Premonitions of Paul
“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” Deuteronomy 30:6 NASB
Circumcise your heart – Most of us don’t realize that circumcision of the heart is a concept that originates in the Tanakh. Some Christian expositors acknowledge this, but don’t seem to realize the full extent that Paul draws on from deep Jewish sources in his letters to the assemblies. Let’s review some Christian comments on the relationship:
1) CIRCUMCISION– Is to cut away the flesh. Spiritually it means a cutting away of the natural, sinful, Adamic nature that we are born with.
CIRCUMCISION refers to a spiritual work that is done in our hearts by the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.
Even in the Old Testament, Israel knew that physical circumcision had deeper spiritual meaning. Deut. 10:16 and Jer. 4:4 tell us that we must “circumsixe the foreskin of our hearts unto the Lord.” They understood that it represented a spiritual change of heart.[1]
2) Paul is discussing the role of the Old Testament Law as it relates to Christianity. He argues that Jewish circumcision is only an outward sign of being set apart to God. However, if the heart is sinful, then physical circumcision is of no avail. A circumcised body and a sinful heart are at odds with each other. Rather than focus on external rites, Paul focuses on the condition of the heart. Using circumcision as a metaphor, he says that only the Holy Spirit can purify a heart and set us apart to God. Ultimately, circumcision cannot make a person right with God; the Law is not enough. A person’s heart must change. Paul calls this change “circumcision of the heart.”
3) This concept was not original with the apostle Paul. As a Jew trained in the Law of Moses, he was certainly aware of this discussion from Deuteronomy 30. There, the Lord used the same metaphor to communicate His desire for a holy people: “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deuteronomy 30:6). Physical circumcision was a sign of Israel’s covenant with God; circumcision of the heart, therefore, would indicate Israel’s being set apart to love God fully, inside and out.[2]
4) What makes this profound is that Paul is clarifying that being a Jew is not because someone was born into that nationality or religion. Being of God’s chosen people comes through circumcision of the heart, which is spiritual rather than natural. This spiritual transformation comes by being united with Christ and born again (Col. 2:11).[3]
Do you find it interesting that no one says, “Moses ‘is clarifying that being a Jew is not because someone was born into that nationality or religion;’ rather one must experience an inner transformation symbolized by an outward physical expression”? Commentators are quick to cite Paul but somehow overlook that Paul’s precedent is Moses. Perhaps suggesting that Moses was the first to acknowledge the need for inner transformation would imply that Paul didn’t break from Jewish tradition. That would create a significant obstacle to Christian replacement orthodoxy. What do you suppose would happen if the Church began to teach that Moses thought Jews needed circumcision of the heart? How would the Church distinguish itself from this ancient Jewish instruction? Do you suppose they might struggle just a bit more with the claim that Paul became a Christian?
Put aside the assumed religious history of the West and ask yourself this question: If you had only the Hebraic Scriptures and the teachings of the rabbis, how would you view practices like circumcision, atonement and faith? Did any of the apostles have anything more than this? Did Yeshua?
Topical Index: circumcision, Paul, Colossians 2:11, Deuteronomy 30:6
[1] http://www.zionph.com/index.php/component/jdownloads/send/10-paul-caram/52-circumcision-of-the-heart?option=com_jdownloads
[2] https://www.gotquestions.org/circumcision-of-the-heart.html
[3] http://www.jcblog.net/romans/2/208-romans-228-29-circumcision-of-the-heart-the-true-mark-of-a-child-of-god
“Moses ‘is clarifying that being a Jew is not because someone was born into that nationality or religion;’ rather one must experience an inner transformation symbolized by an outward physical expression”…
I think that Yeshua actually told that to Nicodemus… John 3:1-10
Nicodemus is not a simple man… he is an Israel’s teacher… his question “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” is not an answer coming from a naive person… it is a rethorical answer…
In my opinion, Nicodemus was saying “I am already part of the Kingdom of God. I have been born into Israel by circumcising when I was 8 days old. Abraham is my father… how can I go back to my mother’s womb to be born again and be circumcised again? That would be odd!”
And I think that Yeshua is telling him… “wait a second… Have you been born again by being free from slavery coming from sin? Just as Israel was freed through waters, have you born again the same way HaShem took them from Egypt using Moshe? Have you been circumcised in your heart? Only God’s Spirit has the Power to transform you from inside! Circumcision of the flesh is for your flesh, Circumcision of heart is for your spirit!”
Simply Hara to ≠≤ Yezer Hara tov. Spelling Maybe atrocious, but one is greater than the other. Strengthening good intentions,
(as one who has been redeemed) The scriptures are alive,and powerful , and makes one fully alive , one who studies them ,
Understands that ,from the beginning the word was God , Yeshua is God . Adherence to the commandments . equals obedience . As a response in faith ….God approves …. maybe not so simple. ?
If Yeshua is God, that would mean God died on the tree. Can God die?
Given that Yeshua laid down His life (psychē) for His sheep (John 10:15), for what purpose did He have to die? More to your question here, how is it that Yeshua laid down His psychē and yet raised it back up again (John 10:17-18; 2:19-22)? Can a mere man take/raise up His own life (psychē)?
Hi Graig. “for what purpose did He have to die?”
That is a nice question. Many believers do not know the answer…
Is the circumcision of the heart something that I am doing or is it done by the grace of our God?
(“grace” = what our God CAN do and I CAN’T, and should not even try to make it happen but simply receive-ask-believe) ??
David prayer as I do frequently ” Create in me a clean heart of Lord and renew a right spirit within me”. Yes the heart is central in an ot. And nt. Life.
I have seen it is easier to cure error with error than with the truth because the resistance to the truth that caused us to look for something more palatable has NOT been cured. It is easier to jump out of frying pans into fires than it is to look for ways to put the fire out.
Before I say the below, I want to thank all who have been trying to share with me and help me understand where they are coming from, and also to ask them to please continue! I really want to understand.
I find it fascinating that the same arguments that make Yeshua a man simultaneously remove the barriers that keep us from being gods, thus synchretizing perfectly with most other belief systems on the planet, which assert versions of the same. I have always had a severe reaction to anything that appeals to unsanctified flesh, as being suspect. This is, frankly, been a huge impediment to me being able to take the Yeshua-as-not-God arguments seriously, because none of them address its similarity to the “natural bent of the human mind” (C.S. Lewis’ description of paganism). All paganism portrays some version of us being gods and world saviours being human. This is a BIG rock for me to keep kicking my toe on. I need to see someone address it directly.
I just reread the post a few days ago titled an alien Among Us. I stand corrected thank you for holding me accountable. Even though it was a side track, thank you for getting me back on track. Shalom
Laurita, You lost me on the advantage of error over the truth statement. Is it that one can slowly crawl from the dark pit of error into truth one rung of error at a time, each being less erroneous and onerous than the former till the light of truth is reached? If so, those same unsanctified pagans whom you fear would have already arrived at their goal of godhood. I have no difficulty accepting and reconciling the idea of a future god-like-hood for humans with one important caveat that all those pagan religions are quick to debate, decry and deny: ” No man comes to the Father but through me”. You want life in this realm and the promise of a possibility of a supranatural existence in the olam haba then it is only available to those who die to being gods in this life.
It is easier to combat error with error because the same predispositions can remain. I get suspicious when the points of error, such as the pagan notions of the Trinity, get directly opposed. This opposition may allow for satisfying philosophical argument, but since when was error valid enough to deserve such dualing? Both sides of an argument presuppose agreement on common bedrock. You don’t argue apples with oranges, but that is exactly what error and truth ARE: apples and oranges. I wish we were spending more time sorting fruit back into the respective carts they got dumped out of before we decide there is something to argue about.
The predispositions that caused us to fall for the last error will cause us to fall for the dialectic ‘answer’ of its natural corollary if we do not spend the time and effort to examine those predispositions that allowed room for the original error. I will get more comfortable with this discussion when it gets around to examining more of WHY the error is error. I appreciate Skip’s commitment to examining the roots of gnosticism. I feel like this could be a good beginning. Thank you, Skip!
I’m not so sure one can definitively claim pagan roots for the Trinity. Was there any religious sect that claimed monotheistic trinitarianism? I’m not aware of any. Most “trinities” were a triumvirat of gods, and most of those included a female figure and a son. Christians have never viewed the Holy Spirit as a female.
You’re probably aware that gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge, and that Gnostics sought ‘secret’ knowledge. You’re probably also aware that Gnostics largely adhered to a spirit is good/matter is evil dualism, and that this ‘secret’ knowledge was the means by which to escape matter. For a very good work on the history of Gnosticism, I recommend Kurt Rudolph’s Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (translation by R. McL. Wilson).
The definitive definition of the doctrine of the Trinity belongs to the RCC, not to Protestants, so they get to define it, not us, and their definition is definitely pagan. There is a gnostic dualism lying behind the WAY the Biblical words get used in that RCC definition. It is quite subtle, but it cannot be ignored.
From what I’ve read of the RCC Trinity, it doesn’t have pagan roots. Perhaps you can point me to something that illustrates this? All RCC teachings come from their Catechism. I’m also familiar with the first four Ecumenical Councils, which discuss the Trinity (gradually).
I don’t think Mariology figures here, though that could, potentially, create a quadrinity.
Mariology does figure, as Christ is subordinate to her for His divinity as well as His salvation of us, according to RCC PRACTICE. That leaves a pagan trinity (father, mother, child) as the only conclusion when hierarchy of function is the standard.
Their trinity is a clear hierarchy – not equality – in origin as well. First the Father, then the Mother, then the Child. They also share a SUBSTANCE, which is pagan as all get out.
As Mary and Christ get lumped together in one package (Mary being styled “CO-redemptress”) in a creative twist on the classic pattern, that still leaves room for the Holy Spirit, which is definitely subordinate (again; not equality) in FUNCTION, even though the language can point otherwise.
There are multiple pagan roots; these being just a few of the more blaring ones. Don’t look at the language being subverted out of the Bible, as that can be deceptive; look at the practice and results.
First, let me state that I’ve never been RCC, and I’m certainly no RCC apologist; however, I have had the pleasure of communicating with a very learned Catholic lady who patiently showed me the history. Now, I remain steadfast in my refusal to adhere to RCC-ism for many reasons, but I at least have a much better understanding of Catholicism.
With all due respect, you’re anachronisitically imposing more recent doctrine and praxis (Mary as Co-Redemptrix, e.g.) upon the 3rd-5th century Trinitarian ‘formulation’ (I put that in quotes because it’s not so much a formulation, but a hashing out of the particulars as found in Scripture, and already written about in the writings of Irenaeus, etc.). The first four Ecumenical Councils specified Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the Trinity. While I’m opposed to the use of the term theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary, I do understand why they used it. Since there was no question that Jesus was a man, theos was tacked on to this definition to affirm the dual nature of Jesus. My preference would have been theanthropotokos (God-man-bearer), which, in my view, would have left no ambiguity, but I wasn’t given a say in the matter.
The word “substance” is a poor translation for ousia, which is a participle of the verb ‘to be, exist’; therefore, its meaning is more akin to “existing/being”—which sounds much like Exodus 3:14, does it not? (The LXX can be translated: I AM THE ONE WHO EXISTS, or I AM WHO EXISTS, or I AM THE ONE WHO IS.) It’s a word used for ontology.
Being functionally subordinate in one aspect does not necessarily entail a hierarchy or ontological difference. The Father sent the Son, but it was the Son who died on the Cross, the latter providing the means by which humanity will have a future resurrection. That’s an important role! The Spirit was sent to abide in believers. That’s also an important, and singular, role (even though Paul also states that Christ lives in the believer, e.g.).
My suggestion is to take the first four Ecumenical Councils and view them in succession (forget the canons that go with them, just focus on the resultant ‘creeds’).
I like it. Now we are beginning to define parameters, instead of just letting others do it for us. I have no interest in fighting the fights others designed. Thank you, Craig, for being who you are.
Before I’m misunderstood, perhaps I should explain further both theotokos (God-bearer — the Council’s term) and my own theanthropotokos (God-man-bearer). This wasn’t to set a point in time for the Deity of the Son. This was in answer to Luke 1:35, which is interpreted in RCC (and Christianity as a whole) as the conception of the human-Divine (using John’s language for the latter part of hyphenation, ‘the Word’), with the Deity (‘the Word’) having preexisted and the humanity coming into existence at that moment. Thus, Mary bore the ‘God-man’, though Deity (the Word) preexisted her. The conception and resultant birth was that of Jesus of Nazareth, aka Word-made-flesh.
This sounds a lot like how Peter explains it we are born from incorruptible seed the word of God. (1 Peter 5) And as Yeshua phrased it born again (John 3) while Paul used born from above. All resulting in what John said to be eternal life John 17:3 (Yeshua prayer) and 1 John 5 or the overcoming of death sin through the manifestation of Christ born into the last Adam as in 1Cor 15.
Good point. Read Has Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, to see how Greek and Gnostic thought influenced the early fathers. I will be writing more about this in the coming month.
Don’t forget skip has some wonderful word switches, like Trinity, try it out, very informational.
I’m with you sister. I have trouble with the Trinitarian view and it’s pagan roots. I believe the Shema (Behold oh Israel the Lord they God is one) is absolutely true it’s so clear, yet I perceive clearly 3 expressions of YHVH. I asked Abba once to explained to me the trinity in the context of the Shema. As I understood it he said “well son, look at the sun in the sky”. So to elaborate- you know that the sun is singular object, yet you see the light as a distinct expression of that same singularity. That is to my mind Messiah, can’t see the sun without the light it sheds. I feel the warmth of the sun on my arm, that is the Ruach. I feel the spirit. I do not worship the Ruach, not sure how to deal with the Light but the Light said not to worship him but rather the Father. So that’s my conundrum… I don’t need to understand- Yah does. Not having a bunch of degrees in theology or philosophy ( my three sheep skins are all in science) I lean toward the practical realities expressed in the creation, not big ideas…. Some place Paul suggest, and in fact it’s Romans 1. That the message- the gospel is declared in the creation itself so perhaps that helps hang ones hat on the above. We all have such penchant for being right and eating of the wrong tree-feeling a need to decide what’s true. Im not so sure I have that need any longer… Whatever none of us may really know this side of heaven but we can really know who does really know, and that is comforting!
Mark. Using the creation to explain the Creator, I like it, it keeps the concepts clear. Very nice analogy which reminds me of the Day of the Lord. An eternal light….
Looking at the context of Deut 30:6, I think this is in reference to the future, not in the then-present. With that in mind, I think this should be understood in conjunction with Ezekiel 36:26-27, which is also future from the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy.
I completely agree with you Graig. See also Jeremiah 31:33-34
I think that most people don’t grasp these verses in their full meaning…
I’m with Paul.
Paul knew and was convinced in his circumcised heart about God
and His designs. Paul said: “I know whom I have believed.”
“I know” Paul said. He knew. And he was convinced. His mind and his
heart were in lock-step with God. Totally. He knew!
How?
God made sure of it. He provided His Word. And He filled Paul with
His Spirit. Light abounded. And Paul chose to stay in the light.
We believers today with circumcised hearts have the same choice.
“IF” . . . the BIG “if”.
“If we walk in the light as He is in the light.”
What a conversation my head is spinning…I think I’ll go back to designing houses its easier to understand!
Truth is direct and never hid behind anything. We are the ones who are hiding ourselves from it, for sure.
So much error (which is the head spinning component, in my experience) to overcome!
Head spinning to be sure. I’ve spent the last few months here just absorbing things and they can be daunting or head spinning as you say. I feel a tugging here nonetheless. I’m just not sure how many more doors of enlightenment stand before me that I will dragged through kicking and screaming. When i feel that tug though…..
Glenn, Welcome to this community of ….seekers? Fasten your spiritual seat belt. He promised He would bring us into the Kingdom…how He does it is up to Him…how we do it is up to us. The kicking and screaming are optional, but for some of us it’s the only exercise we get! Enjoy, engage and edify.