Should Gentiles Also Be Circumcised Along With The Jews?

We had a Messianic Jew in church this morning who told me after the worship service that Gentiles should also be circumcised.

Do you agree with her statement?

Why, or why not?

Was she circumcised?
_____________________

Why did you ask such a question when you know very well that she and I both were referring to males?

No. Paul explains the following in Gal 4.

The whole law was expressed in types and shadows like object lessons or toys given to small children who were not able to comprehend adults concept. The Israelites refused to hear the voice of the Lord(the Holy Spirit) for themselves when they got at Mt Sinai at Pentecost.(Ex 20:19) They wanted Moses to hear the voice of the Lord for them. The problem is without the Spirit you cannot understand spiritual things (1Co 2:14). The Lord knew that, so He gave them the law in the form of symbolism(playing toys -- object lessons) that would eventually teach them spiritual concept.

Circumcision was always of the heart and was never about the flesh from the beginning. Moses even said so twice in the law that it pointed to the heart circumcision. So for any individual that still requires the physical circumcision; this is a strong indication that they have not received the Spirit as their tutors(have not entered the Pentecost level of spiritual growth) and still cannot see or understand beyond the LETTER of the Law.

Many SDAs who keeps the feasts clearly demonstrate the same phenomena. Even when showing them the meaning of the types and shadow, they are very stuck and can only read and see the Letter of the Law. Even the SDAs who don't keep the feasts shows the same phenomena when they argue in the level with the LETTER of the Law concerning woman ordination. They don't understand that woman and men in the Law are symbolism and types and shadows of spiritual realms in the plan of salvation.

So most Messianic Jews, most all other Jews, most SDA Feast keepers, most regular SDAs, most of all Christians,.... all have the same problem the Israelites had that Paul talks about in Gal 4.

Can she pass the SEED?

Can a man receive the SEED?

I agree with Elle, at least on most points. It's important to look at both the origin of circumcision and at the decision of the early church to not require it of Gentiles.

As Paul explains in Romans 4 concerning Abraham-

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

There's more there on the subject, but that's the point I'm focusing on. Abraham was called righteous while he was uncircumcised, therefor it is not necessary for faith or righteousness.

His circumcision is then called a "...sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised..." (Rom 4:11) This was a sign, but it was not itself his faith.

Apparently this issue came up in Acts 15 and the decision was made that the Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised.

Read especially Acts 15:23-31.

No, I don't necessarily agree (depending on definitions). I'm circumcised. At this point in my experience and understanding, I would not choose to require anyone to be physically circumcised. It has been a standing tradition among Jews and Adventists, and I don't know what other groups may maintain the practice, but it is not a biblical requirement--that is, as long as we are speaking of circumcision of the foreskin, not circumcision of the heart. However, I have no strong feeling about whether or not a child nowadays should be circumcised. The entire topic is hotly debated, even in the scientific community, with many assertions being made for the health benefits of circumcision. If it is true that it can be more healthful, why not? But just as such things as meat-eating (the clean meats) were never to be a test of fellowship, so circumcision is no longer a test of fellowship.

The Bible does weigh in sufficiently on the topic. The Jew in question may not consider the New Testament to be scripture, in which case the following may not be sufficient evidence for her.

Faith provides justification independent of circumcision:



Circumcision is nothing, we are to keep God's commandments:



How to become uncircumcised:



If the "circumcision" required of us now were the literal foreskin variety, it would be difficult to understand the meaning of these verses which indicate that a circumcised man could become uncircumcised. Considering the spiritual significance to the term, both men and women should be circumcised.

If it is this latter meaning that the Jewish lady had in mind, I agree with her. All of our membership should be circumcised.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, circumcism of the heart would be for both male and female.

Jesus fulfilled the law of circumcision.

That being true there are some men that as they age their foreskin becomes a problem and should be removed.

For other men, they never develop a problem and see no need to be circumcised.

And there is the health issue. Wives of uncircumcised men have a higher rate of some kinds of cervical cancers and disease. And I heard that the spread of HIV AIDS is slowed when the male population is circumcised.

Is it a health issue? religious issue? or not an issue at all?

Can you(or anyone) explain why it is so? Doesn't the law say men(only) to be circumcized? Is the law of circumcision nailed to the cross?

If we say that physical circumcision is not necessary(aside for health issues) in the NT, that Abraham was spiritually circumcized in the OT, and that both men and woman in the NT needs to be spiritually circumcized then shouldn't that apply to ALL LAWS?

Here's some laws below and it's application to men and woman in OT and NT. Do you agree with the following. If not why?

LAW REQUIRE............... MEN--> OT...NT .... WOMEN--> OT...NT
--------------------------....---------------------....-----------------------
Physical Circumcision.................YES..NO ..................No..NO
Spiritual Circumcision................YES..YES..................Yes..Yes

Phy. Priest(only Aaronic line).........Few..NO..................NO..NO
Spi. Priest (Melchisedek Order)......YES..YES..................YES..YES

Phy.*Levirate Duty...................YES..NO....................NO..NO
Spi.*Levirate Duty....................YES..YES..................YES..YES

*Levirate Duty to pass seed to dead childless elderly brother's wife

Elle,

"Male" circumcision was not just a "male" thing. It was a "God's people" thing. Note the language God used in presenting the requirement for the first time as part of His covenant with Abraham.



In the "among you" (which I underlined in the above), to whom does "you" refer? I think you would agree with me that "you" means all of God's people--those to whom He is giving this covenant agreement. The fact that only the males were to be circumcised is similar, perhaps, to the fact that the "kingdom of priests" which we encounter later on is a kingdom with a specific priesthood of the Aaronites. God's "kingdom" does not make every citizen have an equal role or responsibility.

However, in the case of circumcision of the flesh, unlike the priesthood, the women are much more affected in a direct way. Consider that all of the Israelite women would be marrying a circumcised man. The health benefits of circumcision are most often spoken of with respect to the woman, because she benefits more from it than he does. Cervical cancer is probably the biggest issue. (Note: I refuse to consider HIV transmission here, because I do not believe God asked His people to be circumcised so that they could engage in promiscuity with reduced risk. If one does not count HIV, most of the benefits of circumcision are for the woman.)


Again, note the "you" in the following.



Again, the "you" refers to all of God's people. In this passage, circumcision is required of everyone.

By the way, it was never a "Levirate Duty to pass seed to dead childless elderly brother's wife." If she were dead, he wasn't even supposed to touch her, much less pass any "seed" to her! (I know, I know...that's not how you meant it, right?!)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Originally Posted By: green

Consider that all of the Israelite women would be marrying a circumcised man. The health benefits of circumcision are most often spoken of with respect to the woman, because she benefits more from it than he does. Cervical cancer is probably the biggest issue. (Note: I refuse to consider HIV transmission here, because I do not believe God asked His people to be circumcised so that they could engage in promiscuity with reduced risk. If one does not count HIV, most of the benefits of circumcision are for the woman.)

NOTE - cervical cancer IS a sexually transmitted disease, caused by the human papilloma virus, HPV. Why would one not treat it as they do HIV? HPV is also behind cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, base of tongue and tonsils. Circumcision reduces HPV risks. It also reduces HIV, HSV-2 transmission and other STDs. The effects of circumcision are not limited to females only.

It is interesting that one would refuse to believe it was to lesson disease. What does that belief say about God's character? It is interesting that rarely is it asked WHY did God use circumcision as a sign. I believe that circumcision has a fundamental anchor in the sin problem.

APL,

It is not my belief, nor understanding based on the evidences I have encountered over the years, that cervical cancer is solely related to HPV. To say such a thing would be like saying liver cancer is solely related to drinking alcohol, or lung cancer is caused by smoking. Indeed, lung cancer is caused by smoking--but not only by smoking, as many non-smoking lung cancer victims would quickly attest.

Remember that vegans have a higher chance of cervical cancer than meat eaters? Why? Are they more promiscuous? Do vegans have higher rates of HPV? Your comments bring in a can of worms full of questions that you have not answered and may not wish to answer.

As for the question of why God covenanted with His people through circumcision, that is a very good question, and one worth more discussion here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

How many reference do you want?

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Which cancers are caused by HPVs?
Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV infections, with just two HPV types, 16 and 18, responsible for about 70 percent of all cases (5, 6). HPV also causes anal cancer, with about 85 percent of all cases caused by HPV-16. HPV types 16 and 18 have also been found to cause close to half of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers (7).

Most recently, HPV infections have been found to cause cancer of the oropharynx, which is the middle part of the throat including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils. In the United States, more than half of the cancers diagnosed in the oropharynx are linked to HPV-16 (8).

The incidence of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer has increased during the past 20 years, especially among men. It has been estimated that, by 2020, HPV will cause more oropharyngeal cancers than cervical cancers in the United States (9).

Other factors may increase the risk of developing cancer following a high-risk HPV infection. These other factors include the following:

• Smoking
• Having a weakened immune system
• Having many children (for increased risk of cervical cancer)
• Long-term oral contraceptive use (for increased risk of cervical cancer)
• Poor oral hygiene (for increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer)
• Chronic inflammation

The common thread - HPV infection.

http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and-healthy-living/hpv-and-cancer
Cervical cancer. Nearly all cervical cancers are caused by HPV infection. 

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/h...rls-should-know
HPV and Cervical Cancer
Certain HPV types are classified as "high-risk" because they lead to abnormal cell changes and can cause genital cancers: cervical cancer as well as cancer of the vulva, anus, and penis. In fact, researchers say that virtually all cervical cancers -- more than 99% -- are caused by these high-risk HPV viruses. The most common of the high-risk strains of HPV are types 16 and 18, which cause about 70% of all cervical cancers.

The weightier question on WHY God used circumcision is still unanswered.

True, I could have assumed she meant male circumcision,
or that you engaged her in conversation, but neither was stated.

You often pose questions without providing much context Daryl,
nor offering your own opinion on the matter.

For example, did she give a reason for her statement?..background, foundation..
Or why it pertained to Gentile men, not Gentile women, or all women?
Did she understand the subject matter?
Was her husband with her?

Is it appropriate for a woman to suggest this to a man,
unless related or married (Zipporah) to him? Even then?
(Seems a bit personal, or is it just doctrine?)

Would a man make a similar statement about (or to) Gentile women?

Does she view Adventists as Gentiles (heathen) when SDAs self-identify as the antitype of the Jews, the peculiar chosen people to share God's message(s), not as Gentiles?

It may have been an opportunity to discuss gender distinction,
W.O. and related matter.
______________________________

APL - good data, good question.
____________________

APL,

Your statistics come clouded by a conflict of interest on the part of the companies trying to market and monetize their HPV vaccine. Nevertheless, you're free to believe them.

I noticed that you did not take issue with the fact that circumcision is of benefit to women, perhaps even more so than to men.

When God puts a couple together, they are "one flesh." To me, that means something like circumcision is for them, as opposed to him. I tend to view ordination similarly. A pastor's wife is ordained with him to ministry. They are a team, and should work together. Those who have allowed their minds to drift to the pessimistic view of "unfairness" will get what they have asked for. We tend to see in life what we expect to see. If we look for unfairness, we will certainly find it. If women want to be circumcised in the flesh too, just to be "equal" with men, well....

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Have you ever taken a course in histology? IF you have, then you'd know what the tissue of the foreskin is like and no, it is not just for the woman.

Teams - are you a man, head over a widowed woman, or a single woman, or a divorced woman? Nope. And yet these women can still minister.

Unfairness - when people view death and destruction as ordained by god and performed by god, their whole world view changes, for it is a law of the mind that it is gradually adapted to the subjects upon it is trained to dwell.

HPV vaccine - have I advocated for it? Nope. This is because the vaccine only covers a few of the strains of HPV. Yes, those associated with worse disease, but still only a few. What is the best prevention? The 10C. Yet, many woman are abused, and if they get the diseases that HPV can give, it may not have been their sin that caused it, yet they still suffer. And it works the other way around too.

The weightier question on WHY God used circumcision is still unanswered.

APL,

It appears as if you try to blame men for everything. That's a very comfortable position to take these days, politically speaking. If men are so brutal in abusing women and causing them to suffer, do you see circumcision as a way of punishing them for it?

That is how your tone comes across to me. After all, wouldn't it be unfair for the men to be so abusive and nothing happen to them?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You must of not seen the “he” at the beginning of the verse.

17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you

So this text did not apply to everyone(male and female); but only applied to all the males among you.



No that text applied to the “house of Jacob” and “children of Israel”. It did not apply to the Aaronites line or it would of said so. You must of missed reading v. 3.

AV Ex 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles'wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


This does not answer the question.




Yes, I do agree in that text talk about everyone; however, this text talk about the spiritual circumcision, and not the physical that only applied to male gender.

I don't believe you have answered the question above.



True. Oh sorry! I didn’t expressed that well. But you know what I mean right? Why is it in the OT this law was necessary to be perform physically, and why today in the NT context it is not? The answer is the same with circumcision and other laws. Can you answer or anyone?

AV Dt 25:5 . If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

AV Gn 38:6 6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name [was] Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Elle,

I'm an English teacher. Of course I noticed the "he" along with the "you." You seem to still not have grasped the significance of the "you." "You" is everyone.

I think you also misunderstood what I was trying to say, or perhaps I didn't say it well. Only the males were circumcised, that is true. But this is what fulfilled the covenant for all of God's people, and not for the males only.

Remember what happened with Moses' son? Who circumcised him? Zipporah did. Zipporah was Moses' wife, a woman. Why was she involved at all, if circumcision only applied to males?

You see, circumcision was a matter of significance to all of God's people, not just to the males, even though only males were physically circumcised. As noted earlier, the "kingdom of priests" meant a kingdom which possessed priests. The priests were only select males, but they most certainly fulfilled the law for all of God's people, males and females alike, and not just for themselves only.

Buddhists have a similar concept. Families pressure their young men to serve for a time in the temple in order to "make merit" for the whole family, especially for the women who are not permitted to become monks. The women can only be helped through the representation of their menfolk.

Regarding the priests passing along seed to their brothers' childless widows, we have no Bible record for this. What we do have is the command that priests marry only a virgin. The command to pass seed along to such widows may have applied to everyone else, and not to the priests...unless you can find where exception from the command to take a wife in her virginity is made for priests whose brethren die childless.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Remember from the beginning I made my position known that I agree that physical circumcision is not required in NT and spiritual circumcison is necessary for both women and men.

Up to now you haven't given the answer that the Bible uses to explain why in the NT it is not required to keep that law physically but we are to keep it spiritually by which applies to all laws.




I never said it needed to be fulfilled by a priest.

AV Dt 25:5 . If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

AV Gn 38:6 6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name [was] Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Here the law specify to be a necessary DUTY (not an option) to be fulfil by a brother (or a close of kin as we see in the story of Ruth). So the focuss was to preserve the inheritance that went to the eldest son of the family who had passed away without an heir.

Jesus is going to fulfilled this law also. How?



We can go there, but after we answer the questions above with the Bible instead of logic.

You could admit you don't have an answer to the question without hiding behind an ad hominem attack and sweeping accusations which are not true.

The weightier question on WHY God used circumcision is still unanswered.

Elle,

I used the Bible example before making the comparison to Buddhists. But you skipped that as if it weren't there.

APL,

Where is the ad hominem? Look again at your earlier post, and try to see it as if for the first time, through someone else's eyes. You might just see a little better how it looked to me.

Perhaps we are all talking in our own corners, on different wavelengths.

To try to illustrate the representation that circumcision, or priesthood, or anything else might have had which involved a subset of the nation of Israel in place of every individual in that nation, let me look at another Biblical example: the twelve spies.

When the twelve spied out the land of Canaan, whom did they represent? Themselves? Or the twelve tribes of Israel? If we want to get technical, was Levi represented? Why or why not?

And another example: The priesthood. When the high priest brought the blood of atonement into the most holy place once a year, whom did he represent? Himself? The family of Aaron? The tribe of Levi? All of the tribes? All of the men? Every man, woman, and child of the nation of Israel? Why or why not?

Finally: When circumcision is mandated to a subset of the nation of Israel (males), whom do they represent? Themselves only? All people in the nation? Why or why not?

Let's answer this question first, as it appears to be a central part of the current discussion. If I'm mistaken about the symbolic application of circumcision being related to both men and women being an important part of the discussion, maybe I can just go back to my corner and let you all carry on....

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did I miss them? Anyone can explain anything with logic by extending some texts to what it really doesn't say. I don't see the text you provided say what you where explaining, nor any of them answered the question either.

If I miss them, could you point them back to me?

There are some texts provided in the Bible that is clear and adress the issue of the law in the OT vs in the NT. Hint....Paul provided the explanation in quite some details.

What he says about circumcision basically applies to all laws. But first let's find what reason he gives why we are not obligated to the physical or literal form of these laws in the OT. Are there exception to this rule? Let's have a clear biblical respond.

While some may argue some health benefits, I don't believe it was given as a health benefit. Who was the first circumcised and why? Wasn't it because he was trying to achieve righteousness by sex?

Imagine you were an Israelite, and you had your eye on a Canaanite woman. You know you are not to mix with them, but she so appeals to you anyway. Who go to her, disrobe, and she looks down at you and says, "Ah, I can see you are an Israelite". All you can do is stutter. And question what are you doing there!

To me, it is quite obvious, circumcision was a sign of separation, a mark of God's people, and to remind them of who and where they should be.

I agree that there is more that just immediate health issues. Greens claim that it is primarily for the woman in health is not correct, both male and female benefit. Do you believe that the foreskin was "original equipment"? Are thorns and thistles original equipment? Did the snake originally crawl on its belly? I agree that circumcision was a sign.

Well, Green makes lots of claims on lots of things. I didn't pay what he said much mind. What I found surprising was he thought there was a benefit to women. And yes, I had mainly thought it was a benefit to the guy. Who knows, maybe Green's right that God intended a benefit to women when they sin?

I'm not following you on the foreskin being original equipment. It sounded like your point was circumcision was not original equipment due to sin. I believe the foreskin is original equipment.

I don't think the foreskin is "original equipment". For the same reason that snakes go on their belly, that there are thorns and that child birth has changed. If it is original, then it is a strange symbol indeed and quite arbitrary. Or do you think it is not arbitrary, and if not, why not?

I think it is not arbitrary but specific for the "crime". What is your opinion of my thoughts above on post #168030?

Otherwise, do you think the foreskin came into being to cause men trouble?

The "crime" - perhaps you can clarify.
Yes - I think the foreskin came into being because of sin, just as thorns did, and a woman's travail in childbirth, and the snake crawling on its belly. By faith in Christ, we are saved from sin. Circumcision was given to be a sign of Abraham's faith. See {PP 138.1} Genesis 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. What is the covenant? Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

No question there are health benefits from circumcision, which would be interesting if the foreskin was original equipment. Where do you read righteousness by sex?

What that the purpose of having Abraham circumcised? He had already had righteousness by faith before circumcision. Was he trying to achieve righteousness by sex? I don't think so. True - it was a distinctive mark.

Removing the foreskin symbolized the virgin birth - God did not use the male anatomy for the incarnation of His Son.

And not a covenant of Abraham's own works.

Yes. Abraham thought God needed help and so he tried to achieve God's purpose by sex, to make a nation of himself. God said it wasn't to be by his works, but by his faith. He showed no faith by doing his own works. As a reminder against trying to work things out by his own doing, he received a distinctive mark. Which served as a token of the covenant between God and his people to remind them not to try to work out things by their own doing, but only by their faith in God.

Correct

Yes, circumcision is a sign of the Abraham covenant. Yes, he did try to fulfill the promise by his own works. But circumcision for Abraham was for the faith he had before Isaac. Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also: