Hello Anthony,
I can't spend too much time on this now, as I've got to prepare for a Bible Study on Job this evening — so here goes. (I'm sorry if I can't respond to your entire post.)
I wonder why you are relating circumcision to Heb 9:10 and the ceremonial law. Continuing in this vein I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say, "Here in Acts 15:1,24 we know the relationship of the sign and seal, along with the relationship of new converts to the ceremonial law was addressed."
Would you please explain to me in what way "the sign and seal" was addressed by the council, save in that it was not required? Why was it not required? Is it not because it had been replaced (though they did not overtly state this, as you note) by another covenantal sign, the Gentiles not being obligated to observe Mosaic law?
In the beginning of this same paragraph you say, "One of the things that changed among the outward, physical types was circumcision. [The sign and seal] looking forward to the reality that is Christ, His person and work."
When you say circumcision was an "outward, physical type" that was changed, are you contrasting it to baptism? Is not baptism also outward and physical? Do they not
both signify an inward spiritual reality? Are you saying circumcision was merely —
only — an outward type?
When you say (I assume you are talking of circumcision), "[The sign and seal] looking forward to the reality that is Christ, His person and work", what are you meaning? I want to make sure I understand you before answering!
If baptism did not replace circumcision, what is the relation between the two as regards each being a sign & seal of their respective administrations?
When you bring in Acts 21:21, again I'm not sure what you are getting at. The situation was there were thousands of Jews who believed in Christ
and were zealous of the law; these had been informed that Paul taught against Jews being circumcised, observing Moses, and the Jewish customs. Was it true? I like the way Ray Stedman's simple commentary (
When The Church Was Young, Book 3) explains it:
Paul never taught a Jew to abandon Moses, or not to circumcise his children. What he strongly taught was that the Gentiles should not be subject to these Jewish provisions. He would not allow them to come under the Jewish law, and insisted that they did not have to follow any of these Jewish provisions.
But he did not set aside the ritual for the Jews. Rather, he pointed out to them that the ritual was all symbolic, a picture pointing toward Christ. The very rituals they were performing and the sacrifices they were offering were all telling them of Jesus. Jesus' coming had filled out the picture drawn by the Old Testament sacrifices....The function of these Jewish rituals, then, was to remind them of what the Lord Jesus had come to do, and had done....There is no suggestion they should have stopped, or that it was wrong for them to do this, until God took the rituals away....Here Paul was following his own announced practice. He wrote that when he was with the Jews, he became as a Jew; when he was with the Gentiles, he became as a Gentile...
The Jewish sacrifices ended when the temple was finally destroyed in A.D. 70, when the words of Jesus were fulfilled and Roman armies came and laid siege to the city. (pages 19-22)
All this to say there was a transitional period between the Old and New Covenant times. Both baptism and circumcision were practiced by the Jews, although circumcision had no bearing on righteousness before God, as it did under the law, as well as — and especially — in the Abrahamic covenant, where it had been commanded for Abraham, his seed, and all the males in his house. It had been replaced by the non-bloody and universal sign (females and Gentiles included) of baptism.
Acts 21 does not prove anything about children no longer being brought into the covenant household through the sign and seal of God being placed upon them. It dealt with other things.
You stated, Anthony, that circumcision was an "outward carnal ordinance". Are you saying that what the LORD laid upon His friend Abraham was but that? It is written,
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised... (Ro 4:11)
A seal given by God signifying righteousness is not a mere carnal ordinance!
You will forgive, I hope, my playfulness in saying earlier,
Quote:
|
We in Israel today “circumcise” our children according to the command given our father Abraham.
|
I figure folks who are used to typical language could appreciate it.
Gotta run!
Steve