stuck on circumcision...

[Nige]

You may (or not) have seen a thread on circumcision on another website.... what I wanted to know is people's thoughts on circumcision and whether Paul was right on this topic (of the heart is enough) or if you have to have it done, as per the Torah, still stands.

I'm struggling to find anyone who has not been done by their parents for whatever reasons and instead has followed the Torah instructions as an adult based on their desire for a full relationship with Yah.

Help!
Nige

[TWTY-Admin]

That's one of the problems isn't it Nige - practically all those who promote the "you should be circumcised" have already had the snip done. But not done for the reasons why Yahuweh tells Abraham to do it.

As far as I can see however, the Covenant of circumcision is all to do with the possession of the Land of Canaan/Yisra'el as the physical descendants of Abraham's homeland.

In fact, this is the specific reason Yahuweh tells Abraham as He calls him out of Ur of the Chaldeans: Genesis 12:1 -2, 7: Now Yahuweh said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing"... Then Yahuweh appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to Yahuweh, who had appeared to him. Then again in Genesis 13:14-17, Yahuweh said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.”

The promise of giving Abraham the Land of Canaan is repeated in Genesis 15:1-11, 18-21. Gen 15:18-21 actually mentions that Yahuweh makes a covenant with Abraham, On that day Yahuweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

And then we get the pinnacle section, in Genesis 17:1-8: When Abram was ninety-nine years old Yahuweh appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."

There's a reason why Yisra'el is referred to as "the promised land".

But what at the giving of the Torah? Is there a command to be circumcised on it?

Not according to Exodus 24:7: Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that Yahuweh has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that Yahuweh has made with you in accordance with all these words.” They didn't do anything apart from say, "All that Yahuweh has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient." There is absolutely no mention of circumcision with this covenant - the covenant regarding the possession of the Promised Land does however.

We should also look to Joshua 5:3-7: So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt. Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised. For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of Yahuweh; Yahuweh swore to them that he would not let them see the land that Yahuweh had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.

Circumcision and the possession of the Land of Yisra'el as the Yisra'elites (physical descendants of Abraham)'s home go hand in hand.

As a Goyim/Gentile, the land of Yisra'el was not promised to me, because I'm not a physical descendant of Abraham. It is not my land to possess, so why would it be okay for me to get circumcised, when the covenant regarding the land has absolutely nothing to do with me?

This whole thing really does speak far to much of a watered-down "Replacement Theology" for my liking - because "the Jews" are no longer "Yahuweh's people" as they don't "understand the truth" - but we Gentiles/Goyim who trust Yahuweh do however, so really, it is now our land, our covenant, our mark to bear.

It's said that whilst being circumcised doesn't "get you in", we should do it anyway to be obedient. This is the same as telling someone "you don't have to drive, but you should get a car anyway". It's illogical, and makes absolutely no sense.

It was also mentioned that we shouldn't separate the physical circumcision from the spiritual circumcision, but the matter is that Yahuweh Himself does this. Every time physical circumcision is referenced, it is always in conjunction with possessing the land of Yisra'el or being classed as an official "native of the land". Whenever Yahuweh speaks of the circumcision of the heart however, it is to do with loving Yahuweh, and having a change of mind with regards to something.

Deuteronomy 10:16: Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

Deuteronomy 30:6: And Yahuweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love Yahuweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4: Circumcise yourselves to Yahuweh; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.”

Jeremiah 9:25: Behold, the days are coming, declares Yahwueh, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh - Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and dall who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.”

When Yahuweh Himself makes the distinction between the two, we should sit up and take notice.

[Rob]

TWTY-Admin, Ju (my wife) and me have talked quite in-depth about this during a Sabbath meeting one Friday evening. That's pretty much what we came up with so far

[Nige]

Thanks TWTY-Admin/Rob for the quick and sensible responses - it's very good to at get a view that's not from the "i'm the king of the castle, you're the dirty rascal' corner of the world and put some thought into the counter arguments.
You're quite right TWTY-Admin to point out that this covenant is to do with the land.

It definitely seems that being circumcised doesn't preclude you from having a relationship with God - The Ruach Kodesh in-dwelt non-circumcised people as mentioned in Acts, so we know that it's nothing to do with salvation which is good to know.

Re: Jeremiah 9:25: Behold, the days are coming, declares Yahwueh, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh - Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and dall who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.
It's obvious being physically done isn't enough, but should be of the heart. The real question is, is being of the heart enough and do you 'miss' out on anything if you're not done physically (e.g. only the physically circumcised can 'do' passover (that's the verse that most people who think you should be done seem to cite Ex12:48), (only the circumcised are allowed inside the millennial temple etc).

I had a chat about it with Noel earlier today and he made the good point that the last thing one wants to do is 'go backwards' by being circumcised if it means that you are getting all legalistic and trying to do things by the law -
which Yahushua warned us about.

Must say - feeling calmer about things again now!
Thanks!
N
PS - if you can face it I'd love your thoughts on the YY thread on this.

[Noel]

Yes, thank you Stephen for your sensible and well researched reply. It is certainly informative to see a comment from other than the king of the castle brigade which is based on scripture.

Thanks

[TWTY-Admin]

It definitely seems that being circumcised doesn't preclude you from having a relationship with God - The Ruach Kodesh in-dwelt non-circumcised people as mentioned in Acts, so we know that it's nothing to do with salvation which is good to know.

Well one only needs to see Petros' response to the Set-Apart Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his family to realise that circumcising them was far from Petros' mind; Acts 10:44-48: While Peter was still saying these things, the Set-Apart Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the trustful from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Set-Apart Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Petros declared, “Can anyone withhold water for immersing these people, who have received the Set-Apart Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Messiah Yahushua. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

No mention of the Goyim/Gentiles being circumcised. Those among "the circumcision" (Jews) were also amazed that the Set-Apart Spirit fell upon the Goyim/Gentiles. This is probably more due to the fact that 1st Century Judaism taught that only Jews were "saved", and if a Goy/Gentile wanted to be "saved" he had to become a Jew by proxy - by getting circumcised.

It's obvious being physically done isn't enough, but should be of the heart. The real question is, is being of the heart enough and do you 'miss' out on anything if you're not done physically (e.g. only the physically circumcised can 'do' passover (that's the verse that most people who think you should be done seem to cite Ex12:48), (only the circumcised are allowed inside the millennial temple etc).

I've been re-looking at Exodus 12:48 today, and it hit me: We all know that the Passover feast is a prophecy of the Messiah's death, but we all forget that whilst being a prophecy, it still has to be "performed". And we perform it this way: we bring a lamb, we bring it into our home for four days, getting to know it, love it, and take care of it, and then at the end of the fourth day, we all gather and offer it as a sacrifice.

Now we get to the Spiritual and prophetic meaning of Passover: Yahushua is "the lamb", and whose home was he taken into? It certainly wasn't the Goyim/Gentiles' home, but was in fact Jerusalem - the main home of the Yisra'elites, the Jews, the "native born" in the Land of Yisra'el. For four days he was there, getting to know the people. And then who was it who brought Yahushua and handed Him over to be slaughtered as a sacrifice? The Yisra'elites, the Jews, the "native born" in the Land of Yisra'el.

We Goyim/Gentiles were not allowed to do this - we couldn't put Yahushua forward as a sacrifice: only the native-born in the land of Yisra'el could do that, only they could be the ones to "consume" Yahushua. We Goyim/Gentiles couldn't, because it wasn't our home, it wasn't our land, it wasn't for us to say what went on within it.

This is why a Goy/Gentile had to be circumcised if he wanted to "consume" of the Passover - he had to become a "native-born" - a true descendant of the tribes of Yisra'el, so that his children afterwards would've been considered "Jews" who could take part in the ultimate Passover - the handing over of Yahushua to be sacrificed.

This is probably why a Goy/Gentile is never required to be circumcised to partake in Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost, Reconciliations, and Tabernacles - because there's nothing in them that's Yisra'elite specific. Their fulfilments are all-inclusive affairs - uncircumcised or circumcised.

PS - if you can face it I'd love your thoughts on the YY thread on this.

Too much yelling going on in that thread. And the response to what TBT said is quite disgusting. Disagree with him if you want, but don't deride or scorn him like he just killed your sister.

[Rob]

Yes, we spent a few weeks I think discussing and thinking about it. I was actually looking round for places that would do it to see what the options where.

I think I would say for the Israeli it is important, as it is their heritage and connects them to the land. It is one of the many physical signs they are meant to carry to shine a light on the pathway home. If I find out I am an Israeli by blood - somewhere down the line - I will get it done, like Paul snipped Timothy before they went out in Acts. (Strange thing for a guy who hates circumcision to do eh...).

Anyway - that's where we are now, could be wrong - but so far that's where the evidence leads lol

EDIT: I was just writing a reply at the same time you were TWTY-Admin, and I was writing:

It's like taking on the sign of circumcision you also take on a responsibility for something. People could come into live with Israel - and I think they were circumcised to do that. You can choose to become one of Israel but I feel like with that you take on the baring of the signs with that.

[Nige]

You know, of all the things we've taken on board since 'coming out of Ur' they have always felt right. God's name, the relationship, the translations, the feasts etc etc - they've always felt right and made sense. This one wasn't making sense to me until your posts TWTY-Admin... having to lose a piece of flesh to 'get in' with God and participate just doesn't fit in with the overall message somehow.

Rob - Like you... I've looked at it - and if it were to suddenly become clear that I had to do it i would - I'm just not going to make a decision like that become someone told me to
"Just Do It'. Funny thing is one of the options is a muslim Dr in London - would it still count if an Imam did it

Thanks chaps (especially for not shouting)
N

[Rob]

"Just Do It'. Funny thing is one of the options is a muslim Dr in London - would it still count if an Imam did it

Well this is my issue too... If you are going to get snipped coz you need to be to get "in" - you surely have to do it for the right reasons? Can any doctor do it for you, or would you need someone who would actually know why they were doing it? If you get done as a Jewish baby everyone kinda knows why... Surely it's like baptism, what's the point if the people around you don't share in the sign - coz it dosen't change you as a person - well maybe you walk a little funny for a week or so...

With a baby everyone can celebrate it - it's not really the same as a 30yr old man... "Rob Invites you to come watch someone snip his foreskin off!"

That made me think about TWTY-Admin's comment - first thing Peter said "Baptise them all with water as a sign" style - and not "Grab the sharpened flint, let's get to work!"

Also discussion of Baptism has been had before, surely baptism is not as important as the snip - yet Pete seemed to think so at that point in time... Is Peter being Anti Torah?

[Nige]

"Rob Invites you to come watch someone snip his foreskin off!" - ha ha .... now that sounds like a real party (instead of bring a bottle it would be bring a sharp object).

To be serious... My heads is really where yours was Rob when you mention the 'right reasons' - I keep coming back to those people (which I shouldn't I know) who had it done as a baby for hygiene reasons, or 'cause their parents were muslim or because it got lopped off in an accident etc etc - any reasons other than "we're following the Torah" - I guess they just fall into the vs. TWTY-Admin covered at the end of his first post - i.e it's the heart that matters.

TWTY-Admin - I was reading your post again and it really makes sense the idea of putting forward the lamb and it's home - thanks for that.

[Noel]

Stephen and Rob.

Both Nigel and I have recently asked Yahuwah for guidance on this subject, and as a practical thing we just were prepared to wait and find out what the answer was to this genuine question. I can only speak for myself when I say that if the answer had been that we had to do something about it, then I was prepared to do it.

I think that your response has been a pretty direct answer to this, and not only has it put a discerned feeling of unease back where it belongs, but it has also furthered my understanding of the subject generally and the historical reasons and national reasons why these things are there, and I am a lot wiser as a result.

By this post I am therefore thanking you for your (I think) inspired insight into this, and also thank Yah for getting back to us so swiftly on this subject, which let's face it has had many many people absolutely tied up in knots over the last 2000 years, unnecessarily.

Noel

[TWTY-Admin]

As a further point, I notice in Genesis 17:14 that Yahuweh says the following: Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people.

Yahuweh here says "his people (Hebrew 'ameyha/עמיה)", not "my people (Hebrew 'ammiy/עמי)".

Further proof that being part of the people of Yisra'el, the physical descendants of Abraham, is based on whether you're circumcised or not, but being a part of Yahuweh's family is not.

Probably why every Muslim is circumcised - they desperately want to replace the Jews as Abraham's descendants, and therefore have claim to the land of Yisra'el.

Again, circumcision and possessing the land of Yisra'el really does appear to go hand in hand. And probably why no one before Abraham was asked to be circumcised

[Nige]

well isn't that something!
It's all in the details - well done for that one TWTY-Admin - I think that's wonderful.

[Matthew]

A snippet from KP's chapter 4, "Studies in Contrast," of The Torah Code:

Like Noah’s covenant, this one was sealed with a sign, but this time the sign was to be enacted by the beneficiary of the covenant. “And God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” (Genesis 17:3-11) I’m planning on covering the symbolic aspects of circumcision in detail in a future chapter, but for now, notice a few salient points: The sign was to be carried out among Abraham’s offspring (a fact that was reinforced later in the Torah). Circumcision (the surgical removal of the tip of the foreskin of the penis) could only be performed on males, one of several clues that this was not a condition for God’s compliance with His part of the covenant (which would benefit both men and women), but was rather an act that signified that the covenant was already in force. The heart of the covenant had been given to Abram decades before the sign was instituted (see Genesis 12).

We would logically expect to see some symbolic link between the covenant and its sign. The promise was that Abraham would be the father of multitudes, that his offspring would inherit the Land, and (as it’s stated in Genesis 12:3) “I [Yahweh] will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Admittedly, you have to look hard for the connection, and in the end, you have to understand how the covenant would play out in history: Abraham’s male Descendant, Yahshua, would be the vehicle through which “all the families of the earth” would be blessed. How? Through the complete and permanent removal of our sins from us—a process that, like the sign of circumcision, involved blood, pain, and obedience to Yahweh. Yahshua’s sacrifice on our behalf achieved everything the covenant of Abraham required. And, as with circumcision, once our sins are removed from us through this process, they’re gone forever.

It was inevitable, I suppose, that a raging controversy would arise pitting those who focused only on the sign against those who comprehended only what it signified. Think of it this way. In order to come to Yahweh, we have to get off the world’s broad highway leading to destruction, making a “right turn” (so to speak) onto the narrow path that leads to life. Circumcision is like the turn indicator signal in our car. Just as we are supposed to flip on our blinkers to alert those sharing the road of our intentions, so Israel, following Abraham, was instructed to circumcise their male children, making their intention to turn toward Yahweh clear to the gentiles following them.

But—and this is important—the signal is not the same thing as the turn. It does no good to click on your blinker if you never actually change direction; it’s confusing, misleading, and sometimes even dangerous. It is, in fact, a lie. In the end, it’s the turn that’s essential. To get to our intended destination, we must choose to follow Yahweh’s path. So Yahweh begs Israel to follow through on the symbol of circumcision: “Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest My wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.” (Jeremiah 4:4) Circumcision of the flesh is not really the point, He says. What’s critical is what it means—the separation of the sin from the soul.

But what if we “turn right” without signaling first? That’s the scenario being discussed in Acts 15, where it was determined by the Jewish Christians that gentile believers need not be physically circumcised in order to be saved. Making the turn is what’s needful. Consider this: although the traffic laws require you to signal before you make a turn, using your turn indicator is theoretically pointless if you’re the last vehicle in line—if there is no one behind you to see it. It is a good thing to follow the letter of the law, of course. We should do so, since the regulations are there for our benefit and safety. But what’s critically important is that we reach our destination, not the flawless adherence to the rules of the road while we’re on our journey.

As for TTC by KP, I have the draft copies of the first volume (chapter 1-3) and the second volume (chapter 4), which he says he might still apply some editing. But if you want to read em just let me know.

[Rob]

Fits nicely with what we have been thinking...

[TWTY-Admin]

Exodus 6:4-8: I also established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold as slaves, and I have remembered My covenant. Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am Yahuweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgement. I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am Yahuweh your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am Yahuweh.’

Further proof that the covenant made with Abraham which goes through Yitschaq and Ya'qob is to do with the land of Yisra'el.

KP's analogy using the car is so fantastic, I can't think of anything better

[Nige]

Great comments all and thanks for posting that section from KP's stuff Matthew.

To follow KP's analogy through, it rather makes a mockery of those who manoeuvre, then signal, before finally shouting at the other drivers for crashing into them.

N

Edit:

Just reading through Genesis and realised that those of us who are uncircumcised are in good company - i.e. anyone around from Adam until Abraham - including Noah etc etc.

Just backs up the gist of this thread, that it's a covenant with Abraham and his descendants dwelling in the land Yahuweh gave him.

[TWTY-Admin]

Does anyone know why Ezekiel 44:6-8 is always quoted by the "Gentiles should be circumcised anyway" crowd?

And say to the rebellious house, to the house of Yisra'el, "Thus says 'Edonay Yahuweh, 'O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations, in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of my set-apart things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.' "

Looking at the verses around these (you know, like you should do), all I see is Yahuweh being angry at the Leviyte priests for letting others do their job for them, destroying the picture that Yahuweh was meticulously trying to paint using the Leviyte priests and their Temple service.

Is somehow Sanctuary/Temple a byword for "family" or something? The Torah states that no one other than the Leviytes are supposed to do the Temple service, so I fail to see why this has anything actually to do with circumcision, yet it's constantly quoted as if it was the "penultimate" verse that proved that everyone should be circumcised.

Well, the men anyway. Women get off scot-free. Maybe Yahuweh wouldn't mind Gentile women serving in the Temple?

In fact, Ezekiel 45:3-5 does certainly appear to be stating that the Sanctuary is only for the priests, and no one else:

And from this measured district you shall measure off a section 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 broad, in which shall be the sanctuary, the Most Set-Apart Place. It shall be the Set-Apart portion of the land. It shall be for the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and approach Yahuweh to minister to Him, and it shall be a place for their houses and a Set-Apart place for the sanctuary. Another section, 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits broad, shall be for the Levites who minister at the temple, as their possession for cities to live in.

[Rob]

It's not even really about the Gentiles - it's about the fact they are being brought in to do the job FOR the priests. Imagine what that does for the picture -

*phone rings* "Hey is that Phil the Gentile? Yea it's The Messiah here - kinda got this job I have to do just outside Jerusalem, thinking it's not really my thing, can't really be bothered... but thought if I paid you right you would love it! What do you say?".

[TWTY-Admin]

This also came to my mind today, that those who say "circumcision isn't necessary for salvation, but Gentiles should do it anyway", aren't they, like Paul whom they hate so much, also disagreeing with the Brethren Pharisees who are recorded in Acts 15:1 as saying, But certain men came down from Yahuwdea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moshe, you cannot be saved.”?

Either they these men were right, and it is necessary for salvation, or Paul was correct to combat their false teaching. There's no middle ground on this part of the question: it's either necessary, or it isn't