JUDAIZERS

 Circumcision: 

  After the conversion of Gentiles at Antioch and other places, immediately dissension arose. Because of dissension, the apostles and other disciples met of one accord in a conference at Jerusalem. They were civil and kind in their disagreement, indicating that the Holy Spirit guided their discourse. The issue: Some of the Jewish Christians in the churches of Galatia (Antioch for one) were offended because the Gentile Christians had not been circumcised. Now to review circumcision.

  Circumcision sealed the Abrahamic Covenant. It was the cutting off the foreskin on the genitals of men only. The genitalia are representative of mankind’s main problem, and that is fornication. The Hebrews in Egypt had fornicated against God and continued that in the wilderness. The Hebrews wanted to go back to sin in Egypt and fornicate with other gods again.

  Circumcision is a display of seriousness never to turn back to other gods, but even with that, Hebrews continually turn back. Thus, circumcision of the foreskin was more of a consecration than preservation, and it was not even part of the Law.  Of course, circumcision could be sustaining in that it is a constant reminder that the believer is consecrated unto God — a promise sealed in blood to never turn back.

  Rather than the blood of animals as a sacrfice, circumcision is a sacrifice of a believer’s own blood. The problem with circumcision was that it was done to male children eight days old and not to women. It was not done by the hand of God, but oftentimes carelessly by the hands of another. The Holy Spirit watched on but did not participate, especially in the four-hundred years of silence preceding John the Baptist and the re-annunciation of the Holy Spirit. Neither was circumcision for everyone. It was not for Gentiles nor women and certainly not for the “whosoever believeth” from John 3:16. It was for those who just happened to be born to Hebrews.

  As such, circumcision was an ordinance — something that a higher authority expects to be done. It is a regulation as such as Jews were still Jewish even though they remained uncircumcised.

  Moses, along with his wife and child (Gershom), returned to Egypt. That country represented sin and the Pharaoh, Satan. To Moses, for Gershom to be Hebrew it was necessary to make him Hebrew by circumcision. Gershom, whose name means “a stranger there” represents the country of Israel in scripture as he was a stranger in Egypt. By circumcising Gershom, it was symbolic of circumcising all Israelites, to wit:

²² And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: ²³ And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. ²⁴ And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. ²⁵ Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. ²⁶ So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. (Exod 4:22-26)

  Moses was about to protect Gershom and the Israelites by circumcision of one person. What was the problem with that? It seemed to be the right thing to do. Circumcision was not the Law of Abraham, God, nor Moses. It was only a “seal” to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was not preserving but only dedication of children to God by the act of consecrating through circumcision.

  Moses thought that that work would protect Gershom and Israel from Pharaoh and from the false gods and lascivious lifestyle of the Egyptians. Circumcision only works for a time. After the incision is healed, coitus is pleasant again. Like Adam who covered his genitals with hand-made fig-leaf aprons, and that did not work, Moses’s wife knew that the work of his hand was futile against Satan and Pharaoh.

  In that situation, Zipporah seemed to understand that cutting off foreskin would not preserve the Israelites. She viewed that act as nothing more than shedding of innocent blood that would have no effect on the Israelite people. Zipporah had had a little talk with the Word (Jesus) herself. Somehow, the Holy Spirit had revealed to her the futility of works; that God does not need the hands of men to do His work!

  What would happen? God took care of them, but not by Gershom’s blood, who was not a legtitmate priest because he was not a child od Aaron, but by God’s “blood.” What saved the firstborn of the Israelites when the death angel took the firstborn of the Egyptians, even Pharaoh? God supplied works of His own hands — innocent lambs — whose blood the Jews needed only to paint on the “cross” of the wooden door frames; obviously representing Jesus and the cross. God made the death angel pass over the first born of the Jews and it was not Gershom’s blood but the blood of lambs.

  Not by coincidence, the Lamb of God, Jesus, shed the blood during the Passover but none of the Jews did. It was Jesus who saved mankind… not Gershom (the Jews)! Circumcised people crucified Yahweh. Hence, not only was circumcision of the foreskin not the Law, but it was vanity even thinking that circumcision would preserve the Jews!

  Moses would soon realize that! The Word spoke to Moses as well. “Jesus” (John 1) said, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exod 20:7). Ephraim could not save the Israelites, and neither could circumcision of the wrong man. Jesus had made the Covenant with Abraham, not Gershom!

  Now examine the “command” above. The Name is what Yahweh is called and Yahweh is God’s Existence. The “Name” in scripture is Jesus. Likewise, it is not “saying” the Name, but “taking” the Name, Jesus, in vain. What is the Purpose of Jesus? His Name says it all. Yeshua (Jesus) means “Yahweh protects.” The commandment is to not take the sacrifice of Jesus to be without significance.

  Moses was about to depend on Gershom’s blood. Why was Zipporah so wrathful? Because circumcising her first-born son was taking Jesus’s Purpose vainly. As usual, even Christians misunderstand that commandment. Note the consequence: Anyone who does that is guilty. Zipporah was angry because Moses was guilty of taking God’s preservation of the Israelites vainly.

  It is imperative to understand that things people do that God will do is making them the “god.” Moses would have also broken the First and Second Commandments because He, if he circumcised for the wrong reasons, would have played “God.” Then by cutting the flesh of the foreskin He would have made Gershom out to be a graven image on whom the Israelites would depend. Circumcision would not even have made him a legitimate priest.

  Anything done by the hands of men is not preserving. With that thought, tomorrow we will look at the Galatian issue. 

(picture credit: "A Tale of Two Editors;" Bible Junkies)