The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Eye for an Eye

Theology General Theology
#101

I’ve adopted this and bored ya’ll with it many times, but the more I read the more I see its usefulness and wisdom. Channing:

“We regard the Scriptures as the records of God’s successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives.”

1 Like
#102

Hermano, you posted:
Then, something tragic happened right at the foot of Mount Sinai. In Exodus 19:8, your English Bible says that the people cried out to Moses, saying, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do.” In the original Hebrew text, this is actually a statement of pride. They were saying, “All that God requires and demands of us, we are well able to perform.” In other words, they were saying, “God, stop assessing or blessing us based on Your goodness. Start assessing, judging and blessing us based on our obedience.” So they effectively exchanged covenants, from the Abrahamic covenant which is based on grace, to the Sinaitic covenant which is based on the law.

I disagree. As God said to Abraham in Genesis 17:1-2 “Walk before Me and be blameless and I will make a covenant between Me and you.” The covenant requires that you humble your heart towards God and willingly submit to His authority as verse 11 says “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.”

I don’t believe it was a statement of pride when the people agreed to follow the Ten Commandments, which from what I understand, was all that the Lord had spoken. They were accepting God as their God and King.

And yes, if you accept the Spirit into your heart, then you are obligated to follow His laws. Otherwise, He is not your God. You have placed another god before Him.
However, I do agree that some fell away from God’s Law, and in their disobedience exchanged His Law for another of their own making.

#103

LLC, I think you are misunderstanding Galatians 5. Paul is explicitly warning us that following the law is an impossible, all or nothing proposition; that we will fall from grace if we attempt it; so we shouldn’t even take the first step of getting circumcised.

‘If we are led by the Spirit, we are not under the law.’ Galatians 5:18.

#104

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

#105

Hermano you said : LLC, I think you are misunderstanding Galatians 5. Paul is explicitly warning us that following the law is an impossible, all or nothing proposition; that we will fall from grace if we attempt it; so we shouldn’t even take the first step of getting circumcised.

‘If we are led by the Spirit, we are not under the law.’ Galatians 5:18.

My response:
I think a lot of people misunderstand Paul.
Yes, we are still under a Law. As Hebrews 8:10 says, " For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they will be My people."
This is the SAME requirement of the covenant as that of Abraham and that of Moses. It is a circumcision of the heart; to obey the laws of the one true God, or in other words a baptism of the Spirit.

Your statement: that we fall from grace if we attempt to not kill, steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery etc. so that we shouldn’t even take the first step of getting circumcised, makes no sense to me.

#106

When the Old Testament spells out its’ laws about circumcision, what in their language tells you that they are not actually about requiring a literal cutting of the male anatomy?

#107

Yes, I daresay it was sure tough back then under the law of Moses. So, as to God ordering His people stoned to death for disobeying certain of His rules (like not collecting firewood on Saturday), I am so glad God finally changed His mind about that, shook it off, and decided to do a new thing, aren’t you? Whew!

Of course, Moses–directly quoting God’s thoughts to himself–reveals that even before Moses’ law, God could still get a little bit fed up and regretful:

So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” Gen. 6:7.

Tradition is SO very important. Who are we to challenge it? After all, “9 out of 10 genuine Christians agree” that God finally got all that anger and vindictiveness out of His system when He took it out on His own Son Jesus at the cross. (Some people might falsely compare that interpretation of events to an alcoholic father taking off his belt to beat up the kids when he gets home late at night; when thankfully, the noble mom jumps in between him and them, and cries, “No, take it out on me instead!”)

Nevertheless, the worry of people around the world is, did God the Father really get all the anger and vindictiveness out of His system at the cross? Many are fearful that it’s re-festering, building up steam for a worldwide bloodbath described in the book of Revelation, at “God’s” hands. (Unfortunately, not everyone has yet been set free about this concern by the deep truths of hyper-preterism.)

But…where is the devil in all this, Davo? (Do you even believe that the devil is a fallen angel named Lucifer?) Could it be that the Scriptures, when studied by the Spirit and not the Letter, show that any violence or bipolarity perceived about God, are, in reality, examples of where God was being mistakenly conflated with Satan by the prophets? That this rebellious angel, according to additional light provided in the New Testament, is the one who actually wields the power of God’s stated enemy, death? (Heb. 2:14, 1 Cor. 15:26.) That the unchanging God is only about abundant life? (John 10:10.)

Please (re)consider this amazing article:

SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?

Blessings to you.

1 Like
#108

Bob you said:
When the Old Testament spells out its’ laws about circumcision, what in their language tells you that they are not actually about requiring a literal cutting of the male anatomy?

My response:
Because of the following verses:
Deut.10:12 Moses says, "And now, Israel what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in al His ways and to love Him; to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

Deut. 10:16 “Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart and be stiff-necked no longer.”
Deut. 10:18 “He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Deut. 6:5-6 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul an with all your might and all these words which I command you today shall be in your heart."
Deut. 10:18 Therefore lay up these words of Mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes."
Deut.30:6 “But the word is very near you in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it.”
Lev. 26:41 "If their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt then I will remember my covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham, I will remember."
Jer. 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Ezek. 44:7 " When you brought in foreigners uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in My sanctuary to defile it- My house- and when you offered My food the fat and the blood then you broke My covenant because of all your abominations."

As I mentioned before, from what I understand, Moses gave the Ten Commandments and explained the essence of the Law as described Deut.10:12-22 which includes the Golden Rule. I believe that Moses was a true prophet of God and any other commandments that he issued were consistent with these Laws.
However, we are told in Romans1:21-23 that “Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts…Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of he incorruptible God into and image made like corruptible man- and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.” As Psalm 56:5 says, “All day long they distort My words.”

I also believe that some of these man-made laws are written in the books ascribed to Moses.
Isaiah 1 states that God hates their New moons and appointed feasts, the blood of bulls, burnt offerings etc. and that He can’t stand incense. All the other prophets repeat these same things. In fact, Jeremiah says that God did not speak to the fathers concerning burnt offering and sacrifices in the day He brought them out of Egypt.
So where did such things come from? Jeremiah has this to say: “How can you say " We have the Law of the Lord when actually the false pen of the scribe has handled it falsely.”

Zech. 7:9-12 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: " Execute true justice, show mercy and compassion everyone to his brother. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart against his brother. But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets.”

#109

I say that in Galatians 5, Paul is indicating that we are NOT obligated to obey the law of Moses in order to be justified. We are freely justified by Christ. Now we have a new nature, by which we desire to fulfill the law of love.

As I said earlier,

-Don’t you agree that Paul is warning in Galatians 5 against physical circumcision here, that it leads to bondage?

-Don’t you agree that “we have been RELEASED from the law” (from v. 6 of Romans 7, quoted above)?

Yet you seem to be saying that we have NOT been “released from the law.” I think it is obvious Paul is talking about our being released from the embellished law of Moses, not the royal law of love—which by the inner desire of our new nature, not from external obligation, we desire to fulfill.

#110

LLC,
Genesis 7:12 commands every 8 day old male be circumcised.
Exodus 12:48 requires even Gentiles who want to share in Passover to circumcise :every “male” in their household.
Joshua 5:2 commands, “Make flint knives and circumcize the Israelites,” and then refers to men needing a time of healing.

Do you think Jews who read such laws were expected to understand them as referring simply to an internal “circumcision of the heart,” or to perceive it as commanding and requiring a physical surgical act?

#111

Bob, Yes, of course they were expected to understand them as a circumcision of the heart, especially since many wise prophets were sent to teach them the ways of the Lord. As Moses said in Deut. 10:16 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart." These instructions are repeated over and over again as I pointed out in my previous post. There are also hundreds of other verses in the Old Testament that speak of the heart.

As for the verses you mention, males were to be heads of the household and should be men of honor, trained in the word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 says “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double edged sword. It pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the intentions of heart.” Is this a physical surgical act?
" The Lord disciplines the one He loves and He chastens everyone He accepts as His son. No discipline seems pleasant at the time but painful. Later on however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who are trained by it."

I’d say that those with no spiritual understanding took your verses to mean something else. As I mentioned, Psalm 56:5 says “All day long they distort My words.”

#112

LLC, While the OT also calls for circumcision of hearts (which I think applies to women as well), I find your insistence that Israel should have read texts about using cutting instruments on males who needed to heal from the surgery as only about hearts to be unfair to sincere Jews embracing the obvious meaning of such words. I am aware of no one among God’s historic Jewish people who rejected such commands as requiring literal circumcision.

1 Like
#113

Oh, man. I been following this thread - with great interest. Now I came to the conclusion, that this movie chap - is a very religious person. And follows the law, of an eye for an eye. But he also follows what Christ teaches. In that he first gives everyone a chance, to apologize to the mule. Now I FULLY understand this movie scene, from a Biblical perspective.

#114

What in the world are you talking about, LLC? Are you suggesting that Bob is distorting the words of God? Bob is a highly intelligent, and deeply spiritual man of God!

It’s ludicrous to presume that the Israelites didn’t physically circumcise their babies. They have done it throughout the centuries, and Jews still do it today when the baby is 8 days old.

1 Like
#115

It appears that LLC knows more than the editors - of the online Jewish Encyclopedia at CIRCUMCISION (; in Biblical Hebrew, =“the cutting away” of the =“foreskin”). or Why Do Jews Circumcise Their Sons? - another Jewish resource. Will wonders never cease!

#116

Paidion, I was not suggesting anything of the sort. Bob asked me if I thought Jews who read such things about circumcision were expected to understand them as a circumcision of the heart. He mentioned nothing of his own interpretation. I simply answered his question.
One of the verses Bob brought up is Joshua 5:2 which says, “Make flint knives for yourself and circumcise the sons of Israel again the second time.” Verse 5 explains the reason why Joshua circumcised them saying this: “For all the people who came out (of Egypt ) had been circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness on the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.” Verse 7: “So Joshua circumcised their sons whom he raised up in their place.”

In John chapter 3 Nicodemus asks Jesus, " How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus answers, “That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” and then asks " Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"

Joshua was following what Moses commanded. Moses says nothing about performing a physical surgical act on the male genitals. He commanded this in Deut. 10:16 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart."

I am aware that the Israelites physically circumcised their babies. However, it is a tradition of men as Jesus said in Mark 7:8 'For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men."

Bob you said:
I am aware of no one among God’s historic Jewish people who rejected such commands as requiring literal circumcision.

The Apostles did.
As Samuel said, God does not look on the outside appearance of a man. He looks at the heart.

#117

LLC, To be clear, No one doubts that the Christian movement rejected being literally bound by the Law, or that it discontinued requiring circumcision! Good Heavens, such departures are why it could not remain part of the historic Jewish people! But that’s entirely different than showing that they and the apostles never believed that such texts had referred to requiring physical circumcision for Jews in the first place.

My impression is that your desire to insist that the apostles’ revolutionary faith (Christianity) did not change the distinctive practices in Judaism’s text, has required you to unconvincingly dismiss the plain meaning of such texts, and thus reject the consensus of virtually all scholarship.

2 Likes
#118

Bob, I did not realize that the consensus of all scholarship was infallible. Concerning Joshua 5:2, do you seriously want me to believe that Israel’s inability to come to the “land flowing with milk and honey” was due to the fact that their genitals were not circumcised and by Joshua physically doing so, THAT solved the problem? This is not reality. Ezekiel chapter 36 tells the reason why they were unsuccessful. Joshua was “raising up Abraham’s children from stones” just as Jesus did.
Paul says in Philippians 3:“For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit.”

#119

I keep thinkng the same thing. When I present my theory…that the Zombie Apocalypse…is the most probable, end-times tribulation scenario.

And the Jewish people, have their equivalent of the zombie - called the Golem.

“One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries.”-- A. A. Milne

#120

Your response is that since (as none of us doubts) all others are fallible, they all misunderstand Joshua 5:2, etc, but that you are able to interpret it correctly. Since my point was that the language of using a knife for male circumcision, and then needing time to heal from the painful procedure, is plainly a way of describing classic physical circumcision, it is easy to understand why all traditions and scholars agree on this. While no one is infallible, this means your denial of such clear descriptions remains unconvincing.

1 Like