Printable Page

Circumcision - Romans 4:10

From: Doug [Canada]

This discussion on circumcision has been very interesting. Not too long ago we had a young man join us for the first time in our fellowship and studies. After spending the morning with us as we discussed the two houses and Torah he went home and immediately began to study it more that and ended up calling me the very next day with questions about Galatians/circumcision so I appreciate the insights shared on this topic. There are actually two questions I would like to ask but I think it might be better to make them to separate posts so here is the first question.

1] On another forum some of the posts pertaining to circumcision from this forum have been posted. One response on the other forum centered on the fact that Romans 4:10 uses the word "akrobustia" when describing Abraham prior to his actual circumcision. One person on the other forum notes that Abraham is not one who has been circumcised but turned away from following Torah, he is in fact an "uncircumcized Gentile".  The person who posted this suggests "If the word is used in Romans 4:10, to describe Avraham, before he was circumcised, then why would it be any different in Galatians 2:7, where akrabustia is used, to describe Gentiles. Avraham didn't come from a sub-set of Chaldeans. Avraham was the first to receive circumcision. Therefore, akrobustia and aperitome are simply synonyms, both meaning uncircumcision." I would like to hear anyone's comments with reference to Romans 4:10.

Doug Trudell

From Rabbi Moshe:
Great question. There are two ways to approach this. The primary answer would be that Abraham was first called in Genesis 12 out of Ur of the Chaldees, he was an uncircumcised (aperitome) Gentile, never having been in relationship with Yahweh the Elohim of covenant. We see the same in Genesis 15 where the covenant was actually first cut and Avram was placed in Yahweh positionally. When he later had his covenant sealed in Genesis 17, HE HAD RETUNED to seal covenant, not to meet Yahweh as he did when he was in fact an (aperitome) Gentile. Therefore Rav Shaul uses the word akrobustia to describe Abraham's Genesis 17 RETURN, as he used the same word to describe Ephraim-Israel's RETURN.

Further, if Abraham is the father of the akrobustia he himself had to be an akrobustia, to father the latter day "seed of Abraham" akrobustia, for if he was a true heathen aperitome in Genesis 17, and since seed produces after its own kind, he then would have fathered the aperitome, which as we know he did not, since he was and remains the father of ALL the FAITHFUL, NOT ALL THE HEATHEN!

The second reason for the word akrobustia being attributed to the Gentile Abraham, was very simply the fact the Septuagint was what Rav Shaul was referencing and thus quoted the Septuagint, which also used this word, further emphasizing the fact that the rabbis who did the translation circa 200 BCE, considered Abraham's circumcision in Genesis 17 as a RETURN from an initial salvation, to seal and RENEW covenant as opposed to an initial encounter with Yahweh!

From:  Rick Taylor
       
Because of this discussion happening at this time, and because I am searching, not really knowing what I believe - (I do believe I am of the commonwealth of Israel, but as what I do not know), and because I endeavor to have a Berean  attitude, I need to ask the following question:

Because I do not have any one to discuss two house with in person, and do attempt to do so with my pastor who will give my almost five minutes at a shot - just humor me.  I have to examine where I stand and check things out in a variety of ways.  When I read the chapter on circumcision, I was excited, because I thought at last I could show this to my pastor, and he would agree to discuss two house with me.  I printed my e-mail and took it to him.  He said it was in error, that the Greek explanation was wrong, and that was about all.  I decided to prove him wrong and checked the Greek out further. The following is the letter I wrote and the response I received:

ME: I am not a Greek student, and can use your help.  I have been told that the Greek word akrobustia (Strong's 203) as found in Galatians 2:7, and translated uncircumcision, actually means: tossed away foreskin, the discarded prepuce or tip - and is in reference to those who have despised their circumcision; and I have been told that the word for circumcision is peritome.  If uncircumcision would have been the proper English word used, then the Greek word would have been aperitome. Can you enlighten me on this matter? Thank You
Rick Taylor.

RESPONSE FROM GREEK PROFESSOR: the Greek word akrobustia has 2
different meanings:

- foreskin, prepuce.
- the state of having the foreskin, uncircumcision.

In Galatians 2:7 it is clear from the context that the second meaning is the only possible one here.  And since in Greek the word aperitome does not exist at all and is nowhere attested, it makes no sense to suggest that the author would have written aperitome, if uncircumcision was to be the proper translated English word. So my answer is simple: don't believe what they tell you!
Good luck!

Professor Huys, Webmaster greekgrammer.com

Rick Taylor: Back to this post - Because there are so many discussing this now on line, I am hoping that someone can help me.  I believe in two house to a point, but am not sure (even though I am forwarding articles to Baptist pastors -GARBC ones, and to others in the hope of getting some feed back) to what degree.  Discrepancies like what I just shared above disturb me, and I would like some clarification. 

Would anyone in this argument be able to provide an answer for me, thank you Rick Taylor

From Rabbi Moshe,
Shalom Rick,

Another super question. This Greek professor may know more Greek than I do but is not a very good theologian. Let me quote your Greek professor friend: "And since in Greek the word apertome DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL and is nowhere attested, it makes no sense to suggest that the author would have written aperitome......"

Well Rick... in Acts 7:51 Stephen calls the unbelieving Jews APERITOME in heart, to identify their UNCIRCUMCISED hearts. So this professor who claims that aperitome is never used in the New Covenant and does not even exist is wrong. How wrong? Dead wrong! Hope that helps!

Shalom Brother Moshe

I was just doing some reading in the scriptures and as usual more questions come to mind than answers, so I thought that you might be able to give insight on these passages.

QUESTION
1) Shemoth 18:16-

When they have a matter, they come to me, and I rightly rule between one and another, and make known the LAWS and His TOROT.

Question: Why the distinction between Laws and Torot? Are the Laws & Torot not one and the same or is there a distinction? If so what are the differences.

ANSWER: In many other scripture versions this is rendered "And I make known the laws and teachings of Elohim."   The distinction being only a subtle one between a strict order/commandment [CHUK] as in "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" (i.e., what have been compiled by the unsaved Rabbis as the 613 mitsvoth) with what instead is still Torah (torot=teachings=instructions) but expressed more casually and conversationally by Yahweh as a narrative instruction about any one or all of these express commands.  Each instructs further and thus are equally "torot" but one instruction is more a didactic command and rigid while the latter is more conversational and informal.

Each come straight from Yahweh however. IT MUST NOT  be construed to mean written vs. oral Torah, for in both words as you can below in their definitions each shows elements of being formalized, prescribed or written down.

02706 choq  

from 02710; TWOT - 728a; n m

AV - statute 87, ordinance 9, decree 7, due 4, law 4, portion 3, bounds 2, custom 2, appointed 1, commandments 1, misc 7; 127

1) statute, ordinance, limit, something prescribed, due
1a) prescribed task
1b) prescribed portion
1c) action prescribed (for oneself), resolve
1d) prescribed due
1e) prescribed limit, boundary
1f) enactment, decree, ordinance
1f1) specific decree
1f2) law in general
1g) enactments, statutes
1g1) conditions
1g2) enactments
1g3) decrees
1g4) civil enactments prescribed by God

08451 towrah {to-raw'} or torah {to-raw'} torot    
from 03384; TWOT - 910d; n f
AV - law 219; 219

1) law, direction, instruction
1a) instruction, direction (human or divine)
1a1) body of prophetic teaching
1a2) instruction in Messianic age
1a3) body of priestly direction or instruction
1a4) body of legal directives
1b) law
1b1) law of the burnt offering
1b2) of special law, codes of law
1c) custom, manner
1d) the Deuteronomic or Mosaic Law]


2) Shemoth 19:24- And Yahweh said to him, come go down and then come up, you and Aharon with you. But do not let the PRIEST and the people break through to come up to Yahweh.

QUESTION: Who are these PRIESTS? This event in Shemoth seems to appear prior to the formation of the Levitical Priesthood. Where did they come from and what was their purpose?

Exod 19:24 reads: Vayomer aylav YHVH; lech raid vaalitah atah veAharon imach vehacohanim veha-am al yehersoo la-aloot el YAHVH pein yiphratz bam.

"And Yahweh said to him; go down and come up, you and Aharon with you;  and the priests and the nation do not approach to go up to Yahweh, lest He breaks forth upon them."

ANSWER:The "priests" spoken of are probably not the Levitical Priesthood, but the  firstborn sons of Israel.  The sons of Levi were LATER taken in place of all the firstborn.  It is the job of the firstborn to be the "kohen" (one who officiates) of the family.  He would be responsible for the oversight and proper implementation of "religious" acts and ceremonies, such as the preparation of the Pesach kid. This is the "birthright" that Esau sold to Yaacov, the right to become the spiritual head of the family.
 
QUESTION:

Shemoth 20:25- And if you make me an altar of stone , do not build it of cut stone, for if you use your chisel on it, you have profaned it.

Question: I have noticed in this case and in others pertaining to the building of altars to the Father in the wilderness, that the method was one of simply stacking rocks . What is the significance of the simplicity of these altars built as instructed by the Father?

ANSWER: The altar was made to lengthen man's life and the sword OR CHISEL to shorten it.  Hence it would be wrong to lift up that which is designed to curtail a man's life against that which is designed to prolong it. THAT IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF YAHWEH'S LOVE! This likely derives from the mitzvah of not creating a graven image from anything in the heavens or on the earth or under the earth.  If man starts carving stone, he will inevitably be looking to what a great majestic work [with his hands] he has done, rather than focusing on Yahweh. 

Yahweh made the stone and essentially says: a plain alter I have built is better than anything fancy you can carve. These verses come on the heels of Yahweh having just given the ten commandments which of course included the second commandment regarding no graven images.  So, since Yahweh created all things His altar should be simple and not ornate, lest any man think Yahweh actually needs anything of mans. This is also why the specifications of the Tabernacle in the wilderness are so detailed.  Yahweh does not want man to think that he must continually outdo himself trying to make something bigger, brighter, glitzier than what Yahweh wants or has made since the beginning. THE ALTAR WAS NOT TO BE THE FOCUS OF THE WORSHIPPER, RATHER IT WAS TO BE WHO THE ALTAR REPRESENTED AND THUS THE SIMPLER THE ALTAR, THE MORE MAGNIFICENT YAHWEH'S SPLENDOR!