Torah Observance, Circumcision and Jesus only Messianics:

Many Torah observant followers of Yeshua appear to argue that the Apostle Paul could not possibly have been Torah observant because he did not demand that Gentile believers get circumcised. 

They argue that the command to Abraham to circumcise his family and all those in his community was emphatic and unequivocal. 

Consider Genesis 17: 10-14

10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised.

11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin. It will be a token of the covenant between me and you.

12 He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money from any foreigner who is not of your seed.

13 He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”

It would certainly appear on an initial reading of this passage that all who are part of, or want their children to be part of the ‘family of Abraham’ need to get their males physically circumcised.

I would certainly also argue strongly that the Apostle Paul, while believing that this command was still very much in force and important for male Jews, did not believe it was a requirement for male Gentiles who came to faith in/of Yeshua.

I explain how I understand the Apostle Paul’s position in the appendix to my book ‘Defending the Apostle Paul: Weighing the Evidence’ – the appendix is available separately at http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/Works%20of%20the%20Law.pdf

So on the surface, we certainly appear to have a considerable and significant issue here. I address this issue in depth in my ‘Circumcision: A Step of Obedience’ article – see http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/Circumcision.pdf

I wish to touch on this issue a little from a slightly different perspective here.

I want to suggest a few points to consider and then hope you will read my articles linked here for some more depth.

Let us briefly consider:

1)Is the Tanakh as clear-cut as Genesis 17 appears to suggest on this issue;

2)Did Yeshua expect his male Gentile followers to get circumcised;

3)What was generally accepted Jewish understanding on this question in Yeshua’s day;

4)Why is such a commandment so sexist? What are the implications of its gender specific criteria?

1: Is the Tanakh as clear-cut as Genesis 17 appears to suggest on this issue:

It is vital to have some knowledge of Hebraisms when studying the Bible (both the Tanakh and the NT). 

One of these is the use of hyperbole. While this Hebraism is used a great deal by Yeshua and the other important figures in the NT, it is also clearly used in the Tanakh. For example, the classic ‘an eye for an eye’ passage, is a passage that was never understood in a fully literal sense and therefore was clearly hyperbolic. 

The excepted understanding was more simply summed up in ‘measure for measure’, and in fact, it was understood that this was how the Almighty dealt with man’s transgressions, as well as how He expected His righteous ones to act with each other (again within some bounds that incorporated mercy/grace along with such justice) – see my ‘An Eye for an Eye or Measure for Measure’ article for more on this – http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/measureformeasure.pdf

Another vital approach to trying to fully comprehend the instructions of the Almighty (Torah) is to address apparent contradictions and find a way, if possible, to harmonise them.

After God had presented the 10 Words (the Ten Commandments), and he was expounding on their importance He states: “Therefore, circumcise the foreskin of your heart; and don't be stiff necked any longer!” (Deut 10:16), making it clear that the physical circumcision of the males was not enough. Yet in Deut. 30:6 we find that God declares that He will do the circumcising!

“And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”

Note where this statement is made and to whom. This is part of the Mt Gerizim covenant that the Almighty made with Israel (with the children, not of Abraham; but specifically of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Here he lays out a great many blessings and cursings, a great many consequences of both faithfulness and faithlessness, of both Torah observance and Torah-lessness (‘Lawlessness’ in many NT translations). Also note that this declaration is a ‘family’ or national one, not just an individual one.

Is this a contradiction? No. When God states that He will harden Pharaoh's heart, He does it through the circumstances. It is the circumstances that the Almighty places in front of the Pharaoh of Egypt that leads to him hardening his heart. It is the same approach that God uses with all of us.

So God is declaring that though His consequences, through His blessings and cursings, His Chosen People, Israel will ultimately and, collectively or corporately (and also throughout time, individually), acquire ‘circumcised hearts’.

While the male circumcision of 8 day old boys was a token, a sign and starting point, a declaration by the parents of the baby boy that they, and he, were part of Israel, the real call from God was that this token be transformed into a ‘circumcised heart’. This ‘circumcised heart’ was the ultimate requirement for both men and woman.

The Almighty declares not that the physical circumcision of males is all that matters, as if only half the population mattered, but that it is a starting point, an entry point and a pointer towards what He really calls for – a circumcised heart (for both men and women).

Is God unjust? Does he require this starting point of physical circumcision for males only; or is the message a little deeper and the path to a circumcised heart a little less rigid?

2: Did Yeshua expect his male Gentile followers to get circumcised:

The same followers of Yeshua who argue for Torah observance (I will label them ‘Jesus only Messianics’) and reject the Apostle Paul, clearly though believe that Yeshua was Torah observant. 

While Yeshua may not have been so emphatic and clear cut as the Apostle Paul, about his thoughts on how Gentiles become part of the ‘family of Abraham’ or the ‘commonwealth of Israel’,  I would suggest that he did make some comments on this issue.

Consider  this quote of Yeshua’s in Matthew 23:15: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. “

How could a Gentile who converts to Yeshua’s faith, to Torah observance, become even more condemned or cursed (‘a child of hell’ being understood as someone cursed because of disobedience to Torah) than before? 

The Apostle Paul addresses this very question but rather than refer to someone that the ‘Jesus only Messianics’ see as a fraud, just consider what Yeshua may have meant here. I would argue that he is not endorsing that Gentile God-fearers necessarily become Jewish, because to be Jewish brings an expectation to obey all the commandments (all the 613 mitzvot that could be obeyed at that time) and that to expect such obedience without the training/teaching of being raised in a Jewish home was really in many ways unfair and too hard.

Prof. David Flusser share a similar understanding when he writes:

“The liberal school of Hillel was not distressed to see Gentiles becoming Jews. By contrast, the school of Shammai made conversion as difficult as possible. The following sayings show that Jesus shared the strict standpoint of Shammai. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves" (Matt. 23:15). A non‐Jew who lives according to certain fundamental moral laws, without following the whole Mosaic law, is blessed. The proselyte, the Gentile who has converted to Judaism, however, is bound by the whole law. If a proselyte fails to fulfill the whole law, which formerly did not obligate him, his conversion to Judaism is itself the cause of his becoming a child of hell. Quite needlessly he has thrown away his blessedness.” ‐ Jesus by Flusser p 75,76

In the ‘Circumcision’ article I also discuss how Yeshua’s comments on circumcising on the Sabbath, and his speech to his home town synagogue, which also relate to this question.

3: What was generally accepted Jewish understanding on this question in Yeshua’s day:

In Yeshua’s day the general populace accepted the Pharisees as being their religious leaders and generally heeded this sect as more authoritative in all matters of Torah observance compared to the doctrines of the Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots (the other main sects of the proto-Judaism of the day). 

See my ‘The Times of Yeshua’ for the details and references to back to up – either a Slideshow - http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/FeastTalks2010/Talk%202%20The%20Times%20of%20Yeshua%20latest%20version.pptx or a Podcast http://pfherring.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-12-30T04_18_57-08_00

Within this sect the two main leaders in the early years of the first century CE were Hillel and Shammai. In most points of Torah, Yeshua agreed with Hillel; but in some with Shammai. Shammai really did not want Gentiles to convert. Yet, Judaism has always believed that the Almighty would bless righteous Gentiles with a place in the Coming Age (and that means men and women, obedient to the commandments, who did not convert and become Jews).

4.   Why is such a commandment so sexist? What are the implications of its gender specific criteria?

Rather than answer this question here I raise it to hopefully open some avenues towards appreciating that all may not be as it first seems.

Instead of addressing this issue here, I again refer you to my ‘Circumcision’ article.

Once you have read the articles referred to, you might then ask what implications does this understanding have, if it is valid and biblical?

I try to address some of these in ‘The Tripartite Salvation Paradigm’ – see http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/The%20Tripartite%20Salvation%20Paradigm%20first%20draft%20feb2012.pdf

Shalom!