Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Everlasting Covenant: Circumcision

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Everlasting Covenant: Circumcision

    Genesis 17:1-14 has God making an *everlasting* covenant with Abraham and his physical descendants. God commands circumcision to be the physical sign of this everlasting covenant.

    It seems that under the new covenant, the Apostle's render at best *optional* the physical rite of circumcision for both Jews and Gentiles. How can this be when God *commanded* the physical rite of circumcision to be a sign of an *everlasting* covenant?

  • #2
    Because it was the OLD Covenant. The hebrews broke that one themselves over and over. A covenant is only as good as the people who are in it. It is a contract. You can say a contract is forever and it could last forever.... as long as both parties keep the agreement. Even an everlasting covenant can end if one party breaks it. God kept his word and never broke it. The hebrews did. Then God replaced the old broken covenant with a new one.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Genesis 17:1-14 has God making an *everlasting* covenant with Abraham and his physical descendants. God commands circumcision to be the physical sign of this everlasting covenant.

      It seems that under the new covenant, the Apostle's render at best *optional* the physical rite of circumcision for both Jews and Gentiles. How can this be when God *commanded* the physical rite of circumcision to be a sign of an *everlasting* covenant?
      Did Paul in fact render circumcision as optional for Jews?
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #4
        It is not about the physical circumcision. God made it clear in Paul's writings that Jew and Gentile were new beings in christ.
        When Abraham circumcised himself he did so out of faith for God. It was a sign of his meekness. By even Isiah time it was turned into a legalistic practice.
        Jesus made it clear it was our hearts he wants.
        Now as for Timothy his circum
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Because it was the OLD Covenant. The hebrews broke that one themselves over and over. A covenant is only as good as the people who are in it. It is a contract. You can say a contract is forever and it could last forever.... as long as both parties keep the agreement. Even an everlasting covenant can end if one party breaks it. God kept his word and never broke it. The hebrews did. Then God replaced the old broken covenant with a new one.
          True enough, but the everlasting nature of the covenant(s) do not seem to be conditioned on Israel's obedience. Rather, blessings or cursing will come upon Israel if they do not obey. The existence of the everlasting covenant(s) is not in jeopardy due to Israel's disobedience. God has mercy on the condition that they repent, as he remembers the everlasting covenant he made with them. See for example, Ezk. 16:59-63; Lev. 26:44-45; Rom. 11:28-29. Jeremiah acknowledges the broken covenant but proposes a new covenant based on the same observance of divine Torah or instruction - just now written on the hearts via his indwelling spirit as opposed to externally dispensed on tablets of stone. The Apostles' teaching seems to be somewhat of a radical departure from what is envisaged in the OT.
          Last edited by Scrawly; 01-11-2017, 05:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            Did Paul in fact render circumcision as optional for Jews?
            I would say so. Unless they believed it was necessary or meritorious in the eyes of God.

            Comment


            • #7
              If we understand things through Galatians, we have been joined to Christ (elsewhere Paul mentions that Christ is the head and we are the body) so that our benefits are gained by being in Christ. He was circumcised and thus this requirement, if still 'technically' applicable', was met once and for all.

              Also, in verse 7 "It will extend to your descendants after you throughout their generations" (NET) -- this may have limited applicability to the people alive at that time. We see, for example, in verse 13, that the rule related largely to those born in his house.

              Comment


              • #8
                Actually I shouldn't word it like this: "Jeremiah acknowledges the broken covenant but proposes a new covenant based on the same observance of divine Torah or instruction".

                Jeremiah: 31:31-32 states: Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

                This is a new covenant that is "not like" the previous covenant (Mosaic covenant), but it looks like the "everlasting covenant(s)" would still be intact, no?
                Last edited by Scrawly; 01-11-2017, 05:46 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Also pertinent here is the sense that we were made into new creatures in Christ. Old things had passed away which I mean to apply to us as new creatures.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                    Actually I shouldn't word it like this: "Jeremiah acknowledges the broken covenant but proposes a new covenant based on the same observance of divine Torah or instruction".

                    Jeremiah: 31:31-32 states: Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

                    This is a new covenant that is "not like" the previous covenant (Mosaic covenant), but it looks like the "everlasting covenant(s)" would still be intact, no?
                    The covenant with Abraham still yields the benefits granted to him. The Jeremiah passage mentioned they broke the Mosaic covenant; they may have also lost them the benefits through Abraham's bloodline.
                    Last edited by mikewhitney; 01-11-2017, 06:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      The covenant with Abraham still yields the benefits granted to him. The Jeremiah passage mentioned they broke may have also lost them the benefits through Abraham's bloodline.
                      Despite the new covenant, aren't the "everlasting" covenants such as the covenant of circumcision and the post-flood covenant made in Genesis 9:16 still intact - due to them being labeled by God as "everlasting" and seemingly unconditional?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                        Despite the new covenant, aren't the "everlasting" covenants such as the covenant of circumcision and the post-flood covenant made in Genesis 9:16 still intact - due to them being labeled by God as "everlasting" and seemingly unconditional?
                        The covenant with Abraham still benefits him even if there are no continuing bloodline benefactors. Again, the new creation may be relevant -- that we are no longer the sort of creatures that were required to be circumcised. Certainly Abraham's benefits were not lost due to the behavior of thousands of years after him.
                        The covenant in Gen 9:11 seems still to be valid too.

                        Gentiles were never particularly bloodline descendants and thus would not be obligated to circumcision of the descendants of Abraham. And I don't think that the covenant was meant to be so technical that anyone who is unknowingly a descendant of Abraham (through one of his other sons) would be required to be circumcised. Again, the scope of this circumcision requirement may have been for those living at the time of Abraham.
                        Last edited by mikewhitney; 01-11-2017, 06:22 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          The covenant with Abraham still benefits him even if there are no continuing bloodline benefactors. Again, the new creation may be relevant -- that we are no longer the sort of creatures that were required to be circumcised. Certainly Abraham's benefits were not lost due to the behavior of thousands of years after him.
                          The covenant in Gen 9:11 seems still to be valid too.
                          If the covenant in Gen. 9:11 is still valid and deemed "everlasting", then why would the covenant in Gen. 17:13 be invalid?

                          Gentiles were never particularly bloodline descendants and thus would not be obligated to circumcision of the descendants of Abraham. And I don't think that the covenant was meant to be so technical that anyone who is unknowingly a descendant of Abraham (through one of his other sons) would be required to be circumcised.
                          I agree, but Apostolic teaching has rendered circumcision for the physical descendants of Abraham as optional. Whereas we have God in Gen. 17 commanding circumcision as a sign of an everlasting covenant.

                          Again, the scope of this circumcision requirement may have been for those living at the time of Abraham.
                          Despite the reference to "everlasting"?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                            If the covenant in Gen. 9:11 is still valid and deemed "everlasting", then why would the covenant in Gen. 17:13 be invalid?



                            I agree, but Apostolic teaching has rendered circumcision for the physical descendants of Abraham as optional. Whereas we have God in Gen. 17 commanding circumcision as a sign of an everlasting covenant.

                            Despite the reference to "everlasting"?
                            It is.
                            You seem to be losing track of where the sense of perpetuality applies -- it applies to Abraham but later people could be severed from it.

                            The covenant with Abraham is everlasting. The simple effect of descendants who didn't do circumcision is that they were cut off from their people--without ending the covenant enjoyment by Abraham.

                            Even a further consideration is that the benefit of Jews under the Gen 17 covenant may have been lost by a period of time where circumcision didn't occur. Yet the covenant benefit to Abraham remains perpetual.
                            Last edited by mikewhitney; 01-11-2017, 07:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                              I would say so. Unless they believed it was necessary or meritorious in the eyes of God.
                              Can you give me some verses? My memory is that dependence on circumcision, that is being circumcised to gain approval, would open gentiles to dependence on the full Jewish law.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X