Big bro, assuming that some Christian preferred to deal with his tithes as percentages and still kept to the principle of providing for the needy among the brethren and the ministers of the House of God, is he doing wrong adding a fifth to his tenth to restitute if he so pleases?

@Ihedinobi

I will answer your question specifically!

First of all, however, the message from the pastor is on the Board now! What is your opinion on it ---- especially the parts highlighted in red.

Is this a matter of 'if he so pleases' or something being passed across as an instruction with the explicit, unambiguous statement that one who does not tithe has made God send devourers?

This is the naked truth that some tithe advocates are equivocating about on NL - the prevalent teaching on tithes is that it is compulsory. Doing otherwise is described as breaking a covenant and placing oneself under a curse.

This is no slip of tongue or opinion of one parish pastor, this is teaching going out in the official devotional, apparently written by the GO himself to all members.

^^^ My brother, this is a whole "GO" teaching! And he is perhaps the biggest and most "revered" GO. In addition, he has plenty of form on this kind of thing --- plenty and quite bad!

His followers who are educated would struggle to disagree with him! Imagine the less educated who come from a culture of superstition and fear --- listening to that message and what the effect would be on their understanding of God and of Christianity!

Very sad.

Enigma: @Ihedinobi

I will answer your question specifically!

First of all, however, the message from the pastor is on the Board now! What is your opinion on it ---- especially the parts highlighted in red.

I disagree that anyone may impose percentages on anyone else. I hold, in the light I currently possess, that the tithe is not merely a percentage but that it is a command to care for our own. So I'm not entirely comfortable with making the highlighted parts a law of any sort.

I am sure that there is a lesson in Leviticus 27:31, but I don't expect it to be that we need to add 20% to any tithes we neglected to pay in order to be free of any devourer.

Should the pastor be teaching such things? Should any Christian be teaching such things?

I will extract the highlighted part again. I actually expected you to address a number of quite specific things he said: e.g. does God send a devourer, does a Christian "owe" God tithes, is it through "restitution" that one deals with a devourer sent by God etc etc etc etc?

There are two type of devourers – the ones sent by the devil (John 10:10) and the ones sent by God. To deal with the devourers sent by the devil, simply resist him and he will flee from you as long as you are in right standing before God. But to deal with the devourers sent by God, it is through restitution. You will have to cry to God for forgiveness and thereafter undo what made Him to send the devourers in the first place. Do you owe God in tithes, offerings, thanksgiving or vows? Ask for forgiveness and go ahead and pay what you owe. If it is in tithes, also add 20% as interest being the penalty for eating your tithes (Leviticus 27:31).


ACTION POIINT

If you tolerate devourers, God will do nothing about them.

debosky: Is this a matter of 'if he so pleases' or something being passed across as an instruction with the explicit, unambiguous statement that one who does not tithe has made God send devourers?

This is the naked truth that some tithe advocates are equivocating about on NL - the prevalent teaching on tithes is that it is compulsory. Doing otherwise is described as breaking a covenant and placing oneself under a curse.

This is no slip of tongue or opinion of one parish pastor, this is teaching going out in the official devotional, apparently written by the GO himself to all members.

I think it is safe to say that if you walk in disobedience, you labor under a curse and there is a command in the tithe. If we do not care for those of our own number who have need or have been given spiritual charge over us then we are under a curse and not a blessing. Whether it is the tenth thaf we devote to this service or it is more or less does not make it the tithe today, as far as I know. What does is whether it is given to provide for the House of the Lord.

Ihedinobi:
I disagree that anyone may impose percentages on anyone else. I hold, in the light I currently possess, that the tithe is not merely a percentage but that it is a command to care for our own. So I'm not entirely comfortable with making the highlighted parts a law of any sort.

Tithe is not a command to care for our own - tithe was simply one way to care for our own. Paul made this clear in his message on support, which did not say one should tithe, even though he referred to the principle of support that was achieved through tithe in the OT.

Because of the toxic way tithe is taught now, it is becoming a necessity to move away from tithe altogether at first - in order to get people's mindset right, before considering 'reintroducing' it as a potential way of caring for our own - provided you as an individual choose to do so.

^^^ I actually have questions for Ihe on those points.

I am still waiting for a more detailed opinion of his on the pastor's message. Then I will answer his original question to me. Thereafter I will deal with a number of points in his subsequent posts.

Ihedinobi:

I think it is safe to say that if you walk in disobedience, you labor under a curse and there is a command in the tithe.

No there is not - the 'command' if we can call it that, is to care for others. It is not to tithe. The woman who provided a place for Elisha for example - she was not tithing by doing so. There is no need to 'amplify' the threat of punishment in order to effectively compel people to tithe. You are straying very close to the latter here.

If we do not care for those of our own number who have need or have been given spiritual charge over us then we are under a curse and not a blessing. Whether it is the tenth thaf we devote to this service or it is more or less does not make it the tithe today, as far as I know. What does is whether it is given to provide for the House of the Lord.

Tithe is not a general term that you can expand or contract to mean whatsoever you want it to - it has a specific definition - 10%. You either tithe or you don't - if you give 'less' it is not tithe and can never be. 9% is not 10%, no matter how well intended.

If the command is to tithe, then you have to tithe - you can't make it up to be whatsoever you want it to be, or redefine it to suit your own views. Its meaning is plain and simple - a tenth!

In fact, tithe is sometimes not just a tenth but a specific tenth!

For example, in Leviticus it had to be the tenth animal under the rod, not the 9th, not the 11th, not the 99th or 100th. The tithe of livestock had to be the tenth animal specifically not merely a tenth part of something.

There was even a penalty for trying to substitute the tenth animal!

Candour:
And somebody will tell me they don't force people to pay.

How will a weak Christian not rush to pay after reading this?

Where's Abraham's example in that write up? Tithing as practiced today in Nigeria is not of principles, Its of MOSAIC LAW

Pastors game plan:

Attack: play Malachi 3
Midfield: Combine Paul (1 Cor.) and Matthew 23
Defender: Play Abbie in defence
Goalkeeping: use the brainwashed sheep & sometimes junior pastors
Coach: Pastor

Ihedinobi:

I think it is safe to say that if you walk in disobedience, you labor under a curse and there is a command in the tithe. If we do not care for those of our own number who have need or have been given spiritual charge over us then we are under a curse and not a blessing. Whether it is the tenth thaf we devote to this service or it is more or less does not make it the tithe today, as far as I know. What does is whether it is given to provide for the House of the Lord.

Which one be house of the Lord again?

debosky:
Tithe is not a general term that you can expand or contract to mean whatsoever you want it to - it has a specific definition - 10%. Lev. 27:30 & 32

Zikkyy:

Pastors game plan:

Attack: play Malachi 3
Midfield: Combine Paul (1 Cor.) and Matthew 23
Defender: Play Abbie in defence
Goalkeeping: use the brainwashed sheep & sometimes junior pastors
Coach: Pastor

Zikkyy, you sabi football like this na im we dey find coach? Abeg go sign up quickly

Enigma: Should the pastor be teaching such things? Should any Christian be teaching such things?

I will extract the highlighted part again. I actually expected you to address a number of quite specific things he said: e.g. does God send a devourer, does a Christian "owe" God tithes, is it through "restitution" that one deals with a devourer sent by God etc etc etc etc?

Big bro, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to examine him.

Should a pastor preach such a thing? Well, I personally think a pastor should be careful of laying burdens of any sort on children of God. But I think that a pastor should teach his charge responsibility for his brethren and those who minister among us.

Does God send devourers? Oh I think we all know that He does but probably not in the sense the writer meant. If any given person rejects an umbrella under pouring rain, they'll get drenched. The same holds spiritually. A man who for any reason rejects God's covering will espose himself to devourers. These "devourers" are always there, at least, they will be until the Day of the Lord when the earth will be put to rights, and it is only in Christ that they lose their power.

Does a Christian owe God tithes? Well, he owes Him his whole self. "Tithes" can hardly be excluded. But I don't think this is so much a question of debt as it is one of character. Is it in the Christian's character to provide for the needy among his local assembly of believers and those who minister spiritually therein? Yes. Obviously, that means I disagree with the writer's representation of the matter.

Is it through restitution...? I know that Scriptures say, "in repentance and in rest ye shall be saved" (Isaiah 30:15). And repentance is proof that one has truly turned to Christ. To repent means more than to say you're sorry, we both know. It means to assume a different, actually a contrary position to one's previous ways. If I repent an evil, I'll consciously refuse to indulge in it again and try to repair what harm I have done through it. This is the Way of Christ. And it makes it possible for me to take hold of all the good things God has already freely given to me in Christ. Thus, while I disagree with adding any necessity to add a fifth to every tenth I have neglected to pay, I do not disagree that it is good to make up however I can for any shortfall in my responsibility for the Church.

That last brought Dorcas to mind. Was that woman a giver or was she a giver? I disagree with laying necessity on believers, but I do not disagree with teaching believers what is in keeping with their nature. I think the writer disconnected with Christ and focused on carcases where there is a living substitute. But that something may still be drawn from it for Christ is not in doubt where I'm concerned.

Sorry I took so long to reply. I had to recover my strength after a tough week and an even tougher weekend.

debosky:

Tithe is not a command to care for our own - tithe was simply one way to care for our own. Paul made this clear in his message on support, which did not say one should tithe, even though he referred to the principle of support that was achieved through tithe in the OT.

Paul did? I don't remember anything like that. Remind me, please?

Because of the toxic way tithe is taught now, it is becoming a necessity to move away from tithe altogether at first - in order to get people's mindset right, before considering 'reintroducing' it as a potential way of caring for our own - provided you as an individual choose to do so.

I understand and disagree. It's tempting until you realize just how crafty our enemy is. This war of his against the church has gone on for a long time and in each age, he tries to steal some treasure of Christ's insisting that it's a choice for us between one apparently understated principle and an abused one. The result is a loss that takes centuries to recover. I have no intention to help him steal this one.

debosky:

Tithe is not a command to care for our own - tithe was simply one way to care for our own. Paul made this clear in his message on support, which did not say one should tithe, even though he referred to the principle of support that was achieved through tithe in the OT.

Paul did? I don't remember anything like that. Remind me, please?

Because of the toxic way tithe is taught now, it is becoming a necessity to move away from tithe altogether at first - in order to get people's mindset right, before considering 'reintroducing' it as a potential way of caring for our own - provided you as an individual choose to do so.

I understand and disagree. It's tempting until you realize just how crafty our enemy is. This war of his against the church has gone on for a long time and in each age, he tries to steal some treasure of Christ's insisting that it's a choice for us between one apparently understated principle and an abused one. The result is a loss that takes centuries to recover. I have no intention to help him steal this one.

Ihedinobi: Big bro, assuming that some Christian preferred to deal with his tithes as percentages and still kept to the principle of providing for the needy among the brethren and the ministers of the House of God, is he doing wrong adding a fifth to his tenth to restitute if he so pleases?

I will deal with this question as though it is entirely separate from the pastor's message -- as though the pastor's message does not even exist.

First, I do not believe that a Christian has "tithes" so the question of "his tithes" per se has to be understood in a peculiar context. The responsibility (a somewhat better word in this context than 'obligation') is the responsibility of showing gratitude to God as an aspect of loving God and loving neighbour. Part of this is reflected in giving --- giving to support the gospel including 'ministers', giving to support needy brethren and giving to support needy people generally.

The quantum of what to give does not even have to be measured in percentages at all! It is simply a matter of what he chooses, what he 'purports in his heart' which is to take account of his own needs including responsibilities to his own family (blood relatives). In terms of his Christian giving, the question of percentages at all or for that matter "tithes" is a matter entirely for his decision. There are helpful and clear guides in the Bible and especially in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus' statement about helping the hungry, the nak.ed, the prisoner etc is a clear guide: feed, clothe, visit etc. In terms of 'ministers', we are to support them generously and even accord them 'double honour' which means even extra generosity. If what he chooses to add is a fifth, fine! If what he chooses to add is much less, depending on his circumstances, fine.

In light of this, where really is the issue of "restitution" strictly speaking? At a stretch, we could say if a person had intended or desired to give x amount in a particular period but was unable to meet it, it is not a bad thing if he takes that into account next time and increases what he would have then given --- if he can so afford. I do not see that as "restitution". On the other hand, if a person had made a particular vow and was not able to meet it or especially simply did not meet it, again it is not a bad thing if he takes that into account to go beyond the vow when he eventually comes to meet it.

Not of "compulsion" -- as the apostle Paul says.....

2 Corinthians 9
6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

debosky:

No there is not - the 'command' if we can call it that, is to care for others. It is not to tithe. The woman who provided a place for Elisha for example - she was not tithing by doing so. There is no need to 'amplify' the threat of punishment in order to effectively compel people to tithe. You are straying very close to the latter here.



Tithe is not a general term that you can expand or contract to mean whatsoever you want it to - it has a specific definition - 10%. You either tithe or you don't - if you give 'less' it is not tithe and can never be. 9% is not 10%, no matter how well intended.

If the command is to tithe, then you have to tithe - you can't make it up to be whatsoever you want it to be, or redefine it to suit your own views. Its meaning is plain and simple - a tenth!

So lemme ask you, debosky, if the tithe can mean nothing but the tenth, why must circumcision mean any more than a cutting of the foreskin of a man's genitals?

I will thank you, Zikkyy, to not drag this thread into the mockery and insolence that characterises discussions involving the tithe. If my thoughts on tithing are unacceptable to you, by all means, ignore them or decorously point out what's wrong with them.

Ihedinobi: I disagree that anyone may impose percentages on anyone else. I hold, in the light I currently possess, that the tithe is not merely a percentage but that it is a command to care for our own. So I'm not entirely comfortable with making the highlighted parts a law of any sort.

I am sure that there is a lesson in Leviticus 27:31, but I don't expect it to be that we need to add 20% to any tithes we neglected to pay in order to be free of any devourer.

We are agreed that no one should make impositions --- in my view whether of percentages or otherwise. If a pastor identifies a particular need what he should do is make a plea or request or even a biblical "demand" i.e. in line with the teaching that we ought to support 'ministry'.

My first problem with your post here is "the tithe"! I do not believe that there is "a tithe" or "the tithe" for the Christian. Rather, my view is that Christians can learn from some principles related to or even underlying Old Testament tithing: support the ministry (OT = Levites/priests), help needy brethren (OT = widows/orphans), help other needy people (OT = aliens/strangers), enjoy yourself (OT = rejoice in the Lord).

You could make a case that a Christian may find it advisable to use 10% of his earnings/incomes as a basis for what to set aside to keep with these principles. However, the New Testament itself does not obligate 10%.

As for lessons from Leviticus, it seems to me that some things and some lessons are pretty clear: the first is the specificity of the definition and demand concerning the Old Testament tithe.

1. It had to be the tenth animal; nothing else. It was not to be substituted; an attempt to substitute it meant both that specific tenth animal and the substitute became holy and could not be redeemed i.e. they could not be bought back with money. This means the tenth animal could not be bought back with money. The tither could not say e.g. 'oh this number 10 animal is my choice animal, can I give money instead of handing it over?' Similarly, the tither could not say 'can I give my number 11 animal instead?' If he said that, then both number 10 and number 11 must be handed over; he could not give money in place of either! Consider this also: if a person had 9 lambs, was he obliged to "tithe" any lamb?

2. Turning to the other aspect of tithes i.e. agricultural produce (seed of the land/fruit of the tree), God indicated that He did not want tithes in money! That is why he said that if a tither preferred to give money instead of the agricultural produce, he must then add a fifth to the value of the agricultural produce tithe! Compare that to the modern obsession with monetary tithe? The question to ask is when did the tithes as defined by God in terms of produce and livestock become or become transferred to the money demands of modern teaching?

3. Most crucially, where did Jesus or any of the apostles teach Christians to "tithe" or how to "tithe" or that "tithe" has now become money instead of what was defined with specificity in Leviticus?

4. OK we still have the matter of Abram in Genesis: well, the question then arises how are we to keep in consonance with what Abram did? To determine this, it is important to note a few things about that particular example: the goods from which Abram tithed to Melchizedek originally belonged to Sodom and Gomorrah as well as to Lot; Abram is said to give tithes of "all"; we read that to mean tithes of the goods of Sodom & Gomorrah and of Lot; then he returned the rest of the goods originally belonging to Sodom & Gomorrah except provisions for his fighters); thus essentially he also returned more or less 90% of the goods of Sodom & Gomorrah.

So, how does that square with modern "tithing"?

5. Again crucially: did Jesus or any of the apostles suggest the use of the example of Abram as a basis for "tithing" by Christians --- or even by the Jews for that matter?

Enigma:

I will deal with this question as though it is entirely separate from the pastor's message -- as though the pastor's message does not even exist.

First, I do not believe that a Christian has "tithes" so the question of "his tithes" per se has to be understood in a peculiar context. The responsibility (a somewhat better word in this context than 'obligation') is the responsibility of showing gratitude to God as an aspect of loving God and loving neighbour. Part of this is reflected in giving --- giving to support the gospel including 'ministers', giving to support needy brethren and giving to support needy people generally.

The quantum of what to give does not even have to be measured in percentages at all! It is simply a matter of what he chooses, what he 'purports in his heart' which is to take account of his own needs including responsibilities to his own family (blood relatives). In terms of his Christian giving, the question of percentages at all or for that matter "tithes" is a matter entirely for his decision. There are helpful and clear guides in the Bible and especially in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus' statement about helping the hungry, the nak.ed, the prisoner etc is a clear guide: feed, clothe, visit etc. In terms of 'ministers', we are to support them generously and even accord them 'double honour' which means even extra generosity. If what he chooses to add is a fifth, fine! If what he chooses to add is much less, depending on his circumstances, fine.

In light of this, where really is the issue of "restitution" strictly speaking? At a stretch, we could say if a person had intended or desired to give x amount in a particular period but was unable to meet it, it is not a bad thing if he takes that into account next time and increases what he would have then given --- if he can so afford. I do not see that as "restitution". On the other hand, if a person had made a particular vow and was not able to meet it or especially simply did not meet it, again it is not a bad thing if he takes that into account to go beyond the vow when he eventually comes to meet it.

Not of "compulsion" -- as the apostle Paul says.....

2 Corinthians 9
6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Thank you, big bro.

There are two type of devourers – the ones sent by the devil (John 10:10) and the ones sent by God. To deal with the devourers sent by the devil, simply resist him and he will flee from you as long as you are in right standing before God. But to deal with the devourers sent by God, it is through restitution. You will have to cry to God for forgiveness and thereafter undo what made Him to send the devourers in the first place. Do you owe God in tithes, offerings, thanksgiving or vows? Ask for forgiveness and go ahead and pay what you owe. If it is in tithes, also add 20% as interest being the penalty for eating your tithes (Leviticus 27:31).


ACTION POIINT

If you tolerate devourers, God will do nothing about them.

A brief comment on this extract from the pastor's message. In fact, all I will say about the disgraceful rubbish that passes for a "Christian" message is the comment I made on the thread in which it was posted:

"The so-called message ... is a manipulative message bordering on witchcraft. The whole point is to scare unwitting people into emptying their pockets, bank accounts etc for the pastor.

Nothing to do with Christianity, really."

Ihedinobi: I will thank you, Zikkyy, to not drag this thread into the mockery and insolence that characterises discussions involving the tithe. If my thoughts on tithing are unacceptable to you, by all means, ignore them or decorously point out what's wrong with them.

I have been off this discussion for long. I hope to discuss Hebrews 7 with Ihedinobi on his 'thought on tithing', if he doesn't mind. The discussion might be slow though but it will sure progress.

Hebrews 7 is the message of the cross that nailed tithe and tithing to the cross of Christ.

Ihedinobi:


So lemme ask you, debosky, if the tithe can mean nothing but the tenth, why must circumcision mean any more than a cutting of the foreskin of a man's genitals?

Because circumcision means 'to cut around' by definition - you can cut around many things for many purposes in many ways with many instruments, etc.

In contrast tithe can ONLY be a tenth by definition. You can't reduce it to whatever you want - it is a 10th. Moreso this isn't just a matter of 'a tithe' the Levitical tithe is actually 'the tithe' - a specific tenth, not just ANY tenth.

Ihedinobi:
Is it through restitution...? I know that Scriptures say, "in repentance and in rest ye shall be saved" (Isaiah 30:15). And repentance is proof that one has truly turned to Christ. To repent means more than to say you're sorry, we both know. It means to assume a different, actually a contrary position to one's previous ways. If I repent an evil, I'll consciously refuse to indulge in it again and try to repair what harm I have done through it. This is the Way of Christ. And it makes it possible for me to take hold of all the good things God has already freely given to me in Christ. Thus, while I disagree with adding any necessity to add a fifth to every tenth I have neglected to pay, I do not disagree that it is good to make up however I can for any shortfall in my responsibility for the Church.

So who has determined that a shortfall has occurred and must be 'restituted'? How can it be determined if not in comparison to a 10%? How far back do we restitute? Do I 'repair' the harm done by not giving 'the tithe' since I started working? Do I calculate all the income I've ever earned and seek to 'restitute' through paying it all back?

You don't seem to appreciate the import of what you are saying.

Ihedinobi:
Paul did? I don't remember anything like that. Remind me, please?

1 Corinthians 9

8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

The last verse is what the principle is - receive their living from the gospel. Paul wasn't some word-shy or inarticulate person who 'forgot' or didn't know how to couch a sentence to say Christians should tithe. Instead he said, the commandment since that's what you're claiming is 'in the tithe' is that those who preach receive a living from the gospel - not tithe.

I understand and disagree. It's tempting until you realize just how crafty our enemy is. This war of his against the church has gone on for a long time and in each age, he tries to steal some treasure of Christ's insisting that it's a choice for us between one apparently understated principle and an abused one. The result is a loss that takes centuries to recover. I have no intention to help him steal this one.

No - condemning the blatant abuse of tithe teaching is not stealing some of Christ's treasure. It is refusing to take radical steps to curtail a growing problem that ends up polluting the body further.

Jesus clearly said - if your eye (good in itself) will prevent you from gaining salvation, cut it off. Paul said along similar lines - all things may be 'lawful', but not all are beneficial.

Enigma: Should the pastor be teaching such things? Should any Christian be teaching such things?

This is what really grieves me. This approach of . . . .something may still be drawn from it for Christ is not in doubt where I'm concerned. is one of the biggest issues Christians face.

Why should we, as Christians, be desperately searching within a purported Christian teaching for something to be drawn from it? Is it some malevolent event that we need to try to see its good sides

What of those who do not seek to draw 'something' from it but treat it (as it ought to be treated - coming from a shepherd) as instructions to be followed? What then?

If it were some worldly event where we could 'draw' something from it for Christ I would understand, but when we need to use this approach on Christian teaching we are in big trouble.

If we cannot get clean water from where the spring of living water is supposed to dwell (the Church) what hope is there for the world?

No - we do not simply 'look for something to draw', but we consider those who are less able to exercise such judgement and speak out against such twisted messages.

debosky:

Because circumcision means 'to cut around' by definition - you can cut around many things for many purposes in many ways with many instruments, etc.

In contrast tithe can ONLY be a tenth by definition. You can't reduce it to whatever you want - it is a 10th. Moreso this isn't just a matter of 'a tithe' the Levitical tithe is actually 'the tithe' - a specific tenth, not just ANY tenth.

Lovely, debosky, just lovely. Have you "circumcised" your face this morning?

Please, don't make a mockery of discussion. Circumcision is not used to mean "cut around". It is used to mean "cutting around the sexxual organs". Nobody has ever circumcised a field to my knowledge. Tithe, in language, always suggests a portion of the tenth. But I have defined clearly my use of it and justified it. My meaning cannot be misconstrued any more than Paul's meaning of a circumcision of the heart can be.