Deeds Of God Title Banner

Main Menu

Statistics

OS
Linux g
PHP
8.2.24
MySQLi
5.7.23-23
Time
01:10
Caching
Disabled
Gzip
Disabled
Users
3
Articles
508
Articles View Hits
3889040

 

 

 

Circumcision...of Flesh (and of Heart):  The Acceptable Sacrifice That Only A Son Can Make.  Doesn't That Make You Think Of Jesus?

 

 

       We Christians believe that the Bible is a pure thing, the Word of God as dictated to mankind - to 40 different authors along the way, according to some Bible scholars, but there are Bibles with more and less books, so that depends - by the Holy Spirit.  We also believe that God made our bodies as a pure sort of temple for our souls, a temple made of flesh.  Some parts of our body are covered as a sign of modesty.  The understanding of this need to be covered as a proper necessity if one is to present ones self with decency is from God.  Even when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden and first rebelled against God's rule to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they ate anyway, and then they 'saw' their nakedness for the first time and made human attempts to hide it using tree leaves.  God told them no, that was not sufficient.  And then God caused innocent uninvolved animals to die so that their skins could be used for a covering of Adam and Eve's nakedness, at the cost of the innocent animal's blood, of its life.  It was the Bible's first iteration of the principal that only the innocent and not sinful can cover over the sins of the willfully wicked sinner.  But since those days, even though each part of our body was carefully, thoughtfully, and purposefully crafted, some parts are treated as requiring more modesty.  Nearly every culture on Earth has such rules despite dwelling far apart from each other in many cases.  

     In the Bible's pages you are certain to run across the somewhat strange ritual of circumcision.  Jews, Christians and Muslims are among those who still often engage in the practice.  It involves the removal of the excess skin on the end of a male's reproductive member, the skin that conceals the head (or more properly named, the glans, which derives from the Latin word for acorn) of this male body part.  A religious leader or just a medical doctor depending on the culture and its religion, will take that extra skin and will cut it off.  Almost exclusively it is done to male babies, to our sons.  There is such a thing as female circumcision in the world, it is not an unknown thing in the world, but neither Jewish nor Christian believers practice that.  Neither the Torah, the Bible, nor the Talmud direct anything to be done in the way of female circumcision.  It is not even mentioned, yet female souls are as important as male, aren't they?  So there is a mystery there also:  why not females (though I am glad for their sake that they need not endure that.)  But no...no requirement for female circumcision is commanded.  Yet male circumcision is directed in the Old Testament of the Bible, and in the Jewish holy books. 

     But then, once Jesus was crucified and rose again, circumcision was no longer required.  So what happened?  Jesus fulfilled whatever purpose that circumcision had once held, apparently.  It was no longer needed.  So then, you might reasonably wonder...what purpose was it that circumcision had held, anyway?  And why such an odd ritual.  Why pick such an unlikely anatomical organ?  The fact is that the Bible gives some idea of what it means to God once you have been circumcised, as in how He views the person that has now been circumcised.  But it never specifically tells us why this part of our anatomy was chosen to be the specific location of this strange seeming religious rite for demonstrating our belonging, commitment and official dedication to God, either by our own volition or more commonly by our parent's decision while we are still an infant.  But one thing can be said about circumcision which may provide a clue:  it is a sacrifice that only a son can make. 

     Once you were circumcised in the Old Testament days you were marked as belonging to God.  And it wasn't an option.  You were to circumcise a young boy on the 8th day per the Covenant God made with Abram/Abraham in Genesis 17:

17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram[b]; your name will be Abraham,[c] for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

End Quote

 

Mosaic Law confirmed the importance.  It was a mandatory sign!  Even Moses couldn't get by.  Consider the following from Exodus 4:

 

19 Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all those who wanted to kill you are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand.

21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[b] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it.[c] “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

  End Quote

 

     God was going to kill Moses until he had the blood of the son cut off in the flesh applied to his sole (soles?)  But Moses knew that his son should have been circumcised.  He was remiss.  And good job Zipporah!  You saved your family.  (And just as a lesson to us, anything that sounds like Zipporah, such as zipper, might be somewhat of a danger to a young boy's person.  I had an incident or two as a young boy of 3 or 4 learning to handle my business.)

     But strangely, later when the Israelites followed God and Moses was their human leader for 40 years in the barren Sinai Desert,  Moses failed to enforce circumcision for the young boys born during that sojourn.  When Moses died and the leadership passed to Joshua, and then Joshua led them across the Jordan River (which parted for him as the Red Sea had for Moses) into the promised land, one of the first things he made sure to do was get all of the younger generation of boys circumcised before proceeding to try to conquer the promised land.  He was not going to try to conquer it while leading a bunch of Covenant breakers not in relation and on good terms with the Almighty God!  And once again it was flint knives:

 

Now when all the Amorite kings west of the Jordan and all the Canaanite kings along the coast heard how the Lord had dried up the Jordan before the Israelites until they[a] had crossed over, their hearts melted in fear and they no longer had the courage to face the Israelites.

Circumcision and Passover at Gilgal

At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth.[b]

Now this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt—all the men of military age—died in the wilderness on the way after leaving Egypt. All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not. The Israelites had moved about in the wilderness forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the Lord. For the Lord had sworn to them that they would not see the land he had solemnly promised their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. So he raised up their sons in their place, and these were the ones Joshua circumcised. They were still uncircumcised because they had not been circumcised on the way. And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed.

Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” So the place has been called Gilgal[c] to this day.

10 On the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, while camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, the Israelites celebrated the Passover. 11 The day after the Passover, that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land: unleavened bread and roasted grain. 12 The manna stopped the day after[d] they ate this food from the land; there was no longer any manna for the Israelites, but that year they ate the produce of Canaan.

End Quote

 

     You can't suppose that for 40 years as they wandered the Sinai Desert that the question had never been raised:  "Hey, Moses and Aaron, are we still circumcising our sons like we've been doing since the time of Abraham as an EVERLASTING covenant?"  But they hadn't for some reason and the scripture never says why that I remember.  They just hadn't!  It's a true Bible mystery, and I'm sure we're supposed to wonder about it and consider the matter a little when we read about it in the Bible, wouldn't you think? 

     (Ironic and almost certainly unrelated side note:  speaking of flint knives, the bad harmful water from the FLINT River in Michigan affected the citizens of Flint, Michigan terribly.  It harmed their REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS among other things.  So, on Oct 16, 2015 they signed a new 30 year contract (Covenant?) for water from another source that they had used before, i.e.: water from the Detroit water authority...a renewed COVENANT of sorts.  Here you find a river, flint, a renewed agreement, and affected reproductive organs all in the same place, things which are all also associated with the Israelites crossing the Jordan and renewing the covenant of circumcision for instance.)

     (Also a side note, but on a different topic...I sometimes wonder if the 40 years of wandering the Sinai learning to follow God, eating bread from heaven, Manna, was not only a real time period of Israelite history of course, but also a prefiguring of a coming 40 Jubilees that after the crucifixion Christians would spend reading their Bible - 'bread' from Heaven? - and spreading across the face of the planet before entering the reign of Jesus after He is installed as leader, king, Savior, and Messiah.  Joshua made an appearance 40 years before crossing the Jordan as the Israelite leader.  He had been a young spy taking a look at the kingdom they knew they were promised.  He had said 'We can take it now!' but there had been no appetite for that among the other spies because of the scary people already living in that land, barring the spy named Caleb who agreed with Joshua.  Jesus similarly came to Earth in His human lifetime to say 'Here I am as foretold!', but there had been too little appetite for His reign among the ruling Israelites of the time.  Joshua is almost the same name as Jesus.  Christians aren't currently required to be circumcised (per Jesus directives anyway) even though we follow God and are owned by Him.  It's a New Covenant.  In a way the people under Moses were following God in a new way...following His leadings, like we Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus and the leadings of the Holy Spirit.  We Christians talk about entering 'the promised land' meaning the kingdom God told us to seek by living as Christians.  Anyway, if this analogy is true, if that's the right way to interpret, then the coming of Christ might come with extreme suddenness in about the year 2030 or 2031, as that would be very close to 40 Jubilee periods after the crucifixion which many place at 30 A.D. or 31 A.D.  But the Christians are taken out of the way before the full tribulation is over, so...is that the event that would then happen around 2030 A.D., or will that be a couple of years earlier, like in 2027 A.D. or so?  But honestly, who can tell about any of these things unless God informs them, and He certainly hasn't informed me!  And I don't blame Him.  I have trouble keeping really big secrets.)

     

     So, anyway...circumcision.  The cutting off of the flesh of the son.  You know, they used that term 'Cut off!' in a couple of ways throughout the Bible.  It could mean 'sliced off'.  It could mean 'banished'.  It could mean 'killed', like with a sword. Cutting off the flesh of a son. (circumcision?) Cutting off the Son in the flesh (Crucifying Jesus?)  And this is what Jesus endured when he came and walked among mankind on Earth, teaching us and showing His origin, authority, and power by the miracles He worked and the prophecies He fulfilled.  Then, at the end of His time on Earth, He allowed himself to be unjustly crucified (raised up on a cross) and killed, releasing the atonement that could allow for new life with those who sought that atonement and entered into the Covenant Jesus brought.  Was the flesh of the head of the Church, who is Jesus, cut off in order to be our acceptable atonement in the eyes of the Almighty Father?  He made a sacrifice that only the Son of God could make, didn't he?  He paid the price for humanity's sins...and the Father probably would have accepted not a single other sacrifice of all possible sacrifices that could have been made.  Our sins were and are so grievous and so offensive that only the sacrifice of the holy and mighty only Son of God Almighty Himself was sufficient.  Not even angels likely denied that this immeasurably mighty sacrifice was unquestionably sufficient.  Jesus was/is known as the Mighty One of God.  Even demons called Him that during His ministry.  All knees have to bow in heaven at the sound of His name.  I would suppose that no angel dared say or think that Jesus' sacrifice was not enough to atone for even the sins of filthy humankind.  They certainly knew and still know today how precious this only Son is to the Father Almighty.  And that Father had seen all the outrage that was done to His son by mankind that day, yet still allowed the blood and water to flow from His Son onto the ground.  

     I would suppose that angels must have looked upon a scene that made their blood boil (or the angel equivalent) with a desire to intervene.  How could this be allowed, perhaps they wondered and asked each other?  Why was God Almighty allowing this to be done by His ever sinful creation, humankind?  The highest of the high, pure, and holy was allowed to be abused like this?  And hadn't even one single angel killed 185,000 Assyrian humans that had once surrounded God's chosen city Jerusalem?  And yet He did not send them to rescue His Son, nor afterwards to avenge Him?  What depth of unmerited love did their Creator God the Father Almighty hold in His heart for these fallen and ever sinful humans that He would allow so high an atoning price to be paid for the forgiveness of their sins?  This was Jesus, the author of all life made by the Holy Father, who chose to work through Jesus His Son to form the Creation, as it tells us in the first sentences of the Gospel of John. 

     Consider this though: on the human body, the male human body, the 'author of life' is this male organ from the head of which the seeds of life travel into the female (who is also a symbol of the Church, the accepted bride and or followers of God/Jesus)  A woman is in part a 'bringer forth of new life' for her husband (just as the church brings forth new Christians for her husband Jesus.)  From the mind of Jesus (the head of Jesus, who is also the head of the church, and the head of the 'woman/bride') come His saving words, the seed of knowledge about a new and everlasting life, a New Covenant, for whoever will accept it.  So the Holy One of God was cut off in the flesh and revealed to be the Savior and Messiah when He rose again.  He was crucified in order to make a sacrifice that only He could make.  And only those humans who accept that sacrifice by Jesus as their sufficient and only atonement can go to Heaven Jesus told us, as do the Letters to the Churches which are in the New Testament.  Some of those letters attest to this again: only through Jesus can anyone be saved.  Jesus said it, and his Apostles seconded it in the Book of Acts and in some of the Letters.  It bears repeating...only through Jesus can anyone be saved.  And in the Old Testament of the Bible, the Old Testament Covenant, we are told that young human males had to be 'cut off in the flesh' so to speak, down there on their male member, to illustrate that they wanted to be found acceptable, or that it was desired by their parents that they be found acceptable in the eyes of God the Father.  In order to belong to God they had to accept that sacrifice as the only sufficient proof or evidence.  

     There is a parallel there.  There is an analogy that can be made perhaps.  And it might explain why this prophetic ritual was not commanded to be continued in the New Testament after the Lord Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead.  The command for circumcision was perhaps a command for the acting out of a prophecy, a prophecy of a coming Messiah who would be cut off in the flesh so that mankind could be found acceptable in the eyes of the Holy Father, the reality of which prophecy Jesus our Lord had fulfilled with this painful 'cutting off in the flesh' he had endured on the cross. 

     Jesus is the head of the Church, the head through which messages came that if accepted could bring new life.  And an egg, even a human female's egg, is shaped like a world, generally speaking.  Jesus, the head of the Church, sent His messages out into the world to save the world if only the world would accept his message, the words that came out of His head, out of His mind from the Holy Father.  Jesus said that He spoke only the words that His Father gave Him to speak.  

     Another consideration:  when Jesus tomb was entered on the first day of the week He was found to be gone.  (It was the 8th day in a manner of speaking also, because it was the day after Sabbath, which was the 7th day.)  He had risen.  But the cloth covering/wrap that had been around His own fleshly human head was left behind, laying there on the bench.  That which concealed the 'head' was no longer attached.  It was discarded, left behind on the stone bench, no longer needed.  The 'head' was revealed...Jesus' fleshly head was uncovered by the removal of the burial cloth wrapped around the head of His dead body.  But also the head of the soon-to-be-formed Church was revealed:  it was Jesus.  And also the promised head of the Jewish people - their long awaited Messiah - was revealed:  it was Jesus, though not too many of the Jewish people were going to realize and acknowledge it as it turned out.  Jesus mind and heart held the message that could bring new life.  But not until He was raised upright to struggle and die was the atonement completed, not until then was that necessary part of His message delivered:  sin was atoned for if man would confess, be baptized, and follow.  Then, that portion of the message delivered, we can assume he sagged lifeless and limp, as if in permanent death on that cross attached to some tree.  But He was to rise again three days later and prove that the message was genuine, that death could be overcome, and that new and everlasting life could come from what He had done.  He was the firstborn from among the dead.  Lazarus and some others that Jesus had brought back from death would live for a while and then only die again.  There are Elijah and Enoch to consider, it is true, who were taken up before their death.  Maybe John the Apostle the Jesus loved.  (Is that the same as Lazarus?) But Jesus was the firstborn from among the dead into everlasting life, showing us that through Him it could be done.

     Since the ascension of Jesus there are some who have still been circumcised, some parents that have had it done to their boy children.  But it is not necessary according to Paul the Apostle for instance.  Now the thing that shows God the Father that we want to belong to Him and to the Kingdom of Heaven with Jesus as our given King and Lord and Savior is not that same outward sign of fleshly circumcision, but an inward sign: the circumcision of our hearts as it is described.  Giving our hearts and our lives to the following of Jesus is the inward sign, along with its outward manifestations of confessing our sins, being baptized in water and the Spirit in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and then following Jesus teachings, telling others as we go, and always doing good for our fellow man.  We become willing slaves to Jesus, never quitting, and that is the sign the Father will now accept.  That is the only accepted atonement for our sins Jesus told us.  The cutting away of the flesh caused the 'Head' to be revealed.  It is Jesus.  And I think (just an opinion) that is at least part of why we were once given the strange but commanded sign and ritual of the circumcision of our 'life giving' male member, though again it is only my opinion.

     

     The Holy Word says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.   All parts are meant to have their place and be Holy.  We have all failed at keeping our parts Holy to varying degrees.  Some of us badly.  Some perhaps not too much.  But all of us have probably failed.  Our bodies were designed to be a temple it is said...a Holy temple for our soul, kept Holy out of respect for God.  This needs to be a goal we do not scoff at or ignore.  Reproduction and the pleasures of marriage were intended.  God's design of us very obviously incorporated accommodations to allow for this, even to make it pleasant.  But there should be respect as well for our bodies.  The laws of Moses spoke of the punishments for misuse of our bodies and spoke of off-limit uses.  Jesus taught us in similar fashion in a couple of places.  And the Apostolic Letters to the Churches where the Holy Spirit speaks through Apostles, largely Paul, also taught us to have this respect for the use of our body, including speech, using our body for violence against others, and about reproduction matters, and more. 

     So the Christian has to acknowledge this and teach our children and the new Christians also about this aspect of our religion just like others.  And the teachings of our various churches and denominations cannot avoid the topic nor change the teachings and still be aligned with the will of our Savior.  We all have committed to follow the teachings of our Savior and the further understandings brought by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles.  Jesus wasn't vague really.  The Holy Spirit spoke with plainness on many fleshly issues as well.  We may all be 'pots telling the kettle it's black'.  But we are all obligated to never teach that unholiness is OK.  In fact, hypocritical as we may feel and in most of our cases actually are, we must quit engaging in what we know we shouldn't do with our physical bodies.  And we also are obligated to tell others they must also strive for holy use of their bodies if they wish to please God.  Paul preached at times as if salvation is a thing which can be lost - rejected by its possessor.  Others preach 'once saved always saved'.  I personally believe scripture's overall message is that if a person wishes to reject the gift of salvation once they have it then that can occur.  We must try to run a good race the whole way.   If we mess up...if we sin knowingly...we must earnestly repent of it and go back to trying to run a good race the whole way.  We must not mock the work of the Holy Spirit.  It is the unforgivable sin, doesn't scripture say that?   Jesus Himself said that about the Holy Spirit.  

     We cannot ask Jesus to crawl back up on the cross repeatedly so that we can go on willfully sinning and still be forgiven.  We must genuinely try to follow in an acceptable way, as our own inclinations for sinfulness and the Devil's temptations try to lead us otherwise.  Our eternity is at stake.  Jesus' agony and sacrifice is either wasted on us or not.  We either treasure the path that He opened up for those who would follow Him, or we essentially scorn both the path and the One who blazed it at such high personal cost, and we even show impudent scorn to the greatest of all Fathers who none the less sent His only begotten Son to rescue us from a slimy steep walled pit we had purposely shepherded our souls into out of excitement over the sin we were pursuing.

     

      

 

©2017 Daniel Curry & 'Deeds of God' Website