Everlasting Covenant: Circumcision

[Scrawly]

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?

[Sparko]

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.

[Jedidiah]

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?

[TheWall]

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

[Scrawly]

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.

[Scrawly]

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.

[mikewhitney]

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.

[Scrawly]

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?

[mikewhitney]

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.

[mikewhitney]

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.