04-03-2008, 10:48 PM
|
 | Norseman Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Speedway, Indiana
Posts: 7,528
Thanks: 815
Thanked 746 Times in 470 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter Thanks Rev. Winzer. I think your quote misses the full point and that Tombes explains it well enough in his understanding of the various aspects of the Covenant made with Abraham. | Tombes fails to account for the very point made by Marshall, which is that proselytes were circumcised who had no share in temporal privileges. | Actually, He does mention them. Quote: |
4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21.25 Rom. 9.7,8,9. Gal. 4.29,30. the same may be said of Esau; All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12,13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises of the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job.
| I do believe their circumcision did permit them to remain with Abraham which was a blessing in and of itself. It was civil.
|