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?