Greetings.

So I have noticed many of us quoting Paul left, right, and centre, ignoring the context, or the part of the Torah he is talking about. Circumcision is one of these.

So who was circumcision given to?

Genesis 17:9-14:
"And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'"

*Sidenote: We Nigerians circumcise and name on the 8th day, we do this because we are Israelites. Read ‘The Call to the Hebrews’ if in doubt.*

So to answer the first question, Abraham was given this commandment as a sign of the everlasting covenant between Yahweh and his seed. Are you not the seed of Abraham? Jesus said in John 8:39 “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham”
And before you stone me, remember, this is an everlasting covenant. Abraham is the father of the children of Israel. Note this covenant is given before the Israelites were even chosen as the elect. Before Isaac was born. Therefore circumcision is not just for the Jewish people, but to all of Abraham’s descendants. Notice the Muslims circumcise too, at least Ismael’s household got the memo. What happened to the Christians? They think time stopped when Malachi ended. Abraham obeyed the command and all the males in his household, even his house workers.
So to those of you who say circumcision is not a requirement because you did not enter the covenant via Torah, let the word of God show that is incorrect.

What did Jesus say about Circumcision?

By now, I am sure some of you a burning with rage, because you THINK you know what Paul taught about circumcision. But let me start with what Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, has to say.

Firstly, both Jesus (Luke 2:21) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:59) were circumcised on the eighth day. Jesus spoke once of circumcision, when they asked why he healed on the Sabbath. But you can see, in doing so, he also upholds the importance of circumcision:
John 7:21-23 "I have done one work and you are all surprised at it. Moses gave you circumcision--not that it comes from Moses, but from the fathers--and even on the Sabbath you give a child circumcision. If a child is given circumcision on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?"

For those of you that know the law, you can see that circumcision is indirectly referred to when Christ commands that believers partake in Passover annually to remember him:
Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."
1 Corinthians 11:24 "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

For those that are unfamiliar with the law, basically, in order to adhere to Christs’ command to observe the Passover in remembrance of him, one would have to be circumcised, as Torah forbids one who is uncircumcised from partaking in Passover.

Exodus 12:48 " And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.”

From reading the books of the Old Testament and the gospels, one would have no reason to think they need not adhere to the commandment given to father Abraham. I will spend the next day or so showing you where the confusion comes from

Paul Circumcises Timothy in the book of Acts

Acts 16:3 "Paul had a desire for him to go with him, and he gave him circumcision because of the Jews who were in those parts: for they all had knowledge that his father was a Greek."

Basically, Timothy had a Greek father and the Jews were aware of this, and hence they would know that the man was uncircumcised as a child, so Paul had him circumcised.
Contrary to popular belief, one can only be a Jew if his father is a Jew. If his mother is one, that does not count. There are lots of examples in scripture to show this, but if you want to contest that, I am armed with the relevant scripture. To those who think it is matrilineage, consider this giveaway, Rehoboam, son of Solomon, inherited the throne even though his mother was an Ammonite. Simply put, there is not a single case of matrinlineal descent mentioned in the Bible.

Now, even if it was matrilineage, is there one law for the Jew and another for the converts? Many of you quote Galatians 3:28 anyhow, but let us use it in its proper context: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
So either we all do it, or none of us need do it. Another point is this, if circumcision is just for the Jews, and not for the gentile converts, then Paul would have simply stated this. But of course, he did not. By circumcising Timothy, Paul showed that in his new found faith in Jesus Christ, he too upheld circumcision.

Now, I will pause here because it is late and I have work early tomorrow. But I want you to think about what I have written up till now. I will follow up later this week to explain what Paul actually taught regarding circumcision.
Those of you ready to quote Romans 4, Galatians 2, 5, or 6, I would advise you to hold fire because these are exactly the scriptures I will shed light on in the coming days.

For those eager to learn the truth, I urge you to look up the scriptures yourself. The Romans hijacked the truth and fed the world Christianity. If you are a seed of Abraham, you are an Israelite, and you keep the commandments of Yahweh. For all intents and purposes, you are like a Jew/ You cannot read scripture with the interpretations they fed you in mind. Consider what I have said till now. Also consider that in those days, the only scriptures were the books of the old testament, so if any man came teaching contrary to that, then by definition, he was a false teacher. Paul was not a false teacher, churches just misunderstand his writings. Not their fault to an extent, the protestant reformation came very late. Martin Luther only came along in the 1500's, and even then, he was only 'half right'.
Anyway, enough ranting. I will complete this by the end of the week by God's grace.

Shalom

First this is so good, i enjoy reading this.

Secondly are you a Sabbath Observer? My husband, i and our daughter become Sabbath Observes this year just a week before Passover, and i must say it change my whole life for the best. I now understand what Yahweh really want from us, and we need to give Him what He wants, and He will give us what we need. Many people never understand that, or at least they do read their bibles, but they lack because of the knowledge.

Thank you so must for your post.

Shalom

Chigozie1984: First this is so good, i enjoy reading this.

Secondly are you a Sabbath Observer? My husband, i and our daughter become Sabbath Observes this year just a week before Passover, and i must say it change my whole life for the best. I now understand what Yahweh really want from us, and we need to give Him what He wants, and He will give us what we need. Many people never understand that, or at least they do read their bibles, but they lack because of the knowledge.

Thank you so must for your post.

Shalom

Thank you sister, your message is much appreciated. Yes, I am sabbath observer. Some people think this is bondage. But didn't man order Sunday? I have never felt more at liberty .

Ain Soph Aur!!

Light without end brother.

A word for the wise.

One can aspire to be exactly as the master is but never greater

Waiting for you to dissect Paul's writing on circumcision. I don't think you can beat him.His message is clear as crystals for everyone to see.

@OP,
I do not understand why you have to explain circumcision again
All the people against the law you have been trying to defend are circumcised and planning to circumcise their sons for whatever reasons (spiritual or medical). So whether circumcision is something or nothing, no one thinks of not circumcising their sons. I was talking about the physical by the way.

Chigozie1984: First this is so good, i enjoy reading this.

Secondly are you a Sabbath Observer? My husband, i and our daughter become Sabbath Observes this year just a week before Passover, and i must say it change my whole life for the best. I now understand what Yahweh really want from us, and we need to give Him what He wants, and He will give us what we need. Many people never understand that, or at least they do read their bibles, but they lack because of the knowledge.

Thank you so must for your post.

Shalom

Good for you

Surely the other feast days will follow.

Alwaystrue: @OP,
I do not understand why you have to explain circumcision again
All the people against the law you have been trying to defend are circumcised and planning to circumcise their sons for whatever reasons (spiritual or medical). So whether circumcision is something or nothing, no one thinks of not circumcising their sons. I was talking about the physical by the way.

Touche

Medical ke. They are deceiving themselves.

JesusisLord85:

Touche

Medical ke. They are deceiving themselves.

Part II

Paul’s teachings on the subject

Those familiar with scripture will have come across the phrase “circumcision of the heart”. I have seen those in the ‘law done away with’ camp take this to mean that ‘circumcision of the heart’ is the new covenant, replacing physical circumcision. But interestingly, the NT verse that mentions this phrase is clearly directed to Jews. Let me show you:

Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Verse 17 reads: " Behold, thou art called a Jew"
and verse 23 reads: "Thou that makest thy boast of the law."

Even with a cursory glance at the chapter it becomes obvious quite soon that the audience is Jewish. Paul is simply quoting Torah for his Jewish brethren.

Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

So you see, Paul was not saying anything new. How can ‘circumcision of the heart’ be interpreted to mean gentiles are not obligated to be circumcised because their hearts are circumcised? Paul is only saying that physical circumcision by itself is not sufficient.

One of my favourite prophets, Jeremiah said:
Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest My fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings."

At no point in the history of Judaism was this ever interpreted to mean that the spiritual replaced the physical. Both forms are important and that is that.

Paul’s teaching in Romans 2

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

The group being addressed are Jews.
Romans 2:25 "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision."

By the term "Circumcision", Paul is referring to ‘Jewishness’, those born into the covenant. The only ones in covenant at the time was the two tribe southern Kingdom (Judah and Benjamin). He likens a Jew who does not keep the law to a person outside the covenant, i.e. a Gentile.

Romans 2:26 "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?"

Here is an interesting verse and one we often misunderstand. Here, Paul likens a Gentile who obeys Torah to a Jew. At this point you are probably thinking the verse suggests that, by keeping the law, that counts as circumcision for the gentile, so they don’t need to keep the law.
But wait. To keep the righteousness of the law, one would need to be circumcised since it is included in the law.

Therefore, this passage would contradict itself if we take the word ‘uncircumcision’ to mean anything other than a non-jew/gentile. Take that, and re-read this text and now there is no more confusion. Here, Paul is rebuking the Jews because they are displaying pride and they boast because they are the children of promise and were given the law. So you see, the context here is not circumcision per se, but Jewishness.

Romans 2:27 "And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law"?

In other words: 'If a Gentile (born without the law) obeys the law, couldn't he judge you, you who are Jewish through covenant (letter), when you transgress the law?' Paul makes a good point. Which counts more? Righteousness without covenant and birth right, or unrighteousness having covenant and birth right? Paul brought the gospel to the gentiles and saw many coming into faith in Jesus Christ, and is saying that the Jews cannot boast on account of the fact they are Jews by birth right.

Romans 2:28-29 “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

Again, Paul is giving his Jewish brethren a good dressing down. They have outward circumcision in accordance with the covenant i.e. circumcised at eight days old. But a true Jew (note, Jew, not ‘christian’) also has circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, which isn't performed as a ritual for others to see, but for God alone. Please note, Paul is NOT criticising physical circumcision here. It is ordered as part of Abrahamic covenant and also in Torah. He is saying that the Jews should seek to be on a deeper level with God, being circumcised of the heart. Physical circumcision, while necessary, is on its own, not sufficient.

Romans 3:1-2 “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
The above verses re-emphasise that the passage we have looked at was directed only to Pauls Jewish brethren.

One thing to keep in mind from this passage is that ‘circumcision’ and ‘uncircumcision’ are interchangeable for ‘Jewish’ and ‘Gentile’, and are not strictly reflecting the covenant command.
Paul says:
Ephesians 2:11 "Wherefore remember, that in the past you were Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands."
Uncircumcision was used loosely to mean "Gentile."

I will go into the other scriptures I mentioned that deal with circumcision, sometime this weekend. I pray this message of truth will bless you.

Shalom

JesusisLord85: Part II

Paul’s teachings on the subject

Those familiar with scripture will have come across the phrase “circumcision of the heart”. I have seen those in the ‘law done away with’ camp take this to mean that ‘circumcision of the heart’ is the new covenant, replacing physical circumcision. But interestingly, the NT verse that mentions this phrase is clearly directed to Jews. Let me show you:

Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Verse 17 reads: " Behold, thou art called a Jew"
and verse 23 reads: "Thou that makest thy boast of the law."

Even with a cursory glance at the chapter it becomes obvious quite soon that the audience is Jewish. Paul is simply quoting Torah for his Jewish brethren.

Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

So you see, Paul was not saying anything new. How can ‘circumcision of the heart’ be interpreted to mean gentiles are not obligated to be circumcised because their hearts are circumcised? Paul is only saying that physical circumcision by itself is not sufficient.

One of my favourite prophets, Jeremiah said:
Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest My fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings."

At no point in the history of Judaism was this ever interpreted to mean that the spiritual replaced the physical. Both forms are important and that is that.

Paul’s teaching in Romans 2

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

The group being addressed are Jews.
Romans 2:25 "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision."

By the term "Circumcision", Paul is referring to ‘Jewishness’, those born into the covenant. The only ones in covenant at the time was the two tribe southern Kingdom (Judah and Benjamin). He likens a Jew who does not keep the law to a person outside the covenant, i.e. a Gentile.

Romans 2:26 "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?"

Here is an interesting verse and one we often misunderstand. Here, Paul likens a Gentile who obeys Torah to a Jew. At this point you are probably thinking the verse suggests that, by keeping the law, that counts as circumcision for the gentile, so they don’t need to keep the law.
But wait. To keep the righteousness of the law, one would need to be circumcised since it is included in the law.

Therefore, this passage would contradict itself if we take the word ‘uncircumcision’ to mean anything other than a non-jew/gentile. Take that, and re-read this text and now there is no more confusion. Here, Paul is rebuking the Jews because they are displaying pride and they boast because they are the children of promise and were given the law. So you see, the context here is not circumcision per se, but Jewishness.

Romans 2:27 "And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law"?

In other words: 'If a Gentile (born without the law) obeys the law, couldn't he judge you, you who are Jewish through covenant (letter), when you transgress the law?' Paul makes a good point. Which counts more? Righteousness without covenant and birth right, or unrighteousness having covenant and birth right? Paul brought the gospel to the gentiles and saw many coming into faith in Jesus Christ, and is saying that the Jews cannot boast on account of the fact they are Jews by birth right.

Romans 2:28-29 “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

Again, Paul is giving his Jewish brethren a good dressing down. They have outward circumcision in accordance with the covenant i.e. circumcised at eight days old. But a true Jew (note, Jew, not ‘christian’) also has circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, which isn't performed as a ritual for others to see, but for God alone. Please note, Paul is NOT criticising physical circumcision here. It is ordered as part of Abrahamic covenant and also in Torah. He is saying that the Jews should seek to be on a deeper level with God, being circumcised of the heart. Physical circumcision, while necessary, is on its own, not sufficient.

Romans 3:1-2 “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
The above verses re-emphasise that the passage we have looked at was directed only to Pauls Jewish brethren.

One thing to keep in mind from this passage is that ‘circumcision’ and ‘uncircumcision’ are interchangeable for ‘Jewish’ and ‘Gentile’, and are not strictly reflecting the covenant command.
Paul says:
Ephesians 2:11 "Wherefore remember, that in the past you were Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands."
Uncircumcision was used loosely to mean "Gentile."

I will go into the other scriptures I mentioned that deal with circumcision, sometime this weekend. I pray this message of truth will bless you.

Shalom

@bolded thanks for the clarification cos i know of gentiles who are physically circumcised.

Please can you explain why God want to kill Moses after He instructed him to go into Egypt to confront Pharaoh? I am aware that it was because he did not obey the Abrahamic covenant. Moses had probably neglected circumcision in regard to his Midian wife, who detested the operation.Zipporah who was not an Israelite knew what Moses disobedience was. She knew circumcision was a sign of the covenant and so she took the initiative and did it herself and chastised her husband for it, appalled at the blood ritual. She did this to save her husbands life, not as an act of submissive obedience to God.

Can you explain this as regards to the new covenant?

MostHigh:

Good for you

Surely the other feast days will follow.

I am so happy where i am right now. It is amazing to do what Yahweh want us to do.

JesusisLord85:

Thank you sister, your message is much appreciated. Yes, I am sabbath observer. Some people think this is bondage. But didn't man order Sunday? I have never felt more at liberty .

When i first started to be a Sabbath Observer. I try to explain to some friends, but they don't want to understand. But then again we are chosen by Yahweh to serve him direct. And Yahweh did say "Wherever there is two or three in my name, i will be there" So He knew not alot of people will worship Him on Saturdays (Sabbath Day).

May Yahweh bless.
Shalom

Chigozie1984:

I am so happy where i am right now. It is amazing to do what Yahweh want us to do.

Totall healing

Chigozie1984:

When i first started to be a Sabbath Observer. I try to explain to some friends, but they don't want to understand. But then again we are chosen by Yahweh to serve him direct. And Yahweh did say "Wherever there is two or three in my name, i will be there" So He knew not alot of people will worship Him on Saturdays (Sabbath Day).

May Yahweh bless.
Shalom

The chosen are few brother

Look around you.

Not too many of us around and its by the fathers design.



Peace love and joy !!

*fake jewish wannabes

PAGAN 9JA:
*fake jewish wannabes

Original heathen Pagan

I mean that as a compliment.

PAGAN 9JA:
*fake jewish wannabes

Don't be shock when Yahweh do not choose you. Yahweh knows his own people, and you are not one of them

Chigozie1984:

Don't be shock when Yahweh do not choose you. Yahweh knows his own people, and you are not one of them

Thnx Gods.

Bidam: @bolded thanks for the clarification cos i know of gentiles who are physically circumcised.

Please can you explain why God want to kill Moses after He instructed him to go into Egypt to confront Pharaoh? I am aware that it was because he did not obey the Abrahamic covenant. Moses had probably neglected circumcision in regard to his Midian wife, who detested the operation.Zipporah who was not an Israelite knew what Moses disobedience was. She knew circumcision was a sign of the covenant and so she took the initiative and did it herself and chastised her husband for it, appalled at the blood ritual. She did this to save her husbands life, not as an act of submissive obedience to God.

Can you explain this as regards to the new covenant?

In honesty, like the story of God wrestling with Jacob (and Jacob winning), I don't have the answer. Nobody knows for sure, but your explanation is, to me, a logical one and the one I give when asked. But I always caution that by saying "probably".
I am not sure I understand your final question.

Are you asking if it is required as part of the new covenant?

If so, and for the benefit of anyone reading, we must remember that Paul said in Galatians:
Galatians 3:15-18
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

Paul is saying here is that no one can take annul any of God's covenants. You cannot set aside God’s covenant and add and take away from it. The covenant of faith requires you to trust and obey God’s commandments. Verse 17-18 explains further that the Mosaic covenant did not get rid of the Abrahamic covenant. All the OT covenants were layered on top of themselves and did not do away with previous covenants.

I know some will read and think:
Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Taking this verse in isolation and interpreting it to mean 'because we are under a new priesthood, the ordinances of the old are done away with', directly contradicts Paul's saying in Galatians 3:15.

I am planning to also do a study on this. But I know you are a righteous man and sudy the word . So I will give you the verses.
In Hebrews, Paul is talking about the Yom Kippur sacrifice, aka the salvation sacrifice. This sacrifice is unique to al others because the others are about reconcilliation, yom kippor (the day of atonement, see Leviticus 16 & 23) is to cleanse sin. This is the time the high rriest enters the most holy place.

How do I know this?

Paul says (I believe Paul wrote Hebrews, you are welcome to insert the name you think is relevant) in
Hebrews 9:4 "which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant"

This is in line with Leviticus 16:12 " and he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:"

Yom kippur is the ONLY day where the golden censor is placed in the 'holy of holies', and the high priest enters this place

Please see all of Leviticus 16, and 23, and keep in mind that this is what is being taught in Hebrews, and the writing beome clearer.

I will go into all this in more detail another time. But here is a small sidenote for those who talk about the priesthood changing: Was this the first time the priesthood changed?
If anything it has reverted back to that of the first born. God's original order was for the first born of each family to act as a priest, but this was corrupted by the sin of the golden calf and only then given to the Levites. The renewed covenant is better with Christ as head, and his priesthood is eternal.

Shalom

PAGAN 9JA:


Thnx Gods.

hahaha. Brother 'pagan', I have missed your jokes/insults.

JesusisLord85:

hahaha. Brother 'pagan', I have missed your jokes/insults.

hahaha you don't have to miss them any longer. they exist as long as your Nairaland writeups exist!

Part III

Paul’s teachings in Romans 4

Romans 4:7-10 "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision."

Paul is telling his brethren here that Jesus’ atonement for our sins, and grace, covers the Gentiles as well as the Jews. How can the gentiles receive this blessing since they are outside the covenant, for that is the definition of gentile. Paul explains that Abraham himself received this blessing BEFORE he was circumcised and entered the covenant.

Romans 4:11-13 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

Gentiles are brought into the covenants of Israel in the same way, i.e. faith precedes the covenant. Note Abraham did undergo circumcision, this passage does not abrogate the covenant of circumcision G-d made with Abraham. Paul is saying here that even before the Moses, God made provision for those who would later come into the faith, so that the promise of righteousness could be given to all through Abraham.

Romans 4:14-17 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

These promises were made to Abraham before the Torah (law) was given so that they extend to all Abraham's seed and not just Israel. Think Ishmael, Esau etc. God’s grace has been there even before the law was given, and he has wanted us to respond in faith first, even before the law was given. So those of you talking about “I’m under this new grace law” are just imagining vain things, sorry to tell you.

The law itself was given later (yes, after grace) through only one line of Abraham's seed (Isaac to Jacob). It set rules and boundaries for the people to live by. It did not provide grace nor was it ever intended to. Just like chapter 2, which was explained in my previous write-up (part II), Paul is showing that the confidence his Jewish brethren had in the law, by itself, was misguided. They thought righteousness came through Jewishness (which includes the law, and the traditions of the elders/man). The law had been misused as a system for justification. It was also being misused in a way such that they were limiting the promises of Abraham so that only the line of Jacob received them. Abraham is the father of Ishmael (the Arabs), the father of the Israel/Jews, and is the father of all through faith.

Again, calling the law of the most high ‘bondage’ is tantamount to blasphemy, and you ought to repent.
Others say it "came to condemn". And yet, in your churches, you love to read Joshua 1:8, and the many other verses that echo this passage. Shame

Shalom

Are South Africans also Israelites ?

GAL 22 I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing. 3 And they supported me and did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile.[a] 4 Even that question came up only because of some so-called believers there—false ones, really[b]—who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations. 5 But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you.

How come Silas never got circumcised?

Acts 16:3 so Paul wanted him to join them on their journey. In deference to the Jews of the area, he arranged for Timothy to be circumcised before they left, for everyone knew that his father was a Greek.

Did Paul circumcise Timothy because he was being obedient to the law of Moses?