As a result of circumcision Abraham’s body would become perfect. With the foreskin remaining he was not perfect physically. Once the foreskin was circumcised his body would be perfect, it would be unblemished.
As I was driving to the grocery store a couple of days ago I listened to the above words of a recorded shiur on my iTrip player, words regarding Genesis 17 and what it means that Abraham was to be perfect (v.1). These comments immediately brought a smile to my face and I couldn’t help but think; “no wonder the commandment of circumcision wasn’t given to women for we would never be convinced that our bodies are perfect or unblemished even if HaShem said so. Yet, on the other hand, we women would also be highly insulted by the suggestion that our bodies were not considered perfect already.” Perhaps HaShem did not give the commandment of circumcision to women due to our innate “body image” which would make it impossible for us to accept our bodies as perfected while at the same time finding insult in the idea that our natural bodies are less than perfect to begin with. In this way, circumcision and women would have been a no-win situation.
In taking on Torah observance through a Messianic perspective, I quickly became aware that the issue of circumcision was a heavily debated and hot topic. Personally, I preferred to let the guys “duke this one out”, for after all, conversations focused on the male anatomy didn’t seem very suitable or pertinent for me as a woman. But over the past months, with the recent attention upon Divine Invitation versus One Law theology, I have found myself contemplating and considering circumcision as presented in the Apostolic Scriptures. For ultimately this topic greatly affects the “body image” of Gentile believers as a whole.
It seems that there are two ways to look at it, similar to a woman’s perspective of body image. The first is to understand that through Yeshua, apart from circumcision, Gentile believers are perfected; they are part of the House of Israel with all the rights, privileges and obligations of the physical children of Abraham. This is the view of One Law, even as Tim Hegg writes in Fellow Heirs; “The Gentiles were to be received as though they were circumcised even before they underwent the physical cutting of the flesh . .” [1] Despite the fact that the One Law camp accepts believing Gentiles as perfectly equal to Israel (although ethnically distinct) this very understanding undermines the concept of One Law itself. For if Gentile believers are exempt from circumcision, through Yeshua, the place they occupy within Israel is really “One Law minus one”. The question is then raised if such inequality regarding the mitzvot is valid. How can Gentile believers be considered perfectly equal to Israel if they are not equally obligated to the whole Torah as Israel is?
On the other hand is the Divine Invitation camp. Like the woman who is insulted by the notion that her physical body is considered less than perfect based on the standards or definitions of society or the media, Divine Invitation understands that Gentiles do not have equal rights, privileges and obligations with the physical children of Israel for this was never G-d’s intent. Just as “big is beautiful” and “black is beautiful” so Gentiles are beautiful because they are blessed through Yeshua in the family of G-d in a way distinct from their Jewish brethren. Gentiles are invited to participate in Torah instead of obligated to Torah for Gentiles are not Jews. To define Gentile believers as having the exact role and responsibility as legal Israel is to blurr the line of distinction and ultimately is an insult to the grace of HaShem. The question raised in this line of thinking is how are we to understand the Gentile’s citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel as described by Paul in Ephesians 2? What exactly does it mean that Gentiles are “Abraham’s seed” and “fellow heirs” with Israel as presented in Galatians 3 & 4?
According to Daniel Lancaster in the introduction to the second edition of Grafted In, the term “commonwealth” would have been understood by Paul as defining an “imperial power”. Because Israel at the time was not an imperial power, the citizenship of Gentiles within the commonwealth of Israel is understood as something yet future. For Israel will not attain the status of imperial power until the Messianic era. [2] Therefore, in the meantime, the Gentile believer assumes “an ambiguous and tenuous status among the people of G-d . .” [3]
The differences between the camps are no surprise from a womanly perspective, for the exact same outcome is true regarding body image. If a woman allows her body image to be dictated by the common definitions of society or the media she ends up facing inevitable inequality for no two women are exactly alike physically. If a woman refuses to allow her body image to be defined by common denominators she ends up in a state of ambiguity in which beauty is subjective and self-defined. The same is true regarding the perspectives of One Law versus Divine Invitation. One leads to inequality by maintaining a common definition, the other leads to ambiguity through rejection of a common definition.
Not surprisingly, the outlook regarding circumcision is different between the two perspectives. For the One Law advocate the tension of “One Law minus one” cannot be maintained and therefore it is understood that circumcision was expected of Gentile believers as a commandment of HaShem. Once the Gentile believer matured in the faith and would not be tempted to view circumcision from the rabbinic legal viewpoint of conversion in order to secure salvation, the Gentile was then obligated to be circumcised as a true “seed of Abraham”. Despite the fact that circumcision is never commanded of Gentile believers in the Apostolic Scriptures, the case of Paul’s circumcision of Timothy is used to defend this perspective.
For the Divine Invitation advocate the Apostolic Scriptures speaks for itself. Since circumcision is never commanded of Gentiles and continually prohibited by Paul the Gentile is not obligated to this command. Yet, Paul admonishes Gentiles to “celebrate the Festival” (of Passover) in 1 Corinthians 5:8, likening Yeshua to the korban Pesach. Such observance is unlawful apart from circumcision based on Exodus 12:48 and carries with it the severe penalty of karet or being cut-off from the believing community and losing one’s share in the World to Come.
Is there any way to reconcile our body image as Gentile believers within the family of G-d? Or must Gentiles, like women, live in a world of fickleness that makes the topic of circumcision a no-win situation?
In Galatians 3, Paul explains that the Gentile’s position as “Abraham’s seed” and “fellow heirs” with Israel is based on G-d’s promises to Abraham in Genesis 17;
“As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations; your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. . . I will ratify My covenant between Me and you and between your offspring (seed/zerah) after you;” (Genesis 17:4-5, 7 parenthesis mine)
HaShem promised Abraham that he would be the father of a multitude of nations. Although it is true that Abraham in his own right fathered many nations (as Ishmael became the father of 12 princes and the six sons of Keturah became six nations) this cannot be understood as fulfillment of the promise, for the covenant would be established through Isaac (v.19) and his descendents after him. The sages of the Talmud (Shabbat 105a) understand the promise of fathering many nations to be fulfilled by Abraham’s influence upon the nations spiritually down through the ages, with each letter of his name understood as an acronym for different aspects of his affect upon the nations of the world. In this view the promise is therefore fulfilled not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical or spiritual one.
Rambam explains that Abraham became the father of many nations via proselytes to Judaism who throughout history have come from many nations. The difficulty with this view is that once one converts to Judaism they are no longer considered a goy but a legal and full child of Israel in every sense, a legal son of Abraham and not one of the nations. Therefore in the most literal sense, proselytes do not fulfill the promise of Abraham’s multiplication as the father of many nations for the conversion of the nations causes Abraham to remain the father of but one nation, Israel.
The term “father of a multitude of nations” (av hamon goyim) is an awkward term for it indicates that although Abraham is the father, his offspring from the nations still maintain their national identity. By literal definition this is impossible for a man cannot practically be considered a father to an individual who is not his natural offspring or legally adopted by him. Yet, this is exactly how Paul understands the term based on Galatians 3.
With this in mind an interesting paradox presents itself. For if G-d literally promised Abraham that those of the nations would be reckoned as his offspring (and thereby included in Israel), why is it that Exodus 12:48 commands that those of the nations must be circumcised in order to partake of the korban Pesach and by extension be included in Israel? Exodus 12 indicates that those of the nations cannot be included in Israel apart from circumcision. Circumcision reckons one as a Jew. Yet, G-d promised Abraham that those of the nations would be reckoned as his offspring (included in Israel). How can both be true?
Perhaps the answer to this paradox can be found in the first verse of Genesis 17, for it is here that G-d is referred to as El-Shaddai in Torah for the first time. Although there are various understandings of El-Shaddai, according to Ramban, Shaddai is related to the word shoded (both having the shoresh shin-dalet-dalet), which means “manipulate”. Therefore El Shaddai alludes to G-d as one who manipulates the entire world. [4] Manipulation related to shoded is not in the miraculous sense (such as splitting the sea) which involves a suspension of nature itself. Instead shoded means a manipulation of the natural world through subduing of it, or a manipulating of the world within nature and not apart from it. [5]
When HaShem tells Abraham that he will have a child with Sarah, this requires a manipulation of Abraham’s natural situation. It is natural for a couple to have children, but it is not natural for Abraham to have a child with Sarah (his barren, post-menopausal wife). In the same way, the two additional aspects of the covenant given in Genesis 17 — Abraham’s multiplication and the giving of the Land — require HaShem’s manipulation of the natural in order for the promises to be achieved. It is natural for a people to conquer a Land, but it is unnatural for a small nation of desert nomads to conquer a nation of giants. It is natural for a man to be a father, but it is unnatural for a man to be a father to individuals who are not of his physical or legal lineage. Therefore, HaShem speaks to Abraham regarding the promises of the covenant of circumcision using the name El Shaddai for the promises can only be realized through His manipulation (shoded) of the natural.
In Galatians 3, Paul explains that the promises of Genesis 17 were made to Abraham and to his singular seed which is Christ. These same promises were confirmed or ratified in Christ. Paul also explains that since the promise came before the Law, the Law cannot annul the promise (v.17). Although Exodus 12 states that a Gentile can only be reckoned as a native born via circumcision, G-d’s promise to Abraham was that he would be built into a father of many nations.
Before the coming of Messiah the promise of Abraham’s multiplication could not be realized for only by the natural means of physical lineage or legal conversion was Abraham’s (and by extension Israel’s) family increased. Just as HaShem manipulated Abraham’s natural situation to produce the son of promise (Isaac), so the “seed” of promise (Yeshua) was the means by which the natural situation of the nations would be manipulated in order to produce sons of the nations for Abraham. Paul sums this up in Galatians 3:7 . . “they which are of faith. . are the children of Abraham”. This is unnatural for no one becomes an offspring by faith and no one becomes a father by faith. But G-d’s promise of multiplication to Abraham required the manipulation of the natural.
Yet, all this exegesis only brings us to a truth wholeheartedly agreed upon by both One Law and Divine Invitation, that Gentiles are children of Abraham, his seed and heirs through faith in Yeshua. The question that still remains is in what “sense” are we Abraham’s seed and how exactly are Gentiles included in the House of Israel after having come to faith?
In Galatians 4:28 Paul says; “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Paul then goes on to explain that just as he that was born after the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him of the spirit (Isaac) “even so it is now”. Here, Paul likens the children of promise through faith in Yeshua to Isaac, Abraham’s son of promise, and uses this position of promise to explain the present persecution of believers by those born after the flesh (legal/ethnic Israel). Certainly Isaac’s position as son of promise was not an ambiguous spiritual or metaphorical position to be realized at some future time, but was a reality in history which brought with it real persecution. Why would we think differently regarding the Gentile’s position in Israel as a child of promise, especially since real and serious persecution was being faced, which would have been unlikely if Gentiles were merely understood as fulfilling an ethereal role as sons of Abraham in an ambiguous spiritual sense?
But this doesn’t solve the problem of apparent inequality in mitzvot observance and obligation regarding circumcision for the Gentile believer. How can such inequality exist if the Gentiles are included in the House of Israel in the same respect as the Jews? In an exceedingly interesting article on Lech Lecha author Yitzchak Etshalom points out that of all the transgressions which bring the consequence of karet, only two –neglecting circumcision and partaking of Pesach uncircumcised –are sins of commission. In considering why these two particular sins of commission result in karet, Etshalom understands circumcision and Pesach to be the most fundamental requirements for membership in Am Yisrael. Without these requirements one cannot be a member of Israel and is therefore “cut off” not by punishment but by natural result. [6]
Two elements that must be shared among people for a nation or community to exist are; a.) a common history and b.) a common destiny. Pesach represents the common history of Israel, a history of miraculous redemption at the hand of HaShem. Circumcision represents the common destiny of Israel, a destiny of perfection in which the physical barrier to obedience and righteousness (symbolized by the male foreskin) is taken away (a barrier understood as the evil inclination). Through Yeshua, Gentile believers share in these common elements as children of Abraham in the most profound and “real” sense. We have a history of miraculous redemption and a destiny of perfection, the physical proof of which is not found in a circumcised body, but in the physical reality of Yeshua’s death and resurrection.
. . . . . . .
It would seem that a proper body image within the household of faith is reconciled through a perspective of promise rather than a perspective tending toward egalitarianism (One Law) or elitism (Divine Invitation). Just as Israel is considered the children of Abraham through the promised son Isaac, so the goyim (of the nations) are considered the children of Abraham through the promised son Yeshua. In the words of Paul;
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Romans 9:8 ESV)
If only a woman’s body image issues could be so nicely reconciled : )
______________________________________________________
[1] Tim Hegg, Fellow Heirs (Jews and Gentiles together in the Family of God), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton CO, 2003 p. 82.
[2] D. Thomas Lancaster, Grafted In (Israel, Gentiles and the Mystery of the Gospel), First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, 2009, p. 5.
[3] Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster, One Law and the Messianic Gentile, Messiah Journal Issue 101, Summer 2009, First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, p. 55.
[4] Ramban as cited in, Mrs. Chana Prero, Parashat Lech Lecha, available at: http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/1085/single/
[5] Ibid.
[6] Yitzchak Etshalom, Parashat Lekh L’kha (B’rit Milah and Karet Punishment or Natural Result?), available at:
http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/br/dt.58.1.03.html
2 Comments
October 30, 2009 at 8:49 am
This is excellent. I’m glad you wrote about this, because the whole “one law minus-one vs. divine invitation” issue is something that has been on my mind. You always bring a thoughtful and different perspective to the discussion.
October 31, 2009 at 7:47 pm
In my opinion you offer valuable insights on the spiritual meaning of circumcision. Some of these are similar to those of Tim Hegg, in his article: “Circumcision as a Sign: The Theological Significance”, at: http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/CircumcisionETS.pdf (from p. 12 on).
Your conclusion, however, in the last paragraph, that somehow the physical sign of circumcision is substituted for by the physical reality of Messiah’s death and resurrection, I find problematic. It inevitably reintroduces a subtle form of spiritualizing that takes away the observance of the mitzvah. The problem is here that a similar spiritual substitution can be made for almost all the ritual commandments, for if one goes along with this style of thinking one cannot stop it anymore. I think that what happens here is essentially the same as in the traditional Christian interpretation of Col. 2:17: “These [observances] are a shadow of the things to come; but the body [or: substance] is Messiah”.
Your rightly point to an apparent inconsistency in Tim Hegg’s approach. Hegg distinguishes, however, between circumcision in the context of a rabbinic conversion or giur (which he rejects) and circumcision as biblical Torah observance (which he favours). According to his interpretation Paul prohibited circumcision only temporarily, for the reason that biblical commandment was confused with the rabbinic ritual of conversion. Hegg’s basis for rejecting of the conversion ritual is that Gentiles are already full covenant members in all resprects by their faith in Yeshua, and thus don’t need to convert. Hegg’s position practically results in postponing circumcision, not abrogating it. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a postponement can be justified at all from the viewpoint of the Torah itself.
Circumcision is a difficult and complicated subject, and it will take some time to develop a convincing messianic position.