Why is requiring physical circumcision for salvation heresy?

[PR6771]

There are, of course, the many verses in the New Testament that teach salvation by faith alone. There are also the many verses in both Old and New Testament that show that no method (Abrahamic circumcision, Mosaic sacrifices, etc.) could ultimately give salvation to anyone, since all are desperately wicked and none seek after God.

Why then would born-again Jews ever teach that born-again Gentiles must be circumcised to inherit the promise of eternal life? I propose that they misunderstood how being born again tied a believer into the family of Abraham. All nations are able to be blessed through Christ due in part to the promise of the Abrahamic covenant. This makes it different than the obviously nationalistic Mosaic law. If we are all children of Abraham (as the New Testament teaches), then isn't it Biblical to teach that we must all be circumcised or else risk not truly being children of Abraham and therefore losing the inheritance of that eternal city promised to Abraham?

Of course, we know the answer is that that teaching is heresy. But why? Just because Paul said so? How did Paul manage to convince the elders at Jerusalem itself that they were wrong in requiring Gentiles to be circumcised?

I propose one possible explanation- we are NOT physical children of Abraham. Duh, right? But this could be something that had to be explained at the birth of Christianity. We are spiritual children of Abraham, who will inherit the city of Jerusalem, either during the millennial reign of Christ, or in the new earth, or both. But we have no claim to the city of Zion until then. We have claim to only the heavenly Jerusalem (descended from above), because we are only spiritually circumcised (circumcision of the heart) and only spiritual children of Abraham. This is why it is truth that we are children of Abraham, but heresy to teach that we must be physically circumcised in order to be children of Abraham.

Feel free to rip into any heresy I have made, as I have not thoroughly searched this out, but instead am just thinking out-loud (on a touchscreen).

 

[PR6771]

Again, created a poll for any lurkers or non-lurkers...

 

[Ransom]

Again, created a poll for any lurkers or non-lurkers...

By "modern Jewish believers," do you mean believers in Judaism, or believers in Christ of Jewish heritage?

 

[christundivided]

I've meet very few Messianic Jews that believed circumcision for Gentiles is essential to salvation. The keeping of "law" is entirely different story with them.

 

[PR6771]

Again, created a poll for any lurkers or non-lurkers...

By "modern Jewish believers," do you mean believers in Judaism, or believers in Christ of Jewish heritage?

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

 

[Ransom]

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

Thanks.

Then, obviously, the correct answer is the first one: those in Christ are saved, and for those in Christ, circumcision no longer means anything (and hence you can't be sinning merely by the physical configuration of your flesh).

 

[PR6771]

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

Thanks.

Then, obviously, the correct answer is the first one: those in Christ are saved, and for those in Christ, circumcision no longer means anything (and hence you can't be sinning merely by the physical configuration of your flesh).

So you believe Jews are no longer required to follow the Abrahamic covenant? Do Messianic Jews believe that as well? Is your belief the most followed in Christianity? (I ask these questions just out of morbid curiosity...)

 

[PR6771]

I've meet very few Messianic Jews that believed circumcision for Gentiles is essential to salvation. The keeping of "law" is entirely different story with them.

I worded the title of the thread poorly. Should have used "able to inherit the eternal city" not "saved." My apologies.

What do you mean by "keeping of the law?" What does that mean to them and how is it important to them?

 

[PR6771]

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

Thanks.

Then, obviously, the correct answer is the first one: those in Christ are saved, and for those in Christ, circumcision no longer means anything (and hence you can't be sinning merely by the physical configuration of your flesh).

Do you believe that people of Jewish heritage have a valid modern claim to the land of their fathers?

 

[christundivided]

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

Thanks.

Then, obviously, the correct answer is the first one: those in Christ are saved, and for those in Christ, circumcision no longer means anything (and hence you can't be sinning merely by the physical configuration of your flesh).

So you believe Jews are no longer required to follow the Abrahamic covenant? Do Messianic Jews believe that as well? Is your belief the most followed in Christianity? (I ask these questions just out of morbid curiosity...)

No. Most Messianic Jews seek to place the Abrahamic covenant above anything else. They see Jews as having a special standing in God. A standing that preceded Christianity. As such, they generally promote Jewish leaders.

They really do not recognize there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.

 

[christundivided]

I've meet very few Messianic Jews that believed circumcision for Gentiles is essential to salvation. The keeping of "law" is entirely different story with them.

I worded the title of the thread poorly. Should have used "able to inherit the eternal city" not "saved." My apologies.

Some Messianic Jews believe this.... or more importantly.... that Jews can eventually be saved because they are devout followers of the Torah.

What do you mean by "keeping of the law?" What does that mean to them and how is it important to them?

They do not generally believe that Christ is the "end of the law" for righteousness sake. (though they will claim they do). They generally refuse to live as a Gentile would for Christ. They are too good for it.

On a side note.... there really isn't such a thing as an untainted bloodline of Jews in existence. They have all.... ultimately intermarried with Gentiles. Thus, by their own law.... they are "cut off" from the any promise.

 

[PR6771]

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

Thanks.

Then, obviously, the correct answer is the first one: those in Christ are saved, and for those in Christ, circumcision no longer means anything (and hence you can't be sinning merely by the physical configuration of your flesh).

So you believe Jews are no longer required to follow the Abrahamic covenant? Do Messianic Jews believe that as well? Is your belief the most followed in Christianity? (I ask these questions just out of morbid curiosity...)

No. Most Messianic Jews seek to place the Abrahamic covenant above anything else. They see Jews as having a special standing in God. A standing that preceded Christianity. As such, they generally promote Jewish leaders.

They really do not recognize there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.

I would tend towards believing that while there is no heavenly difference between Jew and Greek, there is in fact worldly differences with how God deals with them. I believe we're all saved the same way but the Jews still have unfulfilled promises from God, I think, that will be fulfilled on this earth (possibly during the millennial reign of Christ).

 

[PR6771]

I've meet very few Messianic Jews that believed circumcision for Gentiles is essential to salvation. The keeping of "law" is entirely different story with them.

I worded the title of the thread poorly. Should have used "able to inherit the eternal city" not "saved." My apologies.

Some Messianic Jews believe this.... or more importantly.... that Jews can eventually be saved because they are devout followers of the Torah.

What do you mean by "keeping of the law?" What does that mean to them and how is it important to them?

They do not generally believe that Christ is the "end of the law" for righteousness sake. (though they will claim they do). They generally refuse to live as a Gentile would for Christ. They are too good for it.

On a side note.... there really isn't such a thing as an untainted bloodline of Jews in existence. They have all.... ultimately intermarried with Gentiles. Thus, by their own law.... they are "cut off" from the any promise.

I think the problem would be that their own prophets proclaimed the inability of even a single Jew to completely adhere to the Torah, so because of their imperfection they need Christ. They still have commandments they ought to follow for God's blessing, just as we and they as Christians have commandments we still ought to follow, given by Jesus, Paul, and others

 

[christundivided]

Sorry, believers in Christ of Jewish heritage I think

Thanks.

Then, obviously, the correct answer is the first one: those in Christ are saved, and for those in Christ, circumcision no longer means anything (and hence you can't be sinning merely by the physical configuration of your flesh).

So you believe Jews are no longer required to follow the Abrahamic covenant? Do Messianic Jews believe that as well? Is your belief the most followed in Christianity? (I ask these questions just out of morbid curiosity...)

No. Most Messianic Jews seek to place the Abrahamic covenant above anything else. They see Jews as having a special standing in God. A standing that preceded Christianity. As such, they generally promote Jewish leaders.

They really do not recognize there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.

I would tend towards believing that while there is no heavenly difference between Jew and Greek, there is in fact worldly differences with how God deals with them. I believe we're all saved the same way but the Jews still have unfulfilled promises from God, I think, that will be fulfilled on this earth (possibly during the millennial reign of Christ).

What Jews? Seriously.... How much "Jew" do you have to be before you can claim to be a "Jew"?

(Mal 2:11)  Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

(Mal 2:12)  The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

 

[christundivided]

I think the problem would be that their own prophets proclaimed the inability of even a single Jew to completely adhere to the Torah, so because of their imperfection they need Christ. They still have commandments they ought to follow for God's blessing, just as we and they as Christians have commandments we still ought to follow, given by Jesus, Paul, and others

The difference is their demand these be followed to remain "righteous before God".

 

[T-Bone]

Well, in a simple answer to the question posed in the title of this thread...because anything added to Christ for salvation is by definition heresy.

 

[PR6771]

I think the problem would be that their own prophets proclaimed the inability of even a single Jew to completely adhere to the Torah, so because of their imperfection they need Christ. They still have commandments they ought to follow for God's blessing, just as we and they as Christians have commandments we still ought to follow, given by Jesus, Paul, and others

The difference is their demand these be followed to remain "righteous before God".

And there I think I would be in agreement with you and in disagreement with them, due to the words of their very own Old Testament prophets. (Plus New Testament passages)

 

[PR6771]

What Jews? Seriously.... How much "Jew" do you have to be before you can claim to be a "Jew"?

(Mal 2:11)  Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

(Mal 2:12)  The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

Although being Jewish started as an actual bloodline, by the Mosaic law (?), people in that bloodline could be legally excluded as you describe, but also people not in that bloodline could eventually be legally included (Rahab, Ruth, etc.) as an heir of that bloodline. So ultimately, marrying a different race wasn't the issue, but marrying someone of a different religion. If a non-racial Jew converted to Judaism (which was allowed), the marriage was not considered against the covenant.

 

[christundivided]

What Jews? Seriously.... How much "Jew" do you have to be before you can claim to be a "Jew"?

(Mal 2:11)  Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

(Mal 2:12)  The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

Although being Jewish started as an actual bloodline, by the Mosaic law (?), people in that bloodline could be legally excluded as you describe, but also people not in that bloodline could eventually be legally included (Rahab, Ruth, etc.) as an heir of that bloodline. So ultimately, marrying a different race wasn't the issue, but marrying someone of a different religion. If a non-racial Jew converted to Judaism (which was allowed), the marriage was not considered against the covenant.

While I recognize your distinction..... In practice, there really isn't much of difference. How many proselytes extended the Jewish bloodline? Can you give a brief summary?

Also, that is not what happened in Malachi. Both Israel and Judah both married the daughters of strange Gods without those "daughters" becoming proselytes.

 

[PR6771]

What Jews? Seriously.... How much "Jew" do you have to be before you can claim to be a "Jew"?

(Mal 2:11)  Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

(Mal 2:12)  The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

Although being Jewish started as an actual bloodline, by the Mosaic law (?), people in that bloodline could be legally excluded as you describe, but also people not in that bloodline could eventually be legally included (Rahab, Ruth, etc.) as an heir of that bloodline. So ultimately, marrying a different race wasn't the issue, but marrying someone of a different religion. If a non-racial Jew converted to Judaism (which was allowed), the marriage was not considered against the covenant.

While I recognize your distinction..... In practice, there really isn't much of difference. How many proselytes extended the Jewish bloodline? Can you give a brief summary?

Also, that is not what happened in Malachi. Both Israel and Judah both married the daughters of strange Gods without those "daughters" becoming proselytes.

In short answer, no I have not studied that topic out. But I'll be glad to type off of whatever thoughts come to mind, realizing I'll probably put my foot in my mouth.

As centuries and millennia progress, I could see the possibility of the Jewish people, at some point, becoming less racially Jewish. But if those Jews are legally Jews, it is uncharitable to question their "Jewishness." A legal Jew is a Jew. Period. "Racial" purity ain't worth a crap. Except to racists, which I don't believe you nor I are.

So far as Malachi is concerned, again, with no study of the passage in question, if he is ripping on them for marrying non-converts, he's in the right. Are you suggesting that the Jews in Jesus' day (roughly 400 years after Malachi, I think) were primarily, in fact, non-legal Jews descended from the sinning Jews referenced by Malachi?