However, the “circumcision” covenant is a “forever” command (Genesis 17:7-14, Exodus 12:48-51); and so if a man refuses to become circumcised, after becoming aware that it is a sign, then who is he really worshiping? Naturally, the “heart circumcision” must come first as it was with Avraham (Romans 4:11)…It comes the moment we realize that YHWH is the Creator of the Universe and that He sent His divine Son to teach mankind face-to-face and then he martyred himself on our behalf.
Circumcision was to be the permanent sign of the everlasting covenant with Abraham and his
male descendants and is known as the brit milah. We learn in scriptures such as
Exodus 12:48-50, Numbers 15:13-16 and 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 that all who accept
YHWH must do as "His" people do - which means that Gentile men who
accept Him as their God must also be circumcised when their heart is fully committed to YWHW.
Acts 15: 24. We have heard that some men from us went out and confused you with words and have agitated your souls, saying that, You should be circumcised and guard the religious customs,[1] Something that we did not command them. 25. Because of this, we deliberated, all of us, after we gathered together and we chose men and sent them to you with our beloved Paul and Bar-Naba, 26. men who have committed their souls for the sake of the Name of our Master Y’shua the Mashiyach. (AENT)
FOOTNOTE: The word namusa generally means “Torah” but by context of usage may also mean “custom.” When namusa stands alone in a sentence it usually means Torah. Jeremiah 9 specifically says that circumcision in the flesh (because it is a local custom in Edom, Moab, Egypt) does not satisfy Covenantal obligation with YHWH; moreover, circumcision in the flesh alone profits nothing. Unless a person plans to live an upright life to establish his circumcision, it is an effort in futility. Awraham was circumcised at age 99 after receiving the commandment directly from YHWH; therefore, each adult also must first be called and agree to enter into Covenant with YHWH.
The Shlichim/Apostles did not require or demand circumcision for new converts without first the study-faith context and intent of the heart. To be circumcised before having FAITH in YHWH was contrary to the halakha (way to walk) of Y’shua and the Netzarim, but not contrary to the Oral Law and customs of the Pharisees. New converts to Y’shua from the sect of the Pharisees were attempting to bring their customs into the Body of Mashiyach, which was and is unacceptable.
Acts 15: 24. We have heard that some men from us went out and confused you with words and have agitated your souls, saying that, You should be circumcised and guard the religious customs,[1] Something that we did not command them. 25. Because of this, we deliberated, all of us, after we gathered together and we chose men and sent them to you with our beloved Paul and Bar-Naba, 26. men who have committed their souls for the sake of the Name of our Master Y’shua the Mashiyach. (AENT)
FOOTNOTE: The word namusa generally means “Torah” but by context of usage may also mean “custom.” When namusa stands alone in a sentence it usually means Torah. Jeremiah 9 specifically says that circumcision in the flesh (because it is a local custom in Edom, Moab, Egypt) does not satisfy Covenantal obligation with YHWH; moreover, circumcision in the flesh alone profits nothing. Unless a person plans to live an upright life to establish his circumcision, it is an effort in futility. Awraham was circumcised at age 99 after receiving the commandment directly from YHWH; therefore, each adult also must first be called and agree to enter into Covenant with YHWH.
The Shlichim/Apostles did not require or demand circumcision for new converts without first the study-faith context and intent of the heart. To be circumcised before having FAITH in YHWH was contrary to the halakha (way to walk) of Y’shua and the Netzarim, but not contrary to the Oral Law and customs of the Pharisees. New converts to Y’shua from the sect of the Pharisees were attempting to bring their customs into the Body of Mashiyach, which was and is unacceptable.
Many
will insist that circumcision was only for the Jews. Says who?
Since we are “one in Messiah” (Romans 2:5, Galatians 3:28) and YHWH
commanded ALL who accepted Him to be Torah observant (Numbers 15:13-16). That didn’t change with the death of Yeshua!
Numbers 15: 13 "'Every citizen is to do these
things in this way when presenting an offering made by fire as a fragrant aroma
for ADONAI. 14 If a foreigner stays with you - or whoever may be with you,
through all your generations - and he wants to bring an offering made by fire
as a fragrant aroma for ADONAI, he is to do the same as you. 15 For this
community there will be the same law for you as for the foreigner living with
you; this is a permanent regulation through all your generations; the foreigner
is to be treated the same way before ADONAI as yourselves. 16 The same Torah
and standard of judgment will apply to both you and the foreigner living with
you.'"
Please re-read the above in case you missed it: Any
Torah-less non-Jew/Hebrew/Israelite who does not yet believe in the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is an "alien"/foreigner. However, if they do
wish to accept Him, then they are to do exactly as those who are already
belong to Him!
"Living among" means not necessarily physically, but
rather, it refers to all those who have accepted the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. They MUST be Torah observant, just like the Houses of Israel and
Judah were with whom God made His New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32)!
Romans 10: 12. And in this, it discriminates
neither Jews nor Gentiles. For there is one, Master YHWH, over them
all, who is abundantly generous towards every one that calls on him. 13. For
everyone that will call on the name of Master YHWH, will have life.
Would it be a sin to try and restore foreskin after being circumcised? I feel like, and I could be wrong, but circumcision in Biblical times wasn't as harmful as it is today because it was just a snip of foreskin where as circumcision today takes most of the foreskin off.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! Time out! You have posed two completely separate issues here! 1st, there is "What is 'circumcision' by the scriptural meaning?", and the 2nd is "Does the modern circumcision go beyond scripture?". Then you actually posed a 3rd issue: "And does the 'more complete' modern circumcision need to be 'reversed' and would it be a sin to do so?" Zowie! Chill! Don't do anything rash!
ReplyDeleteLet's get to some common ground: I don't have the space here to be thorough, but the "Brit Milah" is the Biblical circumcision. At the risk of being inaccurate, the "foreskin" consists of the "prepuce" which extends beyond the glans of the penis (inner prepuce), and the foreskin of the prepuce which is in contact with the glans (outer prepuce). A Biblical circumcision removes only the part of the prepuce which extends beyond the glans, while a modern circumcision remove all the prepuce. The issue of circumcision is not that one is more harmful or the other, rather, it is whether the circumcision was done for God or not!
Many of us, born in the 1950's and 1960's were circumcised due to the prevailing medical preference, and all the foreskin was removed. While this is beyond the scriptural circumcision, those of us who grew up recognizing we were circumcised means we were circumcised! Beyond that, it is up to us to recognize it as the blessing it is! This is true whether we were circumcised by inner prepuce alone or by the outer prepuce which removed the whole foreskin.
But "reversing" or "restoring" the foreskin is actually impossible! The foreskin which was removed contained sensitive tissue which cannot be restored. That means that any restoration is cosmetic only and completely unnecessary.
So would it be a sin to "restore" a circumcision? Well: "Yes and No!" Yes, it would be a sin (if the man is a believer) to restore a circumcision to attempt to restore the "natural" appearance. After all, once the circumcision was reversed, the believing male is no longer circumcised so the scriptural circumcision is once again required! But, "No", if only the outer prepuce was being restored, leaving the penis in the same condition that it would have been in if only a scriptural circumcision had been done. But why do that? Absolutely nothing is gained!
The bottom line is that if the man is circumcised, he is circumcised. It matters not if it was "scriptural" or "modern". The important factor is what the man does next. Does he recognize his blessing an grow in obedience to YHWH, or does he bow to society and try to "reverse" the circumcision to look like his godless buddies? What he does speaks volumes about whom he serves.