Matt wrote:David Bowie (Icy) contacted James Tucker (of
http://www.biblicalexegesis.org/) on my behalf. J Tucker simply advised us that the pronoun "hu" is dependant on the grammatical gender not the biological gender of the object. Therefore depending on the form of the word "nephesh," the object (noun) in this case which is singular and feminine, will cause the verbs, pronouns, words-related-to-it to be conjugated into the same form as well. I am no Hebrew expert therefore believe these Hebrew speakers actually might know what they are talking about.
Tucker basically says: "...biological gender and grammatical gender aren't the same. Hebrew has two genders—Masculine and Feminine. Pronouns must agree with their antecedent in number and gender—although there are times when this doesn't occur, but other linguistic elements are at work (i.e., count nouns)." I think in other words, the verbs and pronouns are technically "gender-less" and both governed by the noun they are referring to, in this case "nephesh." And we know "nephesh" is referring to the person who is physically circumcised. Therefore "his people" would be the correct translation as we are speaking in English here and those speaking Hebrew would know it is a grammatical issue and not a biological issue. I speak Portuguese, which has similar grammatical rules, so I know what they are saying.
I’m not going to argue with his reasoning, his Hebrew is likely much stronger than my own, and I am ill equipped to debate this.
So accepting that, let’s say that soul shall be karat from its family, or his family. First I would say who is “his” family that one would really have to worry about being cut off from, your earthly family or your heavenly family.
Personally I find the next sentence to be the much more damning and worrisome one. My Covenant Relationship, my Beriyth he has parar, nullified, broke, violated thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought it to nothing, invalidated it and dissolved it.
There is but one Covenant in Scripture. We all benefit and are adopted into Yah’s family through that covenant, so to nullify and dissolve it is not advisable. There is no mention anywhere of a separate covenant between Abraham for the land. There is but One Covenant. Yahuweh didn’t say My Covenant Relationship for the land he has parar, he said My Covenant Relationship he has parar. There is no hint anywhere in Scripture of multiple covenants, unless I am missing something if so please show me. In the entire conversation establishing the Covenant the land is only mentioned once:
And ‘Abram existed as a son of ninety-nine years, and Yahuweh appeared as God to ‘Abram and said, ‘I Am God Almighty. Walk in My presence. Exist upright in accord with the truth, and I will give as a gift My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you. And I will cause you to increase and to thrive, multiplying your power and strength.’
Then ‘Abram fell in His presence, and God spoke to him, saying: ‘Here I Am, look at Me. I have a Covenant Relationship with you. And you shall be a father of exceedingly great Gentiles. No longer shall your name be called ‘Abram, but your proper and personal name shall exist as ‘Abraham. For I have given you the designation of father of the exceedingly great Gentiles. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful. And I will entrust you to the Gentiles and there will be kingdoms produced because of you. And I will stand up and establish My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you, and between Me and your offspring after you in their dwelling places and generations, for an eternal and everlasting Covenant Relationship, existing yesterday, today, and tomorrow on behalf of and according to God and your offspring after you And I give to you and to your offspring after you the land you are living in as a stranger, all of the land Canaan for an everlasting property to posses, and to them [your descendants] I will exist as their God.’
And God said to ‘Abraham, ‘And you shall observe My Covenant Relationship, and your offspring after you in their generations. This is My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you and between your offspring after you. Circumcise among you, every male. And you all will be circumcised of the flesh of your foreskin and it will exist specifically as the sign of the Covenant Relationship between me and between you. And circumcise a son of eight days among you, every male on behalf of your home, he who is born in the family and he who desires to be bought from all of the sons of foreign lands, he who relationally is not from your seed. Certainly must be circumcised he who is born in your family, and he who is bought with your silver, and My Covenant Relationship exists in your flesh to be a Covenant Relationship forever. And the uncircumcised male who relationally is not circumcised of the flesh of his foreskin, then that soul shall be cut off from Her/His/Its family, My Covenant Relationship he has nullified.’ The land was merely a benefit of the Covenant; it was not the focus of the covenant. And as I have already said, the Promised Land is continually used as a metaphor for heaven. Also notice that Yah said that ‘Abraham would be a father of exceedingly great Gentiles.
Speaking of uncircumcised males Yah has said, ‘My Covenant Relationship he has nullified. One cannot benefit from a nullified covenant. And since repeatedly he has said Circumcised of the flesh, including the reference to circumcision directly before, this cannot be talking of circumcision of the heart. This is not a Covenant only related to the Yahudi’s ownership of the land; it is not only for the physical descendants of Abraham. This is the one and only Covenant of Yahuweh with man, it is the way we become Yahuweh’s children. Yahuweh didn’t say this is my Covenant with you, and then latter say that he is creating a covenant with gentiles, there is but one Covenant. All who are in Yah’s family are Yahudi (those who belong to Yah), and are Yisraelites (those who strive with and struggle on behalf of God). Born a gentile I have been adopted into Yah’s family, I am Yahudi. Abraham was a gentile, until he entered the covenant with Yahweh. If this covenant is only with ‘Abraham, and his physical descendants, then we are all in trouble, because there is no other Covenant in Scripture.
Matt wrote:In your translation of Genesis 23:9 you have translated it as "he" not "her" when if using the same reasoning as you stated it would be "her," but then it would not make sense.
I just looked over Gen 23:9 again, and hu appears three times in the verse, twice in the masculine and once in the feminine. The two times it appears in the masculine, I translated it as him and he, and when it appeared in the feminine it was in relation to the land, so I translated it as it, although I had mentioned in footnotes elsewhere in the document that when speaking of the land, it is usually in the feminine, and could also accurately be translated as her. But each time I translated hu as he or him in this verse it was in the masculine and not feminine.
Matt wrote:So, if we are going to apply a spiritual application to the verse, that we are going to be cut off from our family (God's family of spiritual children), then we have to apply a spiritual application to the first part of the passage as well, that circumcision must be of the heart and we must be bought by Yahshua's sacrifice, His blood.
That is flawed reasoning Matt. The first part does not leave any room for spiritualizing as it says of the flesh. God tells us that being cut off from our family is not something we should worry about, he tells us it will happen, it is being cut off from His family that we should be worried about.
Matt wrote:Of course, if you want to physically partake of Passover in the place God chooses (Deuteronomy 16:2,5-8) then circumcision is a must. It is not that I do not want to physically partake of it, no, but rather because we are unable to.
To me the message seems to be you cannot participate in the Passover unless you are participating in the covenant, and you cannot participate in the covenant unless you are circumcised.
Does the fact that you are not able to offer an unblemished lamb at the temple in complete accord with the Torah stop you from commemorating it anyway? Does it mean we can or should ignore it?
Matt wrote:Also, people like to quote Matthew 5:17-20 in order to push the notion that we have to be physically circumcised to be saved; however, I would like to point out that we need to read the whole Sermon on the Mount in order to understand what exactly He was taking about. And that was our inner attitude, our character and treatment of others, the loftier matters of Torah and the Prophets. In other words bringing the Torah into our hearts.
Yes he does speak of understanding and attitude, but he also talks of doing. And understanding does not negate doing. We understand by doing, can you do it for the wrong reason, and not understand it, YES, but just because you understand what it means doesn’t mean you are free to ignore doing it. Yahushua spoke often of keeping His commandments. He spoke often of understanding them as well, largely because the audience to whom he was speaking really didn’t have a problem with doing; they were just doing for the wrong reason. It’s like Ya’qob spoke of trust and works going hand in hand, the Yahudi of Yahushua’s time had come to rely on works, and forgotten about trust, it seems today that we have moved to the opposite where people proclaim faith, but ignore works. Both are essential, we show our Trust through our works, by obeying what He has asked us.
Matt wrote:Will God honour one's circumcision if it was not done in honour of him? How can we say, "Phew, glad I was circumcised as a tot" and assume God accepts it? Take for example that not too long ago our parents were having their children circumcised because they thought it prevented masturbation as they had a negative attitude towards sex.
Since this issue has shown up so many times, I decided to ask my dad, why he circumcised me. He gave me a really straight forward answer, ‘The bible says to.’
Now does that mean that it was done in honor to Yahuweh, well my father was raised Roman Catholic, but is more non-denominational, and non-practicing than anything. So I don’t know.
I can’t control why I was circumcised, no one done as a child can, what I can control is what I take from it, and how I let it affect me. I can still come to understand its importance, and uses it as a sign to remind me. And I can still follow what Yahuweh has asked, and circumcise my sons when they are born, and they will have no say in it, but I will teach them what it means and why it was done.
Also while looking into this particular challenge; several things have occurred to me. In Joshua we are told that while those who were born in the wilderness where not circumcised, that all those who came out of Egypt were. Since none of them knew Yahuweh or had a relationship with Him, it is unlikely that they were circumcised in honor of Yah, most likely they were circumcised out of habit. Since Yah never said that they had to be circumcised again, Joshua 5:2 does not include “a second time” in the DSS. So the reason it was done doesn’t seem to matter there. Josiah grew up never having read Towrah, so was likely not circumcised in honor of Yah, but again out of tradition. Yah never told him to be circumcised again, so again it doesn’t seem to matter. Yahushua’s disciples were raised in a culture of rabbinical/pharisetical Judaism, so again not likely done in honor of Yah, and they were never asked to be circumcised again. As I said we they/we cannot control why were circumcised, we can only control how we view and understand it, and that seems to be enough for Yah. Those who are not are blessed in that they can choose to do it, in honor of Yahuweh.
Matt wrote:1) Job, Abraham's contemporary, was a Gentile who was never asked to do the things Abraham was, yet was highly praised by God.
Little is known about who Job, so anything is speculation. We have no idea what happened, or what he did prior to the story told in Job.
Matt wrote:2) Circumcising one's children separates the rite of circumcision from free-will, therefore it only establishes citizenship of Israel and not spiritual destiny. Circumcision does not make someone righteous.
The second part of this is a straw man, no one has said that circumcision makes one righteous.
The first part is a logical fallacy; A does not lead to B. There is free will in circumcision. There are two ways circumcision is described. The first is the parent using there free will obeys Yah and circumcises their child, but when that is not done Yah has provisions for adults who can use their free will to be circumcised. Since being circumcised does not force one into the covenant, one must still make that choice; free will is always in play. Also, citizenship is never mentioned, it is all about participation in the covenant.
Matt wrote:3) Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant not long after his circumcision. Again meaning that the rite itself does not establish one's destiny.
A Straw Man. No one has said that circumcision is sufficient. It is necessary but not sufficient.
Matt wrote:4) In Acts 10 Peter realised that the new Gentile believers should be baptised to confirm their new status as eternally living believers because it was in likeness of the burial and resurrection of Yahshua. Circumcising them would only identify them with Israel, when in fact they were not Israelites.
Acts is a record of the Acts of the Apostles, not Scripture. It is a history of what men did. Where these men in a position of great knowledge and experience, yes, but they were flawed men none the less. Peter was wrong before this, so we have no reason to think him perfect here. Also that is an extrapolation, not a statement made by Peter.
A loving Father who adopts children into his home makes no distinction between the adopted and the natural born. He loves both the same, and both have the same rules.
Matt wrote: So where is the command that says I must be circumcised regardless?
See the Genesis verse above. An uncircumcised man who is not circumcised of the flesh has nullified Yah’s Covenant Relationship. If this Covenant only applies to the physical descendant of Abraham, then all of us Gentiles are in trouble, as it is the only Covenant Yahuweh has. Circumcise a son of eight days among you, every male on behalf of your home, he who is born in the family and he who desires to be bought from all of the sons of foreign lands, he who relationally is not from your seed. All of us gentiles are a part of Yahuweh’s family because we were bought by a descendant of Abraham.
Matt wrote: Remember the topic: is circumcision a prerequisite for salvation?
It seems to me that this is only true by extension. As I understand it circumcision is a prerequisite for participation in the covenant. But since salvation is a benefit of the Covenant one cannot be saved if they are not within the Covenant Relationship.
Noel wrote: 'The Happen To Have Been Circumcised Brigade' may not only be missing the point, they may be helping others to miss the point as well. Consider the following
How can a circumcised and pork averse person imagine that they are okay and well within the precepts of the Torah when (for example) they are prepared to let a tsunaumi of sewage into their houses each day by absorbing the spiritual, moral, criminal, sexual, and anti-God output of their televisions. Even at it's most benign, these circumcised (and therefore OK with Yah folk) are happy to waste vast amounts of their lives watching completely unprofitable things such as sporting activities, soap operas and animations along with the idol worship of the celebrities and participants which inevitably follows. And this being frequently punctuated of course by mind altering advertisements to modify their behavior for the commercial benefit of others. And they are prepared to let their children do likewise, probably the most damaging thing you can do for your offspring. I am sure many here would not fit this description, but I am prepared to bet that there are also many who do
Please, any of you who fit this category either in whole, or in part, cease pointing the finger at those who happen to live in countries where circumcision is not the norm, does not happen automatically like it does where you are, and consider that maybe there are areas in your lives which themselves could do with a bit of cutting back. Yah tells us to set no evil thing before our eyes, and to teach his precepts to our children. I am sure if TV was as widely watched by the Jews in the dessert, then maybe Yah would have mentioned this aspect of life in the Torah. The average US citizen takes in between 25 and 30 hours each week of it.
The usual response to this, I find is from those who say 'well I only watch the news, and nature programes'
Oh Phull-eeze.
I do not say this from a point of view of 'Holier than thou', as I am probably the worst sinner on this forum. But I cannot put up with 'religiosity' from persons who may have got the wrong grip on reality, too heavy on ritual and too light on the disciplines within their own lives.
Noel, this is not only a straw man, but a non sequitur. No one has said all you have to do is be circumcised and then everything else is fine, no one, not one person here has said it. No one has said be circumcised and then go do whatever you want. This would be as if I took what you wrote and said that your argument was that as long as we don’t watch the crap on TV we are fine with Yah, and don’t need to listen to everything else he has said. That is not the point you are making, and it would be dishonest of me to say it was. This thread is about the topic of circumcision, there are other threads dedicated to other commandments of Yah, and other precepts, but this thread is to discuss circumcision, not in exclusion to everything else, but in inclusion of everything else.
The point being made by myself and others is that we should try in every way possible to follow Yahuweh’s instructions. The reason circumcision it is being stressed, at least by me, so much is because at least to some of us it appears that to Yah it is an exclusionary ordinance. When Yahuweh says that a man who is uncircumcised of the flesh has nullified His Covenant, it makes it come across as a pretty important issue in my opinion.
But again, and I will state this in all caps so as to stress it. CIRCUMCISION IS NOT SUFFCIENT, IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, NOT EVERYONE WHO IS CIRCUMCISED IS SAVED. There can we stop this now, this is one area where we all agree, circumcision is not sufficient for salvation.