This is a question for the Baptists on the PB. Consider the following scenario:

It is a time of apostasy in ancient Israel. A king reigns in Samaria who worships Baal (cf. Ahab). There is an Israelite man, let's call him "Bob", who turns away from the true religion to worship idols. The man has a son. Let's call the son "Bin-Bob". For whatever reason, the man adds to his covenant breaking the neglect of his son's circumcision -- i.e. Bin-Bob is not circumcised. Over time Bin-Bob grows to adulthood and moves out on his own.

Then, a reformer rises up and puts the wicked king's regime to death (cf. Jehu). The reformer takes a look at Bin-Bob and tries to decide what to do with him. Should Bin-Bob be dealt with as one under covenant obligations? Does the following passage apply?

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

... or is the above law irrelevant to Bin-Bob?

__________________
AV
Baptist
VA

You're asking a hypothetical which is always difficult to answer.

If Bin-Bob was living as member of the covenant nation, IMHO he is subject to the Law. But what if the reformer gave Bin-Bob the opportunity to be circumcised?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

God is a God of mercy, and always has been. I would assume if Bin-Bob was under covenantal obligation and repented of his sin of omission (and probably many sins of commission), he could be forgiven...

...but that needn't affect your answer to the question, which is simply whether the law applies to Bin-Bob or not.

I would suspect that Bin-Bob could seek to be accepted as a heathen or gentile who wanted to be a part of the Covenant Community. Otherwise he should have been cut off. But Israel wasn't accustomed to following the law very well were they? Look at Moses' son and those who were not circumcised in the wilderness. They were circumcised later.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Your logic doesn't seem to work here.

If he is treated as a heathen or Gentile, then he should be treated as an alien and stranger who has no special covenant obligations. Therefore, why would he be "cut off"? (I'm assuming that a "cut off" person is by definition no longer living in Israel, either under the most common understanding -- pushing up daisies; or as a few speculate may have sometimes happened -- some kind of banishment. Regardless, hopefully we will agree that "cut off" must mean something very much stronger than exclusion from the Passover table.)

If he is "cut off", it must only be on the basis of the Law. Thus, are you saying that there is a specific law that applies to him, even when considered as a "Gentile" in this situation? What is that specific law that you feel applies?