Circumcision

[Mpossoff]

Can one remain uncirc and therefore be a 'God fearer'?

Marc

[Mark]

Yes. This is what would distinguish between what is commonly known as "righteous gentile" and a proselyte. A proselyte has full standing as any Jew and therefore would no distinction.

[Prodigal Girl]

So again can you spell out for me the practical differences between a righteous Gentile and a proselyte? Aside from one being not physically circumcised and the other yes? What would be the advantages of becoming a proselyte? Why should one seek to become a proselyte? That has not been answered here to my satisfaction yet.

[Mpossoff]

Paul is often misunderstood.

Paul wasn't against circ. He was against it and 'forbid' it for the wrong reason. The wrong reason was that it was taught as a conversion to and taught as a change in your ethnicity.

What is the real meaning of circ? Not the meaning that the Orthodox of today believe. But the biblical meaning of it.

Paul was against the 'Pharasaic' belief but wasn't against the true biblical meaning.

Marc

[Mark]

You actually are asking two different questions: why should one seek to become a proselyte? And, what is the practical reason for being circumcised?

What is the practical reason for keeping the Sabbath? One will argue that there are certain health benefits, and the same argument can be made for circumcision. It appears that our Creator knows the best handling of this machine called our body. Yet, if we keep Sabbath solely because we want better bodies, we're missing the real point of it aren't we? We keep the Sabbath as a day that is dedicated for special intimate communion with Adonai.

Circumcision is an exercise of seeking the most intimate levels of relationship. "Lord, anything that is a part of me that is not honoring and pleasing to You, I want to get rid of it." Impractical? In what relationship with anyone we love do we make decisions based purely on practicality?

Is circumcision just about becoming a Jewish proselyte? Paul answers this question directly in Romans 2.

Rom 2:28-29 KJV 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.

Physical circumcision (when led by the Spirit of Adonai) comes after entering into the covenant relationship- not as a condition or part of it.

[Mpossoff]

I've been digging into this some more.

I truly think that circ has been misunderstood to mean something that it's not.

In Paul's day circ meant changing your ethnicity. Jews of the day thought and believed they were righteous ones because they were Israelites. Not because of works but because of ethnicity. In other words you had to be a Jew.

If a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert first(emphasis added).The gentile who wasn’t born into the covenant had to go through the circumcision first to become a Jew in order to gain membership into the covenant.

So the issue here is does one have to circ before God could accept you?

Or does He accept you based on faith and faith alone?

These are the issue. The 'orthodox' of that day(and even today) believed that you had to circ before God could accept you.

Paul taught otherwise. That God accepts you because of your faith.

But since Paul taught that, does that mean it stops there? Paul forbid circ for the wrong reason. The wrong reason was the belief of that day.

Paul uses Abraham often in a way to show that Abraham was accounted for righteousness before circ. But Paul didn't use it in a way to mean it stops there. He was using Abraham to 'combat' the 'orthodox' of the day. The 'orthodox' were telling the people in Galatia that they must be circ for the wrong reason and Paul uses Abraham to prove that God accepts you based on faith and no you don't have to 'convert' before God accepts you.

As Peter says(unquote): Paul's words are hard to understand(unquote).

It would be a total contradiction to say if Gentiles wished to follow that they could leave out circ. Circ is a command. Now if a Gentiles wished to remain uncirc that's OK too because God accepts you by faith. But there are 'restrictions' so to speak for uncirc. Not that these restrictions are to threat those as 'second class citizens' but there are restrictions.

Now in modern day with no Temple those restrictions seem to be not present because of there being no Temple. Some circle's I've read say that there are restriction for uncirc Gentiles for Pesach. The problem there is that Pesach can't really be observed in the true sense without a Temple, we do the best we can. So IMHO to place restrictions with no Temple is not right.

Look at the big picture. We agree that in Ezekial that circ will be a 'requirement', correct? Because there is a Temple. So to look at circ in the 1st century context there were valid points being made based on but for the wrong reasons. Seems like the 'orthodox' of that day created a messed up doctrine so to speak related to circ that wasn't biblical. But circ is biblical.

Marc

[Chizuk Emunah]

Chazal gives one reason alone for conversion. A non-Jew must have "yirat shamayim" (fear of heaven) in order to desire to convert. Any other reason is considered not valid. So what does it mean to have fear of heaven? It means that one desires to keep all the mitzvot applicable to Israel, and desires to physically join themselves to Israel as a Jew. One can of course, remain a non-Jew and be righteous, but they are not afforded the responsibilities and privileges of being a Jew.

[Mpossoff]

What is the biblical meaning of circumcision? Not rabbinically.

The New Testament and Paul says you don't have to become a Jew, which is what circumcision meant as the halacha.

Marc

[Ely]

Hey folks, there is some fantastic and wieghty stuff in this thread right here. May Adonai bless all for sharing so many great insights. I will need to read and re-read this thread over the coming weeks and months.

I just wanted to offer another nugget that I have found elsewhere.

Often, it is suggested that "Judaism" in the first century held the monolithic belief that circumcision was essential for a Goy to be saved. But it seems to me that this idea mostly comes from reading Acts 15 only. But an article I was reading recently pointed out that the place of circumcision in the life of the Goy convert was by no means unanimously agreed upon by the rabbis. The following quote from the Gemara demonstrates this:

Tractate Yebamoth Folio 46a
Our Rabbis taught: 'If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, R. Eliezer said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers were circumcised and had not performed ritual ablution'. If he performed the prescribed ablution but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that the mothers had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised'. The Sages, however, said, 'Whether he had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised or whether he had been circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, he is not a proper proselyte, unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual ablution. www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_46.html

This strongly suggests that the discussions our Messianic forbears had (as recorded in Acts) were not taking place in an isolated vacuum. Rather, it appears that they were part of a wider discussion taking place among religious Jews of that era.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Are we all in agreement here that circumcision IS appropriate and necessary for any and all male "Gentiles", at the right time? That it was just a timing issue with Shaul? And he didn't want pressure put on them?

Amein!

Hebrew understanding recognizes that this is a process of growing in our relationship with Adonai.

And, that is primarily what I am trying to communicate. I agree, we (I and Mark) agree for the most part. Are differences could be compared to a large tree with it’s branches sharing the same root…it is only the small tips of the tree that seem to diverge.

But, when it comes down to the nitty gritty (so to speak), the gives no breathing room to a father whom has willingly taken on the full covenant of the to not circumcise his sons (regardless of the age). If we take Avraham to be a godly example, all we have to do is see what he did in the case of Yishmael to establish proper halachah in observant homes. And, I conclude Avraham sets the standard for the conclusion of this discussion. He apparently was not at liberty to let Yishmael make up his own mind about whether or not to become circumcised. Of course, it would just depend if one considers to have willingly accepted all the covenants of God as the head of their household. If one has not willingly agreed to abide by all the covenants of God…I would not keep such a one accountable to a covenant they had not agreed to.

Tractate Yebamoth Folio 46a
Our Rabbis taught: 'If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, R. Eliezer said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers were circumcised and had not performed ritual ablution'. If he performed the prescribed ablution but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that the mothers had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised'. The Sages, however, said, 'Whether he had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised or whether he had been circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, he is not a proper proselyte, unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual ablution. www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_46.html

This strongly suggests that the discussions our Messianic forbears had (as recorded in Acts) were not taking place in an isolated vacuum. Rather, it appears that they were part of a wider discussion taking place among religious Jews of that era.

Thank you for sharing this!

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel

[David Ben Yosef]

May 2, 2007 17:03:43 GMT -8 Nachshon said:

When Sha'ul refers 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.

Well...sort of. Many readers of the NT are ignorant of the 18 measures of Shammai that were decreed upon all observant Jews in the early first century. They were to have absolutely no contact with Gentiles outside of necessary commerce. And then were required to Mikvah afterward. For the Gentile who placed himself under the yoke of the Shammaite Rabbinic authorities, this would mean they would have to cut ties with their Gentile family members. Even going as far as divorcing their unbelieving spouse. Which explains why Sha'ul gave the dissertation on that very topic in 1st Corinthians 7 (especially vs. 10-16). Sha'ul was not against circumcision, and even circumcised Timothy himself. What he was vehemently opposed to was the 18 measures of Shammai, which annulled the commandment for Israel to be a light to the Gentiles by bringing them into a relationship with HaShem. This is no doubt the reason why Sha'ul is so misunderstood on various topics.

Shalom

[alon]

Wow, long but interesting discussion. I think this can all be summed up by Scripture:

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

As was said in the discussion, circumcision is not a requirement for salvation. But the above Scripture says they will be among the least in the kingdom.

Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

The penalty apparently isn't as great, unless God is calling you to full observance; then what's a little skin compared to a hand?

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

This was interesting, and heavy. I always have to simplify it and make it "real" for myself.

If you love G-d, you will keep his commands. I think Paul was just waiting on G-d to work in the Gentiles so they would seek to keep his commands because they love Him.  At the same time, I think he was drawing the attention of his fellow Jews to their own motivations for keeping the commandments.

Realistically, however, a father may become -observant at a point where he cannot demand his son to be circumcised without running into some of the same motivational concerns.  Some of our children could be in a place where such a decision forced on them would actually push them away. G-d knows how to work through all of that. I think Paul was just waiting on G-d because it was such a mess. I could see where such a need might arise in Gentile families who, for example, become -observant when their children are teenagers and inclined toward rebelliousness.  If you know you are being lead by the spirit to wait and are sure that its not out of fear, I would trust there is a reason for that.