I'm just a little confused on what the Bible says about circumcision. Can anyone explain what our church says about circumcision using verses from the Bible?
Circumcision was the symbol of being inside the OT Church, the Jewish nation, and as such as symbol of Baptism in the NT.
The Church teaches what St. Paul taught which is that circumcision now has no effect on the status of the person who is baptised and its symbolic effect has lost it effectiveness with the Cross.
Meaning, circumcised or not, does not effect the status of an orthodox as a true believer. It is done in some culture among Christians, among them the Copts, out of cultural factors and observing tradition and not because Christianity dictates it.
Paul clearly argued against it, and the first Synod in Jerusalem(around 50 a.d.) decided against making it an obligation for gentiles, being constituted of the Holy Apostles who understood the faith.
Now this is one of those confusing issues....and God can never be part of that. His commandments are everlasting except He expressedly state otherwise. Paul 's position are his by reason of his arguement.I believe and feel that believing in Jesus should not or translate to denying God's laws that man does not appreciate. I feel you contradict the scripture if you say for example that because you have faith, you could do away with acts of righteousness...meaning all you need is faith. Faith should on the contrary induce man to love God and appreciate His Laws. I refuse to aggree that because I have faith Ishould not be my brothers keeper for example.
Paul 's position are his by reason of his arguement
St. Paul is not stating his opinion on the matter of circumcision, you are implying as if the epistle was written by St. Paul the man, and not by God. The Bible is not like any book written by man, it is a book written by God, through men, by using the Holy Spirit.
St. Paul is not contradicting God's law, just like Jesus was not contradicting the laws of the Old testament when the sinner woman was about to be stoned (as was the punishment according to the law), He did not tell them to stone her. Just like Jesus was also not breaking the laws of the Old testament, to keep the Sabbath holy, by performing miracles on the Sabbath. God did not come to break the laws of the old testament, but He came to make us better understand them
meaning all you need is faith
No one said that all you need is faith for salvation
"But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:20
If you read Romans 2: 25-29
"For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. " this is the true meaning of circumcision as Stavro already said
Christ is the word of God and in authority. The Jews were not asked to circumcise because God wants to punish them but rather for reasons beneficial to them. What is wrong in the gentiles observing this law? It is like saying homosexuality is ok if you are not Jew.
The Jews were not asked to circumcise because God wants to punish them but rather for reasons beneficial to them.
Circumcision was part of Abraham's covenant with God, God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations, and his descendants will be as many as the stars in the sky, it was like a symbol that set them aside as God's people.
What is wrong in the gentiles observing this law?
There is nothing wrong with the Gentiles observing this law, no where in the Bible does it say "do not get circumcised" the passage only explains the true meaning of circumcision, just because you are circumcised it does not mean you will go to heaven, and just because you are not circumcised it does not mean you will be prevented from entering heaven, faith and works are more important than being circumcised
What is wrong in the gentiles observing this law? It is like saying homosexuality is ok if you are not Jew.
First of all, as PrincessMary correctly observed, there is nothing wrong with observance of the law of circumcision per se, there is merely something wrong with interpreting that observance as necessary.
Secondly, the law of circumcision cannot be paralleled with the law against homosexuality, for the former was a customary law, whilst the latter is a moral law that is binding for all times.
[quote author=tk link=board=1;threadid=3943;start=0#msg55501 date=1148746587] Now this is one of those confusing issues....and God can never be part of that.
The confusion is on the part of men, not God. This issue is only confusing if we are ignorant of the issues at hand - so it is not God that is the author of this confusion.
His commandments are everlasting except He expressedly state otherwise.
This is true. But in what way? Christ said He had come to fulfill the Law, not demolish it. Nor did he, and nor did St Paul. We follow the spirit of the Law, which stands forever in Christ's fulfillment of it.
Paul 's position are his by reason of his arguement.I believe and feel that believing in Jesus should not or translate to denying God's laws that man does not appreciate.
St Paul's position is one revealed to Him from the Most High God Jesus Christ, it is not his own.
I feel you contradict the scripture if you say for example that because you have faith, you could do away with acts of righteousness...meaning all you need is faith.
Faith does not do away with acts of righteousness. Anyone who reads the Epistle of St Iakovos (James) will see this straight away.
Faith should on the contrary induce man to love God and appreciate His Laws. I refuse to aggree that because I have faith Ishould not be my brothers keeper for example.
This is not the way in which Christianity views Law and faith.
The Jews were not asked to circumcise because God wants to punish them but rather for reasons beneficial to them. What is wrong in the gentiles observing this law?
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made between the Jews and Himself. Christians are not under the Old Covenant but the New (or rather renewed) Covenant, in which baptism has fulfilled the commandment to circumcise.
In any case Gentiles would not need to observe this law simply because it was specifically for Jews.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with a Christian being circumcised, and many do. But it is wrong to teach that circumcision will save you.
It is like saying homosexuality is ok if you are not Jew.
Homosexuality is a moral issue. The parts of the Mosaic Law dealing with moral issues were not just kept but even added to by Christ (divorce, for example, was legal under OT Law, but Christ prohibited it).
The convenant was not between the Jews and God but rather between Abraham , His decendants and the Almighty. And if Christ had said not the lest ,even a dot from the law shall be changed , why should man interpret it differently?
The convenant was not between the Jews and God but rather between Abraham , His decendants and the Almighty.
The covenant was between God and Abraham, the Jews are Abraham's descendants (of the 12 tribes of Israel one of them is the tribe of Judah, who became known as "Jews", however many times in the Bible the term hebrew, jew, Israelite have been used interchangeably 'I am the God of the Jews, the Hebrews, the Israelites" (Exodus 3:16, 18), , so all the descendants on Abraham became known as Jews)
And if Christ had said not the lest ,even a dot from the law shall be changed , why should man interpret it differently?
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5: 17, 18
God came to fulfill the laws and to fulfill the prophecies. He came and offered Himself for us as a lamb without blemish, the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. It does not say the law is to stay till "heaven and earth pass away", nothing of the law was to change until God has accomplished His purpose, (the promise of salvation) even if heaven and earth would pass away, God would still fulfill His promise. It would be meaningless to go and sacrifice animals now as done in the old testament, because God has already offered Himself for us as a sacrifice for our sins; this is not to say that the Mosaic law was wrong, but that God has fulfilled His promise to us, God did not say it is wrong to get circumcised, but at the same time He is explaining the deeper meaning of true circumcision, that of the heart.
12" For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." further more...... ....."as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." The middle east as a whole is the land promised to Abraham decendants and those are the people living there now. Of course there is the UK AND USA some school of thought say the are part of the lost tribe of Israel. But from the scripture I can see not only the direct offspring of Abraham constituted those the convenant applied but also slaves and strangers living with him.
....."as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." The middle east as a whole is the land promised to Abraham decendants and those are the people living there now. Of course there is the UK AND USA some school of thought say the are part of the lost tribe of Israel. But from the scripture I can see not only the direct offspring of Abraham constituted those the convenant applied but also slaves and strangers living with him.
Let me prove to you that your Muslim brothers are lying to you and twisting the Bible deceptively by quoting it selectively in the absence of the vital context. The entire passage of Genesis 17 reads as follows:
“Then Abram (Abraham) 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 ... And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant" ... And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in thy sight!" God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:3-21)
Who is the covenant with tk? It's very clear; the Covenant was established with ISAAC, not Ishmael. The descendents of Isaac are the Jews, not the Arabs. There was no covenant with Ishmael; in fact, Ishamel was explicitly rejected with respect to the promise of the covenant. God said he would bless Ishmael by multipying his descendents, that is all; however, the covenant was for Isaac and his descendents.
Hi Iqbal, every word and quote posted here are mine. I actually started learning the Bible 1979. Born Emmanuel to a christian father and muslim mother. Neither of my parents influenced my believe. I attended church then mosque. Many issues I could not reconcile with the Bible I found answers in Islam. I know more about the Bible than Quran. Do not get upset with some of my post..for they are genuine search. I respect all creation of God. I couldnt twist the scripture as I stand to gain nothing...all I want is to be among God chosen.
I have been discussing Muslim-Christian issues with Muslim polemicists for at least three years, and their appeal to Genesis 17 out of its intended context is quite typical. I was therefore making an educated guess regarding the source of your argument when I found you repeating the same mistake consistently made by these Islamic polemicists, by quoting Genesis 17 selectively without consideration for the verses which explicitly state that the covenant was established with Isaac and not Ishmael.
In saying that however, I have no reason to accuse you of dishonesty, and I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claim concerning the genuiness of your pursuit for the truth, and your innocence in making the error in question. I will modify my approach to you in consideration of your disclaimer.
Further more, you have not proven to me that the circumcision convenant excludes Ishmael, the slaves and strangers staying with Abraham as seen below:
GENESIS 17 [NIV]
9 "Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come."
12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.
13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.
14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him.
tk, It does not say that Ishmael is not to be circumcised, as you posted "13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
God loved Abraham and he promised him to also bless Ishmael, "20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation."
but His chosen people, would be descendants of Isaac "21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac"
tk, it makes no difference now, whether we descended from Isaac or Ishmael, what difference does it make, when Christ died on the cross, He died for every single person in the world, whether muslim, jew, christian, whether descendants of Isaac or Ishmael, whatever we are, He came for us all, even though He came for the Jews originally, yet they did not accept Him "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" John 1: 11, 12, so God came for us all and gave us all the chance to be His children :)
Comments
The Church teaches what St. Paul taught which is that circumcision now has no effect on the status of the person who is baptised and its symbolic effect has lost it effectiveness with the Cross.
Meaning, circumcised or not, does not effect the status of an orthodox as a true believer. It is done in some culture among Christians, among them the Copts, out of cultural factors and observing tradition and not because Christianity dictates it.
Paul clearly argued against it, and the first Synod in Jerusalem(around 50 a.d.) decided against making it an obligation for gentiles, being constituted of the Holy Apostles who understood the faith.
His commandments are everlasting except He expressedly state otherwise.
Paul 's position are his by reason of his arguement.I believe and feel that believing in Jesus should not or translate to denying God's laws that man does not appreciate.
I feel you contradict the scripture if you say for example that because you have faith, you could do away with acts of righteousness...meaning all you need is faith.
Faith should on the contrary induce man to love God and appreciate His Laws.
I refuse to aggree that because I have faith Ishould not be my brothers keeper for example.
St. Paul is not contradicting God's law, just like Jesus was not contradicting the laws of the Old testament when the sinner woman was about to be stoned (as was the punishment according to the law), He did not tell them to stone her. Just like Jesus was also not breaking the laws of the Old testament, to keep the Sabbath holy, by performing miracles on the Sabbath.
God did not come to break the laws of the old testament, but He came to make us better understand them No one said that all you need is faith for salvation
"But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:20
If you read Romans 2: 25-29
"For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. "
this is the true meaning of circumcision as Stavro already said
The Jews were not asked to circumcise because God wants to punish them but rather for reasons beneficial to them.
What is wrong in the gentiles observing this law?
It is like saying homosexuality is ok if you are not Jew.
Secondly, the law of circumcision cannot be paralleled with the law against homosexuality, for the former was a customary law, whilst the latter is a moral law that is binding for all times.
Now this is one of those confusing issues....and God can never be part of that.
The confusion is on the part of men, not God. This issue is only confusing if we are ignorant of the issues at hand - so it is not God that is the author of this confusion. This is true. But in what way? Christ said He had come to fulfill the Law, not demolish it. Nor did he, and nor did St Paul. We follow the spirit of the Law, which stands forever in Christ's fulfillment of it. St Paul's position is one revealed to Him from the Most High God Jesus Christ, it is not his own. Faith does not do away with acts of righteousness. Anyone who reads the Epistle of St Iakovos (James) will see this straight away. This is not the way in which Christianity views Law and faith. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made between the Jews and Himself. Christians are not under the Old Covenant but the New (or rather renewed) Covenant, in which baptism has fulfilled the commandment to circumcise.
In any case Gentiles would not need to observe this law simply because it was specifically for Jews.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with a Christian being circumcised, and many do. But it is wrong to teach that circumcision will save you. Homosexuality is a moral issue. The parts of the Mosaic Law dealing with moral issues were not just kept but even added to by Christ (divorce, for example, was legal under OT Law, but Christ prohibited it).
And if Christ had said not the lest ,even a dot from the law shall be changed , why should man interpret it differently?
God came to fulfill the laws and to fulfill the prophecies. He came and offered Himself for us as a lamb without blemish, the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. It does not say the law is to stay till "heaven and earth pass away", nothing of the law was to change until God has accomplished His purpose, (the promise of salvation) even if heaven and earth would pass away, God would still fulfill His promise. It would be meaningless to go and sacrifice animals now as done in the old testament, because God has already offered Himself for us as a sacrifice for our sins; this is not to say that the Mosaic law was wrong, but that God has fulfilled His promise to us, God did not say it is wrong to get circumcised, but at the same time He is explaining the deeper meaning of true circumcision, that of the heart.
further more......
....."as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation."
The middle east as a whole is the land promised to Abraham decendants and those are the people living there now.
Of course there is the UK AND USA some school of thought say the are part of the lost tribe of Israel.
But from the scripture I can see not only the direct offspring of Abraham constituted those the convenant applied but also slaves and strangers living with him.
“Then Abram (Abraham) 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 ... And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant" ... And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in thy sight!" God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:3-21)
Who is the covenant with tk? It's very clear; the Covenant was established with ISAAC, not Ishmael. The descendents of Isaac are the Jews, not the Arabs. There was no covenant with Ishmael; in fact, Ishamel was explicitly rejected with respect to the promise of the covenant. God said he would bless Ishmael by multipying his descendents, that is all; however, the covenant was for Isaac and his descendents.
every word and quote posted here are mine. I actually started learning the Bible 1979.
Born Emmanuel to a christian father and muslim mother.
Neither of my parents influenced my believe. I attended church then mosque.
Many issues I could not reconcile with the Bible I found answers in Islam.
I know more about the Bible than Quran.
Do not get upset with some of my post..for they are genuine search.
I respect all creation of God.
I couldnt twist the scripture as I stand to gain nothing...all I want is to be among God chosen.
I have been discussing Muslim-Christian issues with Muslim polemicists for at least three years, and their appeal to Genesis 17 out of its intended context is quite typical. I was therefore making an educated guess regarding the source of your argument when I found you repeating the same mistake consistently made by these Islamic polemicists, by quoting Genesis 17 selectively without consideration for the verses which explicitly state that the covenant was established with Isaac and not Ishmael.
In saying that however, I have no reason to accuse you of dishonesty, and I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claim concerning the genuiness of your pursuit for the truth, and your innocence in making the error in question. I will modify my approach to you in consideration of your disclaimer.
GENESIS 17 [NIV]
9 "Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come."
12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.
13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.
14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him.
It does not say that Ishmael is not to be circumcised, as you posted
"13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
God loved Abraham and he promised him to also bless Ishmael,
"20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation."
but His chosen people, would be descendants of Isaac
"21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac"
tk, it makes no difference now, whether we descended from Isaac or Ishmael, what difference does it make, when Christ died on the cross, He died for every single person in the world, whether muslim, jew, christian, whether descendants of Isaac or Ishmael, whatever we are, He came for us all, even though He came for the Jews originally, yet they did not accept Him "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" John 1: 11, 12, so God came for us all and gave us all the chance to be His children :)