradition and idioms here.
If the "uncircumcision" (speaking of a Goy) regardless of his fulfillment of the traditional ritual of becoming a Jew starts keeping the literal words of
(physical circumcision being without a doubt one of them)...then Sha'ul (Paul) argues that they should be counted among the "circumcision" (the commonwealth of Yisrael a.k.a The Jewish People). He makes a similar argument if we read Ephesians 2:10-13. But, the fact is, you simply cannot keep the righteousness of
and break the commands therein. When coming to Messiah the Gentiles are no longer strangers to the covenants of Yisrael...including the Avrahamic covenant that without a doubt the sign thereof is physical circumcision.
Again, "uncircumcision" are those whom have not undergone ritual conversion into Judaism according to Rabbinic standards. It is their nature as they are Goyim/Gentiles. But, if they keep the commands of
while those of the "circumcision" (a.ka. Jewish people) transgress the
, those whom keep the
will be the ones vindicated and their
obediance will act as a judgement against those whom claim to be Jews yet break
. But, as we continue to read this is made more evident...
So, the whole conversation is about whom is really considered a Jew. If a Gentile takes hold of the covenant regardless of naturally being a Gentile than by doing so he has really become apart of Yisrael and is a true Jew from the inside out. The argument is even made that even if one was circumcised on the eighth day by his parents as a Jew, this means nothing if this same Jew makes it a habit of transgressing
. I admit Sha'ul's (Paul's) writing style is hard to understand, especially in our day. But, Kefa (Peter) warned us of this....
"And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, as also our beloved brother Sha'ul (Paul) wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him;
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unsettled pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."
- 2Kefa (Peter) 3:15-16
Not only does Sha'ul try to explain that simply being a Jew "circumcision" is not enough, but one also needs to have faith which expresses itself by keeping the
. But, he also goes on to touch on a favorite subject of his...He communicates that one is not saved or granted salvation on the basis of being circumcised and that Avraham was accounted as righteous before he was circumcised. But, the fruit of that righteousness and faith was fulfilling the physical mitzvah...
"Is this blessedness then on the circumcision, or also on the uncircumcision? For we say the faith "was counted to Avraham for righteousness." How then was it counted? Being in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision!
And he received a sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith while in uncircumcision, for him to be a father of those believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be counted to them also" - Romans 4:9-11
Sha'ul was trying to teach on how one is saved. People are saved by God's grace as they decide to trust in him and have faith in Him. It was reminiscent of Acts 15...one did not first have to become circumcised to become saved. They are first justified by faith and trust in God. But, like their father Avraham, righteous Goyim whom are transitioning to the commonwealth of Yisrael will start to manifest that faith through obedience. If it was just about faith, than Avraham could have simply undergone a circumcision of the heart. But, we clearly see that was not the case. Furthermore, Avraham circumcised his son Yishmael at the age of 13. And, he was not even the seed of promise from which come the Jewish people. I agree with Kefa, Sh'aul is certainly a challenge to understand (even his contemporary thought so). But, we shouldn't be so quick to conclude that Sha'ul is relaxing a
command here. He goes on to make it very clear for people at the end of chapter 3 just in case some misunderstood what he was trying to communicate...
"since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Then is the
annulled through faith? Let it not be! No, we establish
." - Romans 3:30-31
The whole point of his long dissertation is that regardless if one is considered a Jew or a Gentile, true faith is what matters, and true faith does not annul
..."Let it not be!", he says, No, true faith, the one whom is a Jew inwardly will by his faith establish the words of
in his/her life.
I could have just summed up the above more clearly and erase everything I just wrote by simply quoting the very clear words of Ya'akov (James).
"Faith without works are dead" (Ya'akov/James 2:20).
Let me ask how one becomes "uncircumcised"? It doesn't speak of the physical act. Again, we are speaking of idioms with the intent to teach a lesson here.
Again, we have started out with an idiom and if we read the passage in context and are being consistent throughout the discussion we can see that it doesn't necessarily tell someone that they should not keep the mitzvah of circumcision. Otherwise, Sh'aul shouldn't have circumcised people whom didn't start out that way...but we know that he did. Was he a hypocrite? I don't think so. I just think he is teaching something hard to be understood here once again. I believe "let him not be circumcised" speaks of ritual conversion when it comes to salvation. One does not need to ritually convert to Judaism if he is originally called as a Gentile to be saved. Because circumcision was not immediately necessary for salvation, than it was not of immediate concern to ritually convert to Judaism. One would as they heard
read in the Synagogues (in that time it was a three year cycle) come to the conclusion of keeping the mitzvah of circumcision later in their walk as they progressed in their sanctification. Many fully converted later, but first were able to come to Messiah for salvation at the beginning of their walk.
Again, we are dealing with an idiom for Jew and Gentile here. Sha'ul tells us that it doesn't matter if you are Jew or Gentile, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God. And, there is no doubt that the mitzvah of circumcision is certainly a commandment of God. He also tells us to stay in the area of life that we were called. We all need to be witnesses in the communities in which we found ourselves being called. Therefore, if we were called while among the "uncircumicision" we should not necessarily seek to separate ourselves from these people and only isolate ourselves to the "circumcision", Jews only. Sha'ul goes on to say in our Corinthians passage the following...
"Let each man stay in that calling in which he was called. Were you called being a bondservant? Don't let that bother you, but if you get an opportunity to become free, use it."
- 1Corinthians 7:20-21
Is Sha'ul once again contradicting himself here?? I thought that one was supposed to remain as he is.
You see, he is trying to clarify what he is saying and what he is not saying. Before we were a bondservant to sin and we should not let ourselves feel unworthy because of our past life of sin. But, once we become free by the blood of Yeshua The Messiah we are to use our freedom to glorify God. The concept is that we can change whom we are, but stay in the community and environment in which we were called to share the good news of the freedom that we had just experienced through Messiah Yeshua.
Sha'ul goes on to state,
"Are you bound to a wife? Don't seek to be freed. Are you free from a wife? Don't seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned. If a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have oppression in the flesh, and I want to spare you."
- 1Corinthians7:27-28
What is Sha'ul talking about? Should we stay in our current state or not? At first glance if we take all of this literal it seems that he is hopelessly contradicting himself and that he simply can't make his mind up. But again, he is clarifying what he is trying to communicate. It is not that one must remain a slave, married, unmarried, uncircumcised, and so on if one is originally called in that state...But, I believe he is communicating that God can use one's past to glorify Himself regardless of the situation and that the most edyfing path should be chosen. I know it sounds confusing. But, Kefa warned us.
I think that the writings of Sh'aul should be handled carefully. If we start thinking he is doing away with any one command in
we must remember his very clear words...
"since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Then is the
annulled through faith? Let it not be! No, we establish
." - Romans 3:30-31
is the foundation and we must test everything by it, especially when we interpret other writers found in the scriptures. We should interpret Sha'ul (Paul) through what
already says, and not interpret
by what we feel we understand about this profound Rabbi we call Sha'ul (Paul). When Sha'ul went and taught the Bereans, they did not test his teachings by his own teachings...no, they tested his sayings through the filter of
. If he came and taught that circumcision was no longer a necessary component of the Avrahamic covenant...than they would have thrown him out based on the testimony of what
tells us. Some have thrown Sha'ul out because many in the body of Messiah have convinced them that he taught against the mitzvot in
. If I actually believed that Sha'ul was doing this...his words would hold no credibility with me either.
Avraham was the perfect model. He was first Gentile. He was first justified and found righteous because of his faith. But, he also preceded to show that his faith was real. First being a Gentile and walking with God, he later becomes circumcised as a sign that he was actually walking upright before The Father. After Avraham was justified by faith Adonai gives him the covenant of circumcision by saying,
"I am El Shaddai. Walk before me, and be blameless." - Beresheet (Gen.) 17:1
His message is the same for all those whom have come to faith in Messiah today.
Brachot b'Yeshua,
Reuel
(physical circumcision being without a doubt one of them)...then Sha'ul (Paul) argues that they should be counted among the "circumcision" (the commonwealth of Yisrael a.k.a The Jewish People). He makes a similar argument if we read Ephesians 2:10-13. But, the fact is, you simply cannot keep the righteousness of 
You see, he is trying to clarify what he is saying and what he is not saying. Before we were a bondservant to sin and we should not let ourselves feel unworthy because of our past life of sin. But, once we become free by the blood of Yeshua The Messiah we are to use our freedom to glorify God. The concept is that we can change whom we are, but stay in the community and environment in which we were called to share the good news of the freedom that we had just experienced through Messiah Yeshua.
.
