Abraham
(By Urs, Fair Use)
Salvation and the Art of Not Wetting Your Pants
By Scout
This morning, I went for a hike. I was high up on the side of a canyon with mountains off in the distance. I stopped to take a leak and momentarily ran into a problem – a problem specific to me. I am not circumcised. So sometimes, if I am not careful, my apparatus causes the stream to go in an unexpected direction. And I thought I had wet my pant leg but I did not. I did think how that most men don’t deal with this concern. It is a logistical burden and, ironically, I am a little part Jewish. I am your actual descendant of Abraham. I can’t tell you why my parents did not get me circumcised. Probably no good reason.
My son was circumcised on the eighth day. This made me realize that the only valid Mosaic circumcision is on the eighth day per scripture. If you were circumcised as the Torah said, you were part of an elite group that would inherit the promises made to Abraham. But circumcision also has a history in the Gentile community. Historians think that circumcision has been practiced for 10,000 years. The Egyptians in the Sixth Dynasty did it. It is an ancient surgical procedure – maybe the first one.
I am curious about what the Circumcision Party, that clashed with Paul, expected First Century Gentile Christians to do about circumcisions that did not happen on the eighth day. You can’t climb into a time machine and go back and re-do historical events. Do you get a special dispensation for the wrong day from the Jewish priests so your circumcision can be rendered valid? I think originally the Circumcision Party was not making an argument that Gentiles who wanted to convert to Christianity should simply undergo circumcision. They specifically asserted in Acts 15 that it was circumcision “after the manner of Moses.” Not just any circumcision but eighth-day circumcision. I think they were contending that uncircumcised or improperly circumcised Gentiles could not be saved - ever. It was a way of saying that the promises of Christianity were for devout eighth-day Jews only. Maybe after the Jerusalem Conference, the Circumcision Party softened up a little on this.
I am glad that circumcision now is not by hands in the flesh but of the heart. Had I lived in the time of Paul, I would be disturbed if a member of the Circumcision Party sidled up to me and said that if I wanted to be a Christian and be saved I would need to get circumcised. But I have had Armstrongists tell me that I could not eat pork (I don’t like it anyway. Smells funny.) Or tell me I had to unleaven my house. Some Armstrongist denominations have little Mosaic quirks that they elevate proudly to requirements for salvation – like observing New Moons, maybe. Or believing in this or that oddity said from the pulpit. It sets them apart. And it means that they are going to the Place of Safety and will receive a better salvation and everyone else can pound sand. Because the others do not have the special knowledge that they have about New Moons. Or maybe about not eating mushrooms. Or maybe about not eating jell-o. Or whatever it is that makes them the only ones in God’s inner circle.
The Circumcision Party wanted to contain salvation. They wanted to control it and limit access. They wanted only a very few admitted to the inner circle. The Jerusalem Council blew all that away but there are some who still cling to it after 2,000 years. They also want to contain salvation. The smaller and more exclusive their denomination, the better. This plainly goes against the spirit of Christ who wanted the Gospel of salvation in Christ to be spread far and wide. Even among the Gentiles. This containment view will probably be one of the last errors to die when Christ returns. But, let me tell you, I am seriously happy that the Bible unequivocally states that physical circumcision is not necessary for salvation, even though other physical Torahic activities are not so dramatically set aside in scripture. I shudder to think what the misguided zealots might have forced on me.
7 comments:
Great post. Yes indeed our salvation does not hinge on the physical act of circumcision. As Romans tells us, it depends on Gods mercy, on Him who shows mercy. It is by grace and that through faith. I have Jewish friends who absolutely refused to have their two boys circumcised. And don’t participate in their local Jewish community sadly and have separated themselves from it entirely. The family had to leave Egypt in the mid 1950s and I don’t doubt that experience for them all, had an impact on their children and their children following. Circumcision is a rite of passage for males as are the Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies within Judaism. I often joke with my Jewish friends, myself being a member of the tribe as well, that our traditions have become Law. We have become better Catholics than the Catholics themselves lol. But at the end of the day circumcision is not a requirement for salvation.
the only valid Mosaic circumcision is on the eighth day per scripture
False. Scout should know better. It's not hard to figure out. Eighth-day circumcision applies to newborn males born to Jewish parents. Convert males are circumcised much later in life, yet their circumcision is equally valid and makes them equally part of the Jewish community. Only after these converts are circumcised and enter the Jewish community does it become incumbent upon them to have their male children circumcised on the eighth day.
Anonymous 4:56
Technically, you are correct (Exodus 12:48-49). But I am not exegeting the practice of circumcision as described in the Torah. I am attempting to read the political situation. I am conjecturing that an eighth-day circumcision was the gold standard and anything else was of lesser value. I am also conjecturing that the Circumcision Party was trying to use eighth-day circumcision to stop the spread of the Gospel to Gentiles. I think they regarded the conversion of Gentiles as a Peter and Paul thing. And to the Circumcision Party this was unacceptable. Central parts of the NT deal with the acceptability of the Gentiles. This is not for nought.
There is no accomodation in the Torah for an adult Egyptian who had been circumcised on the 9th day. He cannot be circumcised again. He permanently has a non-acceptable circumcision. Many Gentiles seeking to join the Christian movement in the First Century may have fallen intio this category.
It makes no difference to Christianity. All the complexities of circumcision and, for instance, Sabbath keeping don't mean anything. Circumcision is of the heart and Christ is our Sabbath. It is the Circumcision Party that stressed over this and tried to make political hay of it.
Scout
My suspicioun based on dealings with ACOGs ministers is that they are trying to define the church culture in the millennium. Their viciousness when dealing with even slight dissent being one example. As stupid as it seems, I also suspect some ministers are trying to lower the standards for admission into God's kingdom. To them, it's a back door into His kingdom. Why repent when you can get into God's kingdom by "cheating?"
There is no accomodation in the Torah for an adult Egyptian who had been circumcised on the 9th day. He cannot be circumcised again. He permanently has a non-acceptable circumcision. Many Gentiles seeking to join the Christian movement in the First Century may have fallen intio this category.
Your conjecture is incorrect. Just as it is done today, if a circumcised male desired to convert to Judaism, all they would need to do is have a tiny ritual drop of blood drawn from their already-circumcised member. Of course, even that "all they would need" was a bit much for many proselyte God-fearers who liked Judaism but didn't like it enough to shed their blood for membership.
Abe and HWA were lone voices in the wilderness!
Great post Scout (as usual), We all tend to think I would have done this back in that day or done that. Yea, and it’s that attitude of inner circling that we can watch out for. The Bible does say little flock, but is it little because armstrongist want to keep it that way? With them it’s who baptized you lineage, then who baptized that minister who baptized you, and if they were baptized by Herbert W. Armstrong, then you are more special.
I’m glad Paul spent so much time on the circumcision doctrine even after the Jerusalem conference. He helped those Gentiles with this issue from those inner circle circumcision cliques. I’m always reminded of how Paul stressed that Abraham was accounted for righteousness before he was circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). (as he, Abram also wan't circumcised on the 8th day).
What's also interesting is the circumcision is not really mentioned in Hebrews or the list of doctrines in (Hebrews 6:1-3). And this is to the jewish Christians.
Tank
Post a Comment