Everlasting Covenant: Circumcision

[Scrawly]

It is.
You seem to be losing track of where the sense of perpetuality applies

Where do you see this in the text?

it applies to Abraham but later people could be severed from it.

The text says that the covenant is everlasting and it applies to Abraham and his offspring throughout their generations. The fact that people can be cut off does not nullify the everlasting nature of the covenant.

The covenant with Abraham is everlasting.

The covenant with Abraham and his offspring throughout their generations is everlasting.

The simple effect of descendants who didn't do circumcision is that they were cut off from their people

Right.

without ending the covenant enjoyment by Abraham.

Without ending the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his offspring throughout their generations.

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.

Benefits of the covenant aside -- the covenant of circumcision was an everlasting covenant to be kept by Abraham *and his offspring throughout their generations.* The fact that some Israelite's failed to live up to the demands of this covenant at times does not nullify the everlasting nature of the covenant, from what I can see.

[Scrawly]

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.

If the motive to be circumcised was to gain approval then the Apostle's were dead set against this. If it was for non-meritorious reasons, then it could be done (Acts 16:3).

[Adrift]

Commentators seem to be in general agreement with what Sparko, and mikewhitney have stated on this subject. So, for instance,

Source: Genesis 11:27-50:26 by Kenneth A. Mathews, 2005

A puzzling question for Christian readers is the meaning of an "everlasting" (olam) covenant, since circumcision ceased as a required practice among Christian converts. Circumcision was a "sign," not the essence of the covenant; the covenant depended ultimately on the spiritual allegiance of the parties. This spiritual dimension was inherent in the covenant as the expulsion of certain circumcised but disqualified members in Abraham's household shows (e.g., Ishmael); spiritual circumcision was the test required of all those who would enjoy the favor of the Lord (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Col 2:11). Hence the eternal nature of the covenant describes the spiritual regeneration of the believer.

© Copyright Original Source

And in further detail,

Source: Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching by Walter Brueggemann, 2010

a. Circumcision as a liturgic act gives important concrete signification to a theological affirmation. What is said and thought must also be done, not only for its dramatic and educational effect, but because "belonging" is in fact accomplished in this act. The signifier has a role in the things signified. Biblical faith is never cerebral. It is always lived and acted. Belonging to this strange community and trusting in a scandalous promise requires a mark of distinctiveness. Circumcision announces that Israelites belong only to this community and only to this God.

b. Circumcision as a positive theological symbol functioned in Israel as a metaphor for serious, committed faith. Thus, the tradition speaks of the circumcision of the heart (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:26; Ezek. 44:7). The image suggests yielding affections and will to the covenant partner (cf. Rom. 2:29).

c. Such religious symbols/acts hold enormous potential for empowerment of faith. But there is also risk, for the symbol may lose its theological intent and vitality. It then takes on a life of its own. And in its autonomy, it may become an empty form, nurturing self-deception. Or it may become an instrument of oppression and conformity. As an empty form or as a lever of conformity, it immobilizes rather than empowers. this is apparently what happened to the symbol of circumcision. No doubt that is what caused controversy in the early church (Acts 15:1-5) and evoked the strictures of Paul (Rom. 2:25; 4:12; Gal. 5:2-12; 6:12-16; Col. 3:11). In Christian exposition, it will be important not to limit this critical awareness to the sign of circumcision in which the church has no investment. It is equally important to ask about the temptation to autonomy in our own signs, symbols, and sacraments. Thus, for example, is it possible that baptism has also taken on a life of its own which has no intrinsic relation to the claims of faith?

d. The tradition of circumcision is of importance to Christians, for it illuminates the practice of baptism as an entrance into a new life, a new loyalty to a new community. It is ironic that for all the polemics in the New Testament against circumcision which is regarded as an empty form or even a barrier to the gospel, nonetheless circumcision is utilized as a type for understanding the meaning of baptism:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us . . . (Col. 2:11-13).

The intent in circumcision is also intended in baptism. And like circumcision, baptism has potential either as an energizing symbol for faith or a negative alternative to faith. Thus, Christians have a dialectical attitude toward the institution of circumcision. On the one hand, they are aware of its temptation to become an empty practice. On the other hand, they know no better model for understanding their own sacraments of life and faith. In handling this text, it will be important to keep this dialectic alive and visible.

© Copyright Original Source

[NorrinRadd]

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?

Apparently "everlasting" does not always mean "lasting forever."

The same words -- "olam" and "berith" -- are used in regard to the Sabbath, the Levitical priesthood, and the Mosaic Covenant. The Decalogue was both the foundation of the Law and the terms of the Covenant. The book of Hebrews declares that the New and better Covenant has replaced the Obsolete Covenant, in part by playing on the dual meaning of "diatheke" as both "covenant" and "testament" (as in "last will and testament"); concomitantly, the old priesthood was replaced. Paul showed pretty clearly in Rom., Gal., and Col. that there are no longer "holy" days, including the Sabbath. He showed pretty clearly that the entire Law and all associated decrees, ordinances, and Commandments was abolished, hung on the Tree, nailed to the Cross. He explicitly said in Gal. that "in Christ," neither circumcision or uncircumcision matters. The strong implication of Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5; of James in 2:8; of Jesus via the Synoptists in Matt. 22, Mark 12, and Luke 10; and of Jesus via John in ch. 13, is that "love" is that part of the old Law and Commandments that has been reinstated, and that it is the new "sign of the Covenant."

[Scrawly]

Apparently "everlasting" does not always mean "lasting forever."

The same words -- "olam" and "berith" -- are used in regard to the Sabbath, the Levitical priesthood, and the Mosaic Covenant. The Decalogue was both the foundation of the Law and the terms of the Covenant. The book of Hebrews declares that the New and better Covenant has replaced the Obsolete Covenant, in part by playing on the dual meaning of "diatheke" as both "covenant" and "testament" (as in "last will and testament"); concomitantly, the old priesthood was replaced. Paul showed pretty clearly in Rom., Gal., and Col. that there are no longer "holy" days, including the Sabbath. He showed pretty clearly that the entire Law and all associated decrees, ordinances, and Commandments was abolished, hung on the Tree, nailed to the Cross. He explicitly said in Gal. that "in Christ," neither circumcision or uncircumcision matters. The strong implication of Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5; of James in 2:8; of Jesus via the Synoptists in Matt. 22, Mark 12, and Luke 10; and of Jesus via John in ch. 13, is that "love" is that part of the old Law and Commandments that has been reinstated, and that it is the new "sign of the Covenant."

Can you provide the references for the Sabbath, the Levitical priesthood, and the Mosaic Covenant being referred to as "everlasting"? Also, I agree that the Apostolic teaching sets aside or demonstrates fulfillment in the Messiah. Either way, this proves my point that there is shocking discontinuity between the old and new covenants as ancient laws are set aside or radically reinterpreted in light of the coming of Christ.

Unfortunately, this discontinuity and reinterpretation is sometimes highlighted by less than orthodox teachers as a biblical model or trajectory to emulate and therefore justification to go beyond what the bible says and radically depart or reinterpret ancient scripture in light of new developments.

[Celebrian]

At the risk of being argument by web link, Christian ThinkTank has an article about the meaning of eternal (olam) and it's application to Mosaic Law. The article points out places where olam is used for items that are clearly not eternal in the sense of forever and ever. Particularly section 3 argues that olam can have the meaning of indefinite and doesn't mean irreversible:

http://christianthinktank.com/finaltorah.html

[NorrinRadd]

Can you provide the references for the Sabbath, the Levitical priesthood, and the Mosaic Covenant being referred to as "everlasting"? Also, I agree that the Apostolic teaching sets aside or demonstrates fulfillment in the Messiah. Either way, this proves my point that there is shocking discontinuity between the old and new covenants as ancient laws are set aside or radically reinterpreted in light of the coming of Christ.

Sabbath -- Ex. 31:16; Lev. 16:31; possibly others.

Old Priesthood -- Ex. 29:9; 40:15; Num. 25:13 (narrowing specifically to the line of Phineas); possibly others.

Mosaic Covenant -- Jdg. 2:1 seems to refer to that; admittedly that is slim and inferential, but taken in concert with the other two, both of which are part and parcel of that Covenant, it seems reasonable.

Unfortunately, this discontinuity and reinterpretation is sometimes highlighted by less than orthodox teachers as a biblical model or trajectory to emulate and therefore justification to go beyond what the bible says and radically depart or reinterpret ancient scripture in light of new developments.

Yes, it is challenging and disconcerting. To what extent are we to follow the models demonstrated in Scripture? The NT writers freely picked and chose quotations from various different OT versions extant at the time, felt free to paraphrase or do their own translations, conflated diverse passages, attributed OT authorship loosely, linked passages in ways modern hermeneutics would consider dubious, and applied passages in ways well beyond their original context.

[robrecht]

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?

'Everlasting' has an 'entire' semantic range in Hebrew that is difficult to comprehend in English; it is also the word for the whole of everything, the entire present world or universe, if you will, although there is also 'a world to come'. The author to the letter to the Hebrews speaks of a first and second, new covenant with respect to the Jewish priesthood and that of Jesus, but the new covenant hearkens back to the promised eternal inheritance (Hb 8,8 9,15). Paul too sees the 'new covenant' as finally fulfilling, not replacing or nullifying, the eternal covenant and promises made to Abraham. There is a contrast between the law, which cannot make righteous, and the faith of Abraham, who was considered righteous on account of his faith, but according to Paul, the law, which came four hundred thirty years after Abraham, did not annul or nullify the covenant or promise made to Abraham. Even at the time of Abraham, circumcision was a 'sign' of the covenant (א֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית), just as the rainbow was a 'sign' of the eternal covenant made with Noah. I do not believe these eternal covenants were ever rendered invalid. I don't believe that Paul considered circumcision to be optional for non-Jews--he opposed it vigorously. Perhaps he would consider circumcision optional for Jewish Christians, I tend to think so, perhaps especially for those engaged in apostleship and those living in mixed communities, but this is not at all clear. He did still consider there to be a value of circumcision for Jews and even if some Jews were not faithful, that does not mean that God is not faithful to his promises (Rom 3,1-2, cf also 9,4-5), but the value of the sign of circumcision is certainly not to be a source of disunity or division among all brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Scrawly]

'Everlasting' has an 'entire' semantic range in Hebrew that is difficult to comprehend in English; it is also the word for the whole of everything, the entire present world or universe, if you will, although there is also 'a world to come'. The author to the letter to the Hebrews speaks of a first and second, new covenant with respect to the Jewish priesthood and that of Jesus, but the new covenant hearkens back to the promised eternal inheritance (Hb 8,8 9,15). Paul too sees the 'new covenant' as finally fulfilling, not replacing or nullifying, the eternal covenant and promises made to Abraham. There is a contrast between the law, which cannot make righteous, and the faith of Abraham, who was considered righteous on account of his faith, but according to Paul, the law, which came four hundred thirty years after Abraham, did not annul or nullify the covenant or promise made to Abraham. Even at the time of Abraham, circumcision was a 'sign' of the covenant (א֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית), just as the rainbow was a 'sign' of the eternal covenant made with Noah. I do not believe these eternal covenants were ever rendered invalid. I don't believe that Paul considered circumcision to be optional for non-Jews--he opposed it vigorously. Perhaps he would consider circumcision optional for Jewish Christians, I tend to think so, perhaps especially for those engaged in apostleship and those living in mixed communities, but this is not at all clear. He did still consider there to be a value of circumcision for Jews and even if some Jews were not faithful, that does not mean that God is not faithful to his promises (Rom 3,1-2, cf also 9,4-5), but the value of the sign of circumcision is certainly not to be a source of disunity or division among all brothers and sisters in Christ.

Why do believe the 'eternal' covenants were never rendered invalid? It seems they have fulfilled their purpose and are no longer intact due to God initiating a new covenant (Jer. 31:31). This doesn't seem to be a problem because the "eternal" covenants are not necessarily "eternal", as it turns out.

[robrecht]

Why do believe the 'eternal' covenants were never rendered invalid? It seems they have fulfilled their purpose and are no longer intact due to God initiating a new covenant (Jer. 31:31). This doesn't seem to be a problem because the "eternal" covenants are not necessarily "eternal", as it turns out.

Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant unlike the one of Moses, not Abraham, in the same way that the author of the book of Hebrews speaks of a first and second covenant, but neither speak of the covenant with Abraham and his descendants and its universal implications for all nations being invalid. Where has God or anyone said that this eternal covenant is not eternal? Is God only capable of handling one covenant at a time?

[Scrawly]

Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant unlike the one of Moses, not Abraham, in the same way that the author of the book of Hebrews speaks of a first and second covenant, but neither speak of the covenant with Abraham and his descendants and its universal implications for all nations being invalid. Where has God or anyone said that this eternal covenant is not eternal? Is God only capable of handling one covenant at a time?

I'm not talking about the pre-Mosaic Abrahamic covenant. I am talking about the covenant of circumcision - why do you believe this "everlasting/olam" covenant is still in effect?

[robrecht]

I'm not talking about the pre-Mosaic Abrahamic covenant. I am talking about the covenant of circumcision - why do you believe this "everlasting/olam" covenant is still in effect?

Look again at your first post. You are indeed speaking of the pre-Mosaic Abrahamic covenant, right?

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?

I believe it is still in effect because I have nowhere seen it being cancelled or revoked by God. Why wouldn't the covenant with Abraham still be valid? Look at how the example of Abraham is used by the New Testament authors. Does anyone say it has been cancelled? Isn't rather Abraham used as an example of the faith and actions that justify us?

[Scrawly]

Look again at your first post. You are indeed speaking of the pre-Mosaic Abrahamic covenant, right?

I am speaking specifically of the covenant of circumcision.

I believe it is still in effect because I have nowhere seen it being cancelled or revoked by God. Why wouldn't the covenant with Abraham still be valid? Look at how the example of Abraham is used by the New Testament authors. Does anyone say it has been cancelled? Isn't rather Abraham used as an example of the faith and actions that justify us?

So you believe the covenant of circumcision is an eternal command of God despite the fact that the apostle's rendered such a command as optional at best - even for Jews under the auspices of the new covenant?

[robrecht]

I am speaking specifically of the covenant of circumcision.

As you yourself said in your initial post, scripture says in Genesis 17 circumcision is a sign of the eternal covenant made with Abraham. Paul agrees that circumcision is the sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Are you now speaking of a different circumcision???

So you believe the covenant of circumcision is an eternal command of God despite the fact that the apostle's rendered such a command as optional at best - even for Jews under the auspices of the new covenant?

I've already answered this in my first post to you here. But you could perhaps clarify a point that I did not have the heart to ask you before. When you say "the apostle's rendered" are referring to the singular apostle, Paul, or perhaps plural apostles? Your use of the apostrophe is rather confusing.

As for my previous response, is there something specific you disagree with in that response? I don't agree that Paul considered circumcision to be optional for non-Jews--in fact, he vigorously opposed it! Perhaps he would consider circumcision optional for Jewish Christians, I tend to think that might be so, perhaps especially for those engaged in apostleship or those living in mixed communities with Gentile Christians, but this is not at all clear. He did still consider there to be a value of circumcision for Jews and even if some Jews were not faithful, that does not mean that God is not faithful to his promises (Rom 3,1-2, cf also 9,4-5), but the value of the sign of circumcision is certainly not to be a source of disunity or division among all brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Scrawly]

As you yourself said in your initial post, scripture says in Genesis 17 circumcision is a sign of the eternal covenant made with Abraham. Paul agrees that circumcision is the sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Are you now speaking of a different circumcision???

No.

I've already answered this in my first post to you here.

Right. You stated that the covenant of circumcision is literally eternal (in the Greek sense).

But you could perhaps clarify a point that I did not have the heart to ask you before. When you say "the apostle's rendered" are referring to the singular apostle, Paul, or perhaps plural apostles? Your use of the apostrophe is rather confusing.

I am referring to Paul, but I use the term "Apostle's" because I view their teaching as one and the same.

As for my previous response, is there something specific you disagree with in that response?

Yes. You stated: "Even at the time of Abraham, circumcision was a 'sign' of the covenant (א֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית), just as the rainbow was a 'sign' of the eternal covenant made with Noah. I do not believe these eternal covenants were ever rendered invalid."
I am curious how you can believe that under the auspices of the new covenant, circumcision is no longer a requirement even for Jews, yet simultaneously believe that the command by God to circumcise Jewish males throughout their generations is an everlasting command. Paul stated that circumcision was "nothing" (1Cor. 7:19). Did Paul nullify a command that God intended to be literally everlasting, in your view?

I don't agree that Paul considered circumcision to be optional for non-Jews--in fact, he vigorously opposed it! Perhaps he would consider circumcision optional for Jewish Christians, I tend to think that might be so, perhaps especially for those engaged in apostleship or those living in mixed communities with Gentile Christians, but this is not at all clear.

Right. So either way, under the new covenant, circumcision is not a command of obedience for Jews or Gentiles. Yet you believe the covenant of circumcision is an everlasting requirement and command for Jews?

He did still consider there to be a value of circumcision for Jews and even if some Jews were not faithful, that does not mean that God is not faithful to his promises (Rom 3,1-2, cf also 9,4-5), but the value of the sign of circumcision is certainly not to be a source of disunity or division among all brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yup. I agree.