Circumcision only related to owning the land?

[SeekingYah]

TWTY-Admin, you have commented several times that circumcision is only related to living in the land. I cannot see how you have come to this conclusion. Abram was given possession of the land well before circumcision was ever mentioned.

Gen 12:7 And יהוה appeared to Aḇram and said, “To your seed I give this land.”
Gen 13:14 And after Lot had separated from him, יהוה said to Aḇram, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward,
Gen 13:15 for all the land which you see I shall give to you and your seed forever.

Gen 15:7 And He said to him, “I am יהוה, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”

We are told in the 12th chapter that Abram was 75 when he left Ur. So Yah gave him and his heirs the land when he was 75. He was 99 before Yah ever mentioned circumcision, and had affirmed at least twice in that time that the land was Abram’s and his seed’s. So to say that in the 17th chapter now that circumcision was being given as a condition of ownership of the land would mean God said 3 times over the course of 24 years I give you this land, then the 4th time he added but…

So since Abram already had possession of the land by chapter 17 it makes no sense that circumcision is only related to possession of the land. Furthermore the context of Yah’s word does not come across this way at all, at least to me.

Gen 17:1 And it came to be when Aḇram was ninety-nine years old, that יהוה appeared to Aḇram and said to him, “I am Ěl Shaddai – walk before Me and be perfect 1. Footnote: 1Messiah gives the same command in Mt. 5:48.
Gen 17:2 “And I give My covenant between Me and you, and shall greatly increase you.”
Gen 17:3 And Aḇram fell on his face, and Elohim spoke with him, saying,
Gen 17:4 “As for Me, look, My covenant is with you, and you shall become a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 “And no longer is your name called Aḇram, but your name shall be Aḇraham, because I shall make you a father of many nations.
Gen 17:6 “And I shall make you bear fruit exceedingly, and make nations of you, and sovereigns shall come from you.
Gen 17:7 “And I shall establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be Elohim to you and your seed after you.
Gen 17:8 “And I shall give to you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Kenaʽan, as an everlasting possession. And I shall be their Elohim.”
Gen 17:9 And Elohim said to Aḇraham, “As for you, guard My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 “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.
Gen 17:11 “And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall become a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
Gen 17:12 “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.
Gen 17:13 “He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your silver, has to be circumcised. So shall My covenant be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 “And an uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, his life shall be cut off from his people – he has broken My covenant.”

It seems clear to me that this is the establishment of the Covenant, and that possession of the land is only one benefit of it. He list several benefits of the covenant the land being among them, and then gives a condition, circumcision. To limit this covenant to only possession of the lamb is to pull one benefit out and say that it is only for that benefit, I would point out that anther benefit mentioned is, “And I shall be their Elohim.” So why not pull that out and say this Covenant is only related to Yah being our Elohim? The fact is the covenant being established here is related to all the benefits listed here, including possession of the land and Yah being your Elohim, and is contingent upon you agreeing to it by circumcising your sons and yourself if you parents failed to do so.

17:14 says that an uncircumcised male is to be cut off, and that he has broken Yah’s Covenant. It doesn’t say uncircumcised Jewish males, it doesn’t say uncircumcised native born males, it doesn’t say uncircumcised males living in the land, any male who is not circumcised has broken the covenant.

Furthermore Yah tells us repeatedly that there is but 1 Torah for the native born and the gentile. This tells me that anything that applies to Jew applies to gentiles. There is but one narrow path which leads to life and it is the same for everyone.

Short of instructions given to a particular tribe, i.e. the Levites, can you show me any other instructions which you would say only apply to Jews, and not Gentiles? It seems to me that circumcision is the only instruction anyone tries to limit exclusively to Jews, I could be wrong and you may have many you think only apply to the native born, but this is the only one that those who try or claim to follow Torah universally want to ignore and pin on only Jews.

No one has been able to show me any place where Yah explicitly states that circumcision is not needed. Every time he addresses it, it is to say do it. So why would you assume that that only applies to one group, again there is but 1 Torah for the native born and the gentile.

I don’t expect this to change your mind, but I just felt compelled to say something, since numerous times I have seen this comment made and go unanswered.

[TWTY-Admin]

Hi, SeekingYah:

TWTY-Admin, you have commented several times that circumcision is only related to living in the land. I cannot see how you have come to this conclusion. Abram was given possession of the land well before circumcision was ever mentioned.

I’ve already pointed out the mentioning of possessing the land in Genesis 12 and 15 in a previous post in yet another circumcision topic (previous post), so this isn’t something that’s been missed. The extra mention in Genesis 13 was indeed missed, but as it’s just another repetition of the theme in Genesis regarding Abraham, it doesn’t add much to the discussion.

We are told in the 12th chapter that Abram was 75 when he left Ur. So Yah gave him and his heirs the land when he was 75. He was 99 before Yah ever mentioned circumcision, and had affirmed at least twice in that time that the land was Abram’s and his seed’s. So to say that in the 17th chapter now that circumcision was being given as a condition of ownership of the land would mean God said 3 times over the course of 24 years I give you this land, then the 4th time he added but…

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened! Note that Genesis 12 and 13 mention nothing of a Covenant being established – Genesis 15 does however. But then we get to Genesis 17, and what’s happened? Abraham has tried to fulfil Yahuweh’s promise himself by impregnating Hagar, Sarah’s servant, having Ishmael born to him as his son. But this is not what Yahuweh wanted now, so what does he have to do? He has to amend a few things, thanks to Abraham’s stupidity.

Also, over the course of 24 years, Abraham’s constantly had Yahuweh telling him that he will have a land to possess as his own, and that his offspring will inherit the land after him, yet Abraham still doesn’t believe it! Even during the course of Genesis 17, Abraham is untrustful of Yahuweh (v17), who has to specify this: God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Yitshaq. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. (Genesis 17:19)

So, even though Abraham has been told for 24 years that his offspring will inherit the land, Yahuweh is now effectively telling him that not all his offspring will have the land as a possession – it is specifically the offspring that comes through Sarah’s son.

If we only took Genesis 12,13, and 15, we’d have to conclude that Ishmael and his descendants also have a claim to the land, which would bring forth the conclusion that Muhammed was right to get his Muslim brothers to fight for Yisra’el.

Also, aren’t Esau and his descendants also Abraham’s “offspring”? Do they get a portion of the land of Yisra’el also? Nope, they don’t. Yahuweh also appeared to Jacob to further specify that the land of Yisra’el was for Jacob’s descendants: And behold, Yahuweh stood above it and said, "I am Yahuweh, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you." (Genesis 28:13-15).

It seems that Yahuweh has gone through great pains to make it perfectly clear: the land of Yisra’el is for the Yisra’elites, and the fact that it’s the parents responsibility to circumcise their male child, not necessarily the male: it’s the parents’ choice to show that they accept Yahuweh’s covenant by constantly circumcising their male children.

17:14 says that an uncircumcised male is to be cut off, and that he has broken Yah’s Covenant. It doesn’t say uncircumcised Jewish males, it doesn’t say uncircumcised native born males, it doesn’t say uncircumcised males living in the land, any male who is not circumcised has broken the covenant.

How exactly can a Gentile be “cut off” from Abraham, when he’s already a Gentile? Does being an uncircumcised Gentile male therefore cut you off from your Gentile people? Gentiles are Gentiles because they’re not Yisra’elites – they can’t be cut from something they’re already not a part of. Furthermore, Genesis 17:12 makes it quite clear that it’s Abraham’s physical descendants that are being referred to; it is them that the uncircumcised male is “cut off” from.

Short of instructions given to a particular tribe, i.e. the Levites, can you show me any other instructions which you would say only apply to Jews, and not Gentiles?

Can you specifically point to a verse in Scripture that uses the words “gentile” and “circumcision” in the same sentence? I must’ve asked this several times now, and no one has given me an answer.

Also, as an answer to your question: Deuteronomy 14:21: You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people set-apart to Yahuweh your God. ; 15:1-3: "At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbour. He shall not exact it of his neighbour, his brother, because Yahuweh’s release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release.; 23:20: You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that Yahuweh your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Several things that the Yisra’elites could do, but a foreigner or stranger (see the difference between the two mentioned here) could not.

No one has been able to show me any place where Yah explicitly states that circumcision is not needed.

The Tanakh only mentions circumcision 32* times: only two of these 32 times does the mentioning of circumcision come outside of the first 6 books (Jeremiah 4:4 & Jeremiah 9:25: Behold, the days are coming, declares Yahuweh, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh). Half of the mentioning of circumcision are contained within Genesis (c17 x10; c21 x1; c34 x5 (16 in total)); Exodus mentions it 3 times; Leviticus once; Deuteronomy twice (but only in the phrase “circumcise your heart”, c10v16; c30v6); and the final 8 times it is mentioned in Joshua Chapter 5: not surprisingly, with regards to the Yisra’elites entering the land of Yisra’el for the first time in over 400 years! If it was that imperative, why is it never mentioned for over 85% of the books in the Tanakh?

Which of these 30 times makes it explicit that for a Gentile male to be in a relationship with Yahuweh, if he’s not circumcised, he is therefore “out of the group”, so to speak?

I don’t expect this to change your mind, but I just felt compelled to say something, since numerous times I have seen this comment made and go unanswered.

That’s usually because people don’t really know what it is they’re talking about, and therefore need someone else to do the thinking for them.

Gladly, you don’t appear to be such a person



**Managed to miss two instances (originally I specified 29 (bad counting), then 30, and finally got the right amount this time!). I have corrected the statement