Circumcision was clearly one of the requirements of the Old Covenant law:
Leviticus 12:3But the command to be circumcised long preceded the Old Covenant. It began as the sign of a covenant that God made with Abraham:
And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Genesis 17:13-14The "everlasting covenant" mentioned here is not the Old Covenant, but the Abrahamic Covenant - perhaps the name "Old Covenant" has caused some confusion on this point. The Abrahamic covenant, from which circumcision originates, was about 1500 years or so prior to the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was made with the 12 tribes of Israel which were later descended from Abraham.
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.
 |
| The Abrahamic, Old, and New Covenants each began about 1500 years apart. Circumcision began at the covenant with Abraham! |
The Abrahamic covenant is actually a foundational component of both the Old and New Covenants. This is reiterated throughout the Old Covenant as God reminds Israel that He is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," and brings them into "the land which I swore to your fathers." Most people today understand that much, but fail to acknowledge the impact of the Abrahamic covenant on the New Covenant. The New Covenant writers were keenly aware of the relationship between the Church and Abraham:
Galatians 3:7-8Paul writes that the faithful are "sons of Abraham," and this can only have significance if there is some relationship between Abraham's descendants and the New Covenant! Just as Israel was physically descended from Abraham, the Church is descended spiritually from Abraham in the sense that we live by faith in God just as Abraham did. But why does it matter? Paul goes on to testify to the fact that the promise of the New Covenant is the same as the promise to Abraham:
Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Galatians 3:13-18Having this understanding, it is clear that circumcision, being the sign of the covenant with Abraham, was not merely part of the Old Covenant law. It was the sign of the covenant with Abraham, and this covenant was the basis for the promises to Israel under the Old Covenant as well as the promises to Christians under the New Covenant.
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law... that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith... Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made... And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Next time, I'll begin explaining why Christians don't need to be physically circumcised and how we can become a part of the covenant with Abraham without that physical sign of the covenant.
What about Christian Jews, do they still need to be circumcised? Just asking ahead of time because I believe that is an important issue.
ReplyDeleteNorbert
I think your question requires clarification. The cultural assumption is that a Christian Jew would already be circumcised as a result of his parents religion, so I think you are really trying to get at whether Jewish Christians are required to circumcise their children. I don't think I've studied enough to give a definitive answer at this point, but I can at least point out that the Acts 15 decision simply states that the Gentiles coming into the church did not need to be circumcised because of the physical burden it presented and the fact that true circumcision is of the heart. It stated nothing concerning whether those same Gentiles in the church ought to circumcise their own children that they have after they come into the church, and I find this omission significant.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the decision of Acts 15 seems to be that no person, having grown up in whatever circumstances, needs to be circumcised as a result of being called by God, and whether or not their parents chose to circumcise them is irrelevant to the path that person chooses to walk. While physical circumcision has benefit for the person who receives it, in the sense that it is a sign that their parents were dedicating them to God's way and, by extension, would likely raise them to know God's way, it nevertheless has no bearing on a person's ability to choose how they will live their life.
Personally, I think that anyone in the church, Jew or Gentile, who has a male child should have him circumcised. I know this is a highly controversial matter for some in the church who feel that modern circumcision practices are more severe than what God commanded and that the child should decide when he is old enough. I'll try to include a detailed explanation of why I think that we in the church should be circumcising our children after the next article in this series, which will deal with what the scriptures say about the meaning and purpose of circumcision.
In my view at first glance, I would state Jews still need to circumcise their male babies because the commandment of honoring your parents goes further back than just one immediate generation.
ReplyDeleteHeb 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Also when it comes to Gentiles circumcising their children, I'm looking forward to looking into your points. However I would only go so far as to say, I don't fully know that answer to be dogmatic about it either way.
Norbert
Were Hebrew children in the Old Testament required to make a one time "Decision for God" once they reached an Age of Accountability in order to be saved? No. There is no evidence of this requirement in the Bible. They were born into God's covenant, both male and female. Circumcision was the sign of this covenant for boys, but the sign was not what saved them. Faith saved them!
ReplyDeleteRejecting the sign of circumcision, either by the parents of a Hebrew child or by an adult, male, Gentile convert, was a sign of a lack of true faith, and therefore the child or convert was "cut off" from God's promises, as clearly stated in Genesis chapter 17:
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/09/hebrew-children-and-salvation-in-old.html
Gary,
ReplyDeleteWhile I mostly agree with what you are saying, the conclusion of your article seems to be that baptism is not required for people converting to God's way. If someone has enough faith to be saved by it, then why would they not do what God asks and be baptized? Obedience to God's commandments is an integral part of faith, as the book of James attests.
As far as the comparison between baptism and circumcision, you're correct that this was a decision made for the child - something that they were born into - rather than a conscious choice that they made. However, you seem to be extrapolating this to the New Covenant while forgetting that Israel was a physical nation where inclusion was passed to physical descendants, whereas the Church of God is a spiritual nation in which inclusion requires both a calling from God as well as an answer from the individual.