Covenant of Circumsision, eternal?

[Deacon_Joseph]

In the book of Deuteronomy, isn’t it mentioned that the covenant of circumsision is to be eternal? And wasn’t that why Peter was arguing with Paul in the Book of Acts that all converts should be circumcised?

 

[ryankeith77]

I’m not theologan, but…

The principle of circumcision is adoption into the family of God. For Jews of the New Covenent, and all peoples for that matter, the promise of eternal adoption and the fufillment of circumcision is baptism.
Jesus comes to fufill the law- filling in the gaps for us- in regards to circumcision, baptism is the fufillment of that entry into the family of God, the Church. It is an eternal fufillment and an everlasting sign of God’s promises to “those who love Him.”
I’m probably completely missing your point.

 

[paarsurrey]

In the book of Deuteronomy, isn’t it mentioned that the covenant of circumsision is to be eternal? And wasn’t that why Peter was arguing with Paul in the Book of Acts that all converts should be circumcised?

Hi
yes, it was eternal, only Paul changed it without, to me, any clear authority of JesusYeshuaIssa.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

 

[LilyM]

Jesus’ command is clear enough to me. Among the commissions he gives to his disciples is to baptise others - there is nowhere any command to circumcise. And he does speak of a ‘new covenant’. Clearly if circumcision is the sign of the old covenant with Abraham, the same sign is unnecessary in the new.

And Jesus himself had many and friendly dealings with, for example, the pagan Roman centurion whose servant he healed. This man was uncircumcised, but Jesus certainly treats him as fully as righteous as any circumcised man.

 

[under_the_dome]

Jesus’ command is clear enough to me. Among the commissions he gives to his disciples is to baptise others - there is nowhere any command to circumcise. And he does speak of a ‘new covenant’. Clearly if circumcision is the sign of the old covenant with Abraham, the same sign is unnecessary in the new.

Agreed.

The “covenant” with Abraham that figures so prominently in the Old Testament is important insofar as it is a permanent, earthly sign of bondage between the descendants of Abraham (the heirs of the covenant) and God, who is eternal. In becoming circumcised, one was entering into the same covenant of obedience that Abraham made, while at the same time claiming the same blessing that God promised to him.

The ultimate realization of this covenant, up until the Crucifixion, is the Akedah (Sacrifice of Isaac) in Genesis 22. That is the moment when the covenant between God and Abraham was sealed in blood (that of the son, Isaac), and was made lasting for all time.

In Christ, however, a new covenant is formed. Christ, a child of both God *and *Israel, makes it with all of humanity, that all who follow him will receive eternal life. So, the covenant of the Old Testament is abrogated by that of the New, and salvation history continues unbroken as the promises made to Abraham are extended to *all *people, throughout all of time (i.e., eternally).

The best commentary on this relationship, between the old and new covenants, is found in Jon D. Levenson’s Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. It is not for everyone, as the first half discusses a lot of midrash, however the chapters dealing with Christ are very useful for understanding this transition from old to new covenant. Even though Levenson is writing to a Jewish, not a Christian audience, it does not diminish this for the attentive reader.

 

[paarsurrey]

In the book of Deuteronomy, isn’t it mentioned that the covenant of circumsision is to be eternal? And wasn’t that why Peter was arguing with Paul in the Book of Acts that all converts should be circumcised?

Hi
I agree with you that the Covenant was eternal and other contents of your post.
Thanks

GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing and All-Wise; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues such as being discussed here presently from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth which tantamount to professing that one is wiser than GodAllahYHWH.