Circumcision: A token of obedience ... more ..

Thanks again to some great comments by David (see comments on previous post).

Essentially I agree with David’s four points and with his conclusion that we must have both faith and obedience.

The question I see here though is larger than just circumcision. It is basically, what, if anything, changed with Yeshua? There is no suggestion that he annulled the Torah. He certainly explained it and completed it, but there is evidence that he did more. Among the more is that he become the new High Priest[1], he became the Mediator between man and God and he is and will be the judge of all men (under the direction of the Almighty).

Further though, did his life, his death, resurrection and ascension change in any way the manner and conditions through which man could have relationship with the Almighty?

I would argue the answer is a qualified yes.

HaShem had declared to Moses that he would raise up a prophet who would speak exactly what the Almighty told him.  Yeshua did this.

There is no question that Yeshua spoke as HaShem directed him, and lived as led by God. He was Torah observant; and informed his brethren that to inherit eternal life, they too must be Torah observant. However, there is very good evidence I think that Yeshua in ‘completing’ Torah, introduced something of a new path to the Father.

To understand this ‘new path’, I see it as important to distinguish the ‘instructions of God’ (Torah) that involve how we are to act in reverence before Him and towards our neighbours, (relational commandments - essentially the 10 Words) from actions that mark our membership of some group or which help protect us from harm (ceremonial, normative and positive but not moral commandments).

A good question then is, did Yeshua expand on the relational commandments and in any way change them? I would say no – he perhaps intensified them, or at least better elucidated them. For example, when he stated in Matthew 5:20“For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”, I believe he was arguing for righteousness to be an attitude of the heart.

The heart defines the person. Consider a wrong heart attitude, for example someone who sis a thief at heart. A thief is not just someone who has stolen something, but anyone who, if given the opportunity, may indeed steal something.

The heart needs to be open to God, to be circumcised, to be so in tune with the Spirit of God and the Messiah, that it naturally does what is right at all times. After all Yeshua prayed that we would be one in spirit with him as he is with the Father. This is a spirit of unity of purpose, of love and loving relationship.

So, I see no evidence that Yeshua brought any change in the ‘relational’ and moral commandments. Did he though open up some changes in ceremonial, normative and positive commandments?

Most definitely – consider the introduction of the new Priesthood for example. So, it seems to me, there is at least some possibility that a change in other normative and/or positive commandments such as circumcision may have occurred.

Consider one of the times we have recorded where Yeshua spoke about the circumcision ritual.

John 7: 22-24

Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a boy. If a boy receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me, because I made a man completely healthy on the Sabbath? Don’t judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Yeshua here is both condoning a practice that had developed and expanding it in an intriguing way. The practice had been developed that if a boy’s 8^th day from birth was the Sabbath, the person performing the circumcision was allowed to break the Sabbath by carrying the tools required through the village and performing the ritual. It was considered that when this conflict between the requirements of observing the Sabbath and of circumcising a male child on the 8^th day were in conflict the circumcision took precedence. If however the child was ill on his 8^th day since birth (which say was the Wednesday) and he was not well until the Saturday, the Sabbath, the ruling was that now the Sabbath took precedence and so the circumcision would not be performed until a later day.

Yeshua by his comments appears to condone this approach to the potential conflict between mitzvot (commandments). However, what he then goes on to say is possibly even more remarkable. Firstly, he states, given this ruling, why should he be condemned for healing the whole man on the Sabbath. The clear understanding being that circumcision was a form of healing (not only a token or marker but a positive commandment), perhaps primarily because it was a mark of entry into the family/tribe of Israel.

If Yeshua though has just healed the whole man, why would this now 'complete' man need physical circumcision (a part healing only)? Of-course if the man was Jewish he was most likely already circumcised, but Yeshua did heal at least some Gentiles (the Centurion’s servant was probably gentile). Was this healing just from sickness, or more complete healing?

Let us consider again though the Jerusalem Council.

If nothing had changed with Yeshua, then there was absolutely no need for the pronouncement of James (Yaa'cov), the brother of Yeshua, on behalf of the elders and community of believers. It was already well established as to how Gentiles could enter the Commonwealth of Israel.

The fact that the Jerusalem Council saw it necessary to have their conference and make their ruling shows that things had changed. The events at Cornelius’s house were one of the ‘new’ events that indicated the change. The vision from God, that Peter had on the roof of Simon the Tanner's house (Acts 10) also indicates that the Almighty recognized the need to help Peter see that a new way was now here.

The fact, that the question of circumcision needed to be discussed was also evidence that the apostles saw that a new path was open.

While I agree we need to take great care with the use of Paul’s epistles, so far the arguments above rely on nothing of what the Apostle Paul wrote.

Turning now though to Paul’s writings, I see in Ephesians an indication that Gentiles can now come into relationship with the Almighty through the work of Yeshua and that they no longer need to become proselytized Jews.

Eph 2:11-13

Therefore remember that once you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “uncircumcision” by that which is called “circumcision,” (in the flesh, made by hands); that you were at that time separate from Messiah, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Yeshua you who once were far off are made near in the blood of Messiah.”

Note that Gentiles become ‘near’, that is fellow citizens with Moses and David, etc., NOT through becoming Jewish, but through the ‘blood of Messiah’.

Col 3:10

“… hav(ing) put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge after the image of his Creator, where there can’t be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondservant, freeman; but Messiah is all, and in all.”

Again, I believe that we are being told here that Yeshua is the one through whom this union, this unity of spirit and purpose comes, not the act of physical circumcision. Perhaps then gentiles, through Yeshua becoming their High Priest, their mediator and advocate, it is his circumcision that becomes their circumcision. Perhaps this is the meaning of Colossians 2:11-12
"Also it was in union with him that you were circumcised with a circumcision not done by human hands, but accomplished by stripping away the old nature's control over the body. In this circumcision done by the Messiah, you were buried along with him by being immersed; and in union with him, you were also raised up along with him by God's faithfulness that worked when he raised Yeshua from the dead." (CJB)

For a male gentile follower of Yeshua to undertake circumcision may in fact then, be a denial of the efficacy of the crucifixion of Yeshua himself. Clearly such an act would be an unintentional error as the motives are pure, but it could still bring some grief to our Lord and our God. So again, I see a need to precede here with great caution.

Finally I believe the evidence from the non-circumcision of Titus stands as something that it is most unlikely to be a deliberate falsification. I would argue it’s significance is too subtle (though still very relevant), to be a deliberate distortion. Most of the deliberate or even sloppy errors in translation are quite obvious and blatant once seriously studied. The case for Titus being present at the Jerusalem Council, while not conclusive is still reasonably sound. Similarly, if he was indeed circumcised and circumcision was indeed expected, then much of the debate in Paul’s epistles is irrelevant and out of place., and this also should be quite obvious.

I don't believe this is the case though, so I continue to have greater confidence in the position I have tried to articulate here.

---

[1] For more on this very significant issue see my article ‘Yeshua the High Priest’ @ www.circumcisedheart.info