What was the "yoke of bondage" ?

[8thdaypriest]

Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, (NRS)

 

In this passage, it seems that "righteousness" was "reckoned" to any man who was circumcised. 

This actually FITS with ancient covenant law.   The circumcised infant was regarded as "in covenant" UNTIL such time that he sinned against Yahweh, thus breaking covenant. 

The LORD would then be legally justified in bringing the "curse" against such a man. 

Circumcision was the LORD's "seal of ownership". 

 

2 Corinthians 1:21-22  "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to com" (NIV). 

 

In Christ, the anointing of the Spirit is now "His seal of ownership".

We need no other. 

 

Ephesians 1:13  "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit," (NIV)

 

I can (as a female) belong to Christ, and receive His SEAL, without a male relative who is circumcised. 

 

Mormonism teaches that females CANNOT enter the kingdom unattached (either to a baptized father, or a baptized husband). 

[Robert]

WHAT WAS THE MEANING of circumcision?

 

1.  I believe it substituted for the sacrifice of male offspring. 

 

2.  I believe it was a sign, that this male BELONGED to Yahweh.  Yahweh could then LEGALLY exact Covenant curses upon a circumcised male (with his family).

 

3.  It was a prophecy. 

 

Israelite males were NOT circumcised during the 40 years wandering in the wilderness.

Israel crossed the Jordan on Nissan 10.

THEN Joshua circumcised the people. 

THEN they kept the Passover.

 

So - we will cross the sky (which will roll back just like the Jordan river did).

They followed the ARK, which was a type of Christ.

And Jesus (Joshua) will "circumcise the people".

The (mortal) "flesh" will be removed, and we will have new immortal spiritual bodies.

THEN we will celebrate THE Passover with Christ, in His Father's Kingdom.

 

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

Incorrect!  

 

That is not the reason according to the history of Abraham, Sarah & Hagar and the sons that came from these two women as found in the book of Genesis.

[Robert]

Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, (NRS)

 

In this passage, it seems that "righteousness" was "reckoned" to any man who was circumcised. 

 

 

Then you didn't read Paul....Paul tells us that Abraham was justified by faith while still uncircumcised.  His circumcision did not add to his justification by faith (as in faith + works).  His circumcision was a sign of what he had already received.

 

The same with the Sabbath. The Sabbath doesn't save.  We have salvation "in Christ" through faith.  Hence justification by faith.  The seal of justification by faith is the Sabbath, but that's another subject. 

[Ron Amnsn]

 Paul NEVER says "the circumcision of the Pharisees avails nothing."     He just says "circumcision . . . avails nothing."

 

That's true.  However, each time Paul was writing about a specific context.  If it was Pharisees or the Circumcision party that had been disturbing the Gentile believers with their teachings, the context that Paul was responding to would be about the man-made proselyte traditions of "oral law".

 

Since we don't know the specific situation that Paul was writing about, it would be rather irresponsible to assume that Paul was saying something that would turn his other claims and statements into lies and would condemn his own circumcision of Timothy.

[Ron Amnsn]

    Both the circumcised and the uncircumcised must “walk in the steps of faith” as Abraham did.  They will be saved - in the SAME way - thru faith.

 

That's true.  But Abraham didn't stop with the very first step of following God-- getting "saved". Once a person is saved, they either continue to walk in the faithfulness that is integral to faith, or they don't.

 

Romans 2 was a written rebuke to Jews who were not keeping the Law they should have been keeping. Paul says that the Gentiles who were keeping the Law that the Jews should have been keeping were more righteous, even though they were not circumcised-- even if they were doing it by "instinct", rather than having been taught the Scriptures.  He doesn't say that those Gentiles should never be circumcised (as Timothy was circumcised) when they later learn what is in Scripture.

 

Paul says in verse 25, "For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law;"  That doesn't sound like Paul thought all kinds of circumcision were "nothing".

[Ron Amnsn]

    Philippians 3:2-3  “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,”

 

Paul warns against "the mutilation" - and by it he means physical circumcision (in order to become one of God's people).   

The Pharisees did not cut off more of "the flesh",  in their official approved circumcision, then Abraham did. 

It was the SAME procedure physically speaking.

So it seems from this verse, that Paul is warning against physical circumcision in general - not just the procedure done by the Pharisees.

 

The Pharisees just required more "education" in the law, and a vow to keep the Oral Torah laws before they would do it. 

 

So are you saying that Abraham mutilated the flesh of his sons and his male servants?  Are you saying that God instructed all of Abraham's descendents to mutilate the flesh of their sons and servants?  You seem to have a strange view of God. Jesus himself was circumcised as a baby (Luke 2:21).  If that circumcision mutilated the flesh of Jesus, how would Jesus be "without blemish"? Paul must have been talking about something else as "the mutilation".

 

The man-made traditions of the "oral law" actually did require that more cutting be done in certain circumstances than what Abraham did. If a Gentile man who was already circumcised with a non-Jewish circumcision (perhaps an Arab, or an American who was born when circumcision was routine for baby boys) wanted to go through the traditional proselyte process, the sages required that he be circumcised again.  That would be mutilation of the flesh, rather than cutting off the foreskin.  That is not what Abraham did.

[Ron Amnsn]

Rather than the life of the infant son, the LORD required a “blood” offering in the form of circumcision.  It was considered  a “blood sacrifice”. 

 

What you say seems contrary to what the Bible teaches. But I'm willing to learn. Where do you find this teaching in Scripture?

[Ron Amnsn]

 

Keep in mind Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first, five books of the OT).  In book of Genesis we have God's command for Abraham's descendants to be circumcised or they were to be cut off.   

 

Yes, the Law of Moses does require circumcision for the male descendants of Abraham and for their purchased servants.

 

However, the Pharisees in Acts 15:1 did not say, "according to the Law of Moses", or even "according to the Law", but rather "according to the custom prescribed by Moses".  They were appealing to tradition, not to Scripture.

[Ron Amnsn]

Paul never wrote anything about "two kinds of circumcision" - simple and Pharisaic.  In all his letters, doesn't it seem likely that he would have written something about continuing the "simple circumcision?  Instead - he wrote that "circumcision is nothing".  It really does NOT matter.

 

You're right, Paul never specifically said "there are two kinds of circumcision".  But if there was only one kind of circumcision then Paul has contradicted himself so much that we would have to question his his sanity.  He says in various places that circumcision is good, and he says it is bad, and he says it is nothing-- three different opinions about circumcision.

 

In this thread Rachel, you have stated that there are at least three kinds of circumcision-- the kind Abraham did, the kind the Pharisees tightly controlled for converts, and the kind done without hands.

 

Why would Paul need to say something about circumcision continuing?  When God gave circumcision to Abraham he said it was for all Abraham's descendants and their purchased servants.  That means it continues as long as the Israelites and the Ishmaelites continue to produce children.  This is written in the Scriptures from which Paul instructed the Gentiles.  Jesus said that not a stroke would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth pass away.  Circumcision is written in the Law with a number of strokes that haven't disappeared.  Paul claimed to be a follower of Jesus so we can expect that Paul's teachings will agree with Jesus teachings.  Do we need God to keep repeating himself?

 

By circumcising Timothy Paul showed us that circumcision continues.  That's quite clear.

[Ron Amnsn]

And just to be clear, Paul circumcised Timothy BECAUSE OF THE JEWS, not because circumcision was something required by God.  (Timothy was half Jewish.)

 

Are there not Jews around today?  Are there not half-Jews around today?  If it was good for Paul to appease Jews then, wouldn't it be a good thing for us to appease Jews today?  Is that the lesson Paul was teaching by circumcising Timothy? That really doesn't sound much like Paul.

 

Your interpretation of Timothy's circumcision contradicts some of the things you have often quoted from Paul.  Didn't Paul know that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek", so why would it make any difference whether there were Jews around, or whether Timothy was half Jewish?  Did Paul forget that "circumcision is nothing"?  According to your interpretation of the incident Paul apparently knew that circumcision was a way to appease Jews.  That's far from "nothing".  And you were recently quoting from Galatians 2 where Paul proclaimed in verse 5 that "not even for an hour did we yield in subjection" to Jews regarding circumcision.  So Paul is a hypocrite of the greatest magnitude. Or his writings need to be interpreted in the full context of the situation Paul was experiencing and addressing.

 

Do you really think that Paul would have done that to Timothy if God had never commanded Abraham's male descendents to have the foreskin cut off?  Would Paul also tattoo Timothy and/or stretch his earlobes if he were taking Timothy to a culture that expected men to be tattooed or have stretched earlobes?  Is that the real lesson in what Paul did?  I don't think so.

[Ron Amnsn]

So - we have to accept that Paul was NOT inspired, and was preaching heresy.  Or we have to accept that the whole system changed, when Christ fulfilled the ancient Tabernacle/sacrifice prophecy.  

 

You left out the valid option-- that we interpret Paul's writings in the full context in such a way that Paul doesn't contradict himself.

 

Where does Scripture speak about "the whole system changed"?  Seriously.  Where is that found?  Over and over the Scriptures say that God is faithful, that God is unchanging, that God's words do not pass away.  Yet in spite of that people seem to want "the whole system changed".   Where does God tell us in Scripture that the definition of righteousness has changed? 

 

We hear Christians preaching that "Christ is our righteousness."  Really?  Does that mean that we somehow wear a "Jesus costume" and that makes us look righteous in heaven, but here on earth we continue to routinely do things that Jesus would never do?  Shouldn't it mean that the kind of righteousness that Jesus lived is the kind of righteousness that is ours to live too?  The way Jesus lived was the way that God instructed the Israelites to live. There was no "whole system changed" between the Law of Moses and the life of Christ. They are the same.  The definition of Righteousness has not changed.  The new covenant says God will forgive sins, it doesn't say that he'll change the definition of sin so that what was disobedient before somehow becomes righteousness.

 

Where do we get the assumption that there was a "whole system change"?

[8thdaypriest]

That's true.  But Abraham didn't stop with the very first step of following God-- getting "saved". Once a person is saved, they either continue to walk in the faithfulness that is integral to faith, or they don't.

 

Romans 2 was a written rebuke to Jews who were not keeping the Law they should have been keeping. Paul says that the Gentiles who were keeping the Law that the Jews should have been keeping were more righteous, even though they were not circumcised-- even if they were doing it by "instinct", rather than having been taught the Scriptures.  He doesn't say that those Gentiles should never be circumcised (as Timothy was circumcised) when they later learn what is in Scripture.

 

Paul says in verse 25, "For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law;"  That doesn't sound like Paul thought all kinds of circumcision were "nothing".

Paul's point was that NO ONE - ever - actually KEPT the Law. 

 

And Timothy was not circumcised BECAUSE God wanted it.  He submitted to circumcision BECAUSE he would be traveling with Paul into areas with heavy Jewish presence.  They would use Timothy's uncircumcision to turn Jews against Paul.  The proof of this is Titus remaining uncircumcised. 

[8thdaypriest]

So Ron,

Today - in the United States at least, newborn infants are most often circumcised - usually on day one or two, before being sent home.  Does THIS physical circumcision COUNT ?  Would such a man later be admitted to the Temple court  (assuming the Temple is rebuilt)? 

[8thdaypriest]

You left out the valid option-- that we interpret Paul's writings in the full context in such a way that Paul doesn't contradict himself.

 

Where does Scripture speak about "the whole system changed"?  Seriously.  Where is that found?  Over and over the Scriptures say that God is faithful, that God is unchanging, that God's words do not pass away.  Yet in spite of that people seem to want "the whole system changed".   Where does God tell us in Scripture that the definition of righteousness has changed? 

 

We hear Christians preaching that "Christ is our righteousness."  Really?  Does that mean that we somehow wear a "Jesus costume" and that makes us look righteous in heaven, but here on earth we continue to routinely do things that Jesus would never do?  Shouldn't it mean that the kind of righteousness that Jesus lived is the kind of righteousness that is ours to live too?  The way Jesus lived was the way that God instructed the Israelites to live. There was no "whole system changed" between the Law of Moses and the life of Christ. They are the same.  The definition of Righteousness has not changed.  The new covenant says God will forgive sins, it doesn't say that he'll change the definition of sin so that what was disobedient before somehow becomes righteousness.

 

Where do we get the assumption that there was a "whole system change"?

I don't think I've ever said that "the whole system" was changed. 

I believe that the system of animal sacrifice, administered thru the Aaronic priesthood was "changed" (Heb. 7:12).

 

And I believe the entire priesthood was "changed".  The high priesthood of Christ was NOT simply added to that system. 

[8thdaypriest]

WHEN the entrance veil - 80 feet high, and 3 inches thick - with a glorious depiction of "the heavens" on it - was torn from top to bottom, by God the Father Himself,

THAT was the end of that system.    Jesus yelled it out.  "It is finished!" 

 

What God has done, cannot be undone.  Just because the Levites hung up a new veil, doesn't mean that veil is not STILL torn in the eyes of God. 

 

The Most Holy Place was dark and empty - no Ark, no Law, no glory - just like the heart of its rulers.

[8thdaypriest]

So are you saying that Abraham mutilated the flesh of his sons and his male servants?  Are you saying that God instructed all of Abraham's descendents to mutilate the flesh of their sons and servants?  You seem to have a strange view of God. Jesus himself was circumcised as a baby (Luke 2:21).  If that circumcision mutilated the flesh of Jesus, how would Jesus be "without blemish"? Paul must have been talking about something else as "the mutilation".

 

The man-made traditions of the "oral law" actually did require that more cutting be done in certain circumstances than what Abraham did. If a Gentile man who was already circumcised with a non-Jewish circumcision (perhaps an Arab, or an American who was born when circumcision was routine for baby boys) wanted to go through the traditional proselyte process, the sages required that he be circumcised again.  That would be mutilation of the flesh, rather than cutting off the foreskin.  That is not what Abraham did.

What WAS a "sign of righteousness" before Christ came to circumcise us, BECAME "nothing" but a "mutilation" of the flesh AFTER Christ replaced that physical rite with His own circumcision of our heart and (one day soon) circumcision of our flesh. 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

You have stated your reasons for YOUR INTERPRETATION of Paul's writing,

and I have shared mine - concerning circumcision. 

 

Can we get back to the "yoke of bondage" ? 

What WAS it - in your opinion? 

[8thdaypriest]

Thought occurred to me:

 

Is physical circumcision (or lack of it) a salvational issue?

 

Seems it WAS for Abraham and his "chosen" descendants.  Anyone not circumcised would be "cut off" from the chosen people.

 

No man could eat of the Passover - without physical circumcision.

 

No man can enter the Temple Court - without it.

 

Entry into the coming Temple seen by Ezekiel, will REQUIRE circumcision.

 

So THAT kinda makes it a salvational issue.  Right?

 

But - Christ IS our Passover.

And we partake of HIM, when we eat the bread and drink the wine. 

 

And Heaven is the "true Tabernacle". 

 

Thousands of men have believed, over thousands of years - without being physically circumcised.

 

Are you saying that these men will need to submit to physical circumcision BEFORE they can eat the Passover with Christ in the Kingdom, or enter Ezekiel's Temple, or even enter Heaven itself ?

 

THAT WOULD MAKE IT A SALVATIONAL ISSUE. 

 

To him who knows to do right, and does not do it - to him it is sin.

So you are saying that circumcision is "doing right",  and is God's will,

and not to do it would then be sin - IF the person understands that this is God's will. 

 

Do men need to ask forgiveness for NOT being physically circumcised?

[Robert]

why was Abraham given circumcision in the first place?

[8thdaypriest]

 

 

I'm thinking you probably have an opinion on this.

[8thdaypriest]

During the period from Abraham to Christ, physical circumcision was "the seal".

 

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith"  (Rom 4:11 KJV)

 

Since Christ, the anointing of the Spirit is now the seal.

 

"When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Eph 1:13 NIV)

[Robert]

I'm thinking you probably have an opinion on this.

Not an opinion, fact.

[Robert]

Circumcision, as given to Abraham, was an everlasting covenant between God and Israel (Abraham's descendants).  The problem is the Jews perverted circumcision and made it into something it wasn't.

 

Again, why did God give circumcision to Abraham?  If you read the story of Abraham you will know the answer....

[Ron Amnsn]

 

The Pharisees from Jerusalem weren't going to KILL Peter for eating with Gentiles.  They WOULD kill an uncircumcised man who tried to enter the Temple Court (to offer a sacrifice).  And they persecuted Paul for teaching that circumcision was "nothing".

 

I don't see how your answer is relevant to the situation I asked about. 

 

Paul and Timothy were in the province of Galatia in what is now south-central Turkey.  They were not near the Temple in Jerusalem so there was no danger of Timothy (or Paul) being killed for entering the Temple uncircumcised.  That would have been a danger with Titus who traveled to Jerusalem with Paul in Galatians 2, but we aren't told that Paul circumcised Titus.  In Acts 21 Paul was falsely accused by the mob of bringing Trophimus the Ephesian into the Temple, so that danger was real when Paul was in Jerusalem.  But Timothy was more than 300 miles (by air) from Jerusalem and wasn't planning to travel to Jerusalem.

 

If Paul circumcised Timothy to avoid persecution by the Jews, then he was doing something very similar to what Peter was rebuked by Paul for doing in Galatians 2.

 

There must be some other difference between what Paul did and what he rebuked Peter for doing.

[Robert]

The story of Abraham:

 

The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people, and your father’s household and go the land I will show you.  I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you.  I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”  So Abram left, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him.  Abram was 75 years old when he set out from Haran.

 

God comes to Abraham and says, “Look, I want you to leave your family, your country to the land I will give you.  I will make you into a great nation, and in you, Abraham, I will bless the whole world.”  That was the promise of salvation to Abraham.  And, of course, John 8:56 tells us that:

 

Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.

 

How old was Abraham when the promise was made?  He was 75 years old, Genesis 12:4 makes it clear.  But he had no children.  How could God bless the world, how could God make him a great nation when he had not even one son?  So God promises him a son.  In that promise was a son.

 

Eight years went by.  Now it takes human beings nine months to produce a child.  But now eight years went by and no son had come.  So in chapter 15 of Genesis, Abraham’s faith begins to dwindle.  It begins to waiver.  And God says to Abraham, “Why are you fearful?”   (which, in the Hebrew language, means, “Why are you doubting my promise?”).

 

Abraham said, “God, it’s because you have not kept your promise.  The only son I have in my household (which to the Jew was the extended family) is this boy of Eliezer my slave.  Is he the promised son?”

 

And God said, “No.  The son I promised you will come out from your loins.”  And he took him for a walk.  When you have problems with God, go for a walk with him.  God said, “Abraham, look at the stars.”  Of course, in the Middle East, it doesn’t rain very much, and we have many clear skies.  And God said, “Count the stars.”

 

Abraham said, “Lord, even if I had a Ph.D.  in computer science, impossible.”             

 

“That is how many children you have,” said God to Abraham. And there you have that famous statement that Paul loves, that he quotes more than once in the New Testament, Genesis 15:

 

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

 

There was no evidence.  He didn’t have even one son, but he believed God that he would have millions of children, when he had, in actual fact, not even one child.  That is faith.

 

Two years later, chapter 16 of Genesis, Sarah comes to Abraham, “Yes, you are depending on God, but I think what God expects is for you to do your part.  And since you, Abraham, cannot produce a child through me, I will give you permission to go to my slave woman, and produce a child.”  Which was a common practice in those days.  Surrogate motherhood is not something new; the method is new, but the system is not new.

 

Abraham said, “Yes, Sarah, I think you are right.” Because now it is ten years, because as I read verse 3 and verse 16 of chapter 16 of Genesis, I discover that he is 85 years old when Sarah comes up to him, and he’s 86 years old when Ishmael is born.

 

Ten years after the promise, Abraham commits an act of unbelief. He is not trying to be bad or sinful, he’s trying to help God to keep His promise.  That’s all he’s doing.  So Abraham says to God, “Here is your promised son.”

 

And God says, “Nothing doing.”

 

Do you know how long God waited after that?  Fourteen more years.  Talk about patience! God waited 14 more years after that incident.  Going to the next chapter, chapter 17, now Abraham is 99 years old — that’s 14 years later — and God says something to Abraham.  I want you to notice what He says.  This is one text I want to read, Genesis 17:1, because we hear this word very often, but we use it in the wrong context, so I want you to look at this word in the right context.  You will notice it’s part and parcel of the wonderful truth of justification, or righteousness by faith.  Please notice his name.  He is not yet Abraham, he is Abram.  It is only after circumcision that he is called Abraham.  Genesis 17:1:

 

When Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless....”

 

Blameless in performance, or blameless in faith?  That’s the issue.  Righteousness, whether imputed or imparted, is God’s part.  My part, from beginning to end, is faith.  God is saying to Abraham, “Your faith has not been matured, it has not yet reached perfection.  I want you to be perfect in your faith.”

 

Abraham said, “What must I do to be perfect?”

 

“I want you to be circumcised.  Remove all doubt.  Remove unbelief.”  That’s the meaning of circumcision.  And so in verse 9, 10, and 11, God gave him the covenant of circumcision, as a token.  You’ll find that word, “token” (or “sign”) in verse 10.  Genesis 17:10-11:

 

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep:  Every male among you shall be circumcised.  You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign

[the King James version uses the word “token”] 

of the covenent between me and you.

 

In other words, “From now onwards, Abraham, it is by faith alone that you must walk.”