tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post4603137371039354863..comments2023-10-28T09:17:35.685-04:00Comments on Butterfly House: The Church in Frame's Frame, Part IIJeff Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-45592584643271105872008-03-01T20:11:00.000-05:002008-03-01T20:11:00.000-05:00So I think I understand you now:On your account, m...So I think I understand you now:<BR/><BR/>On your account, <I>mul</I> had as its base meaning, "to cut away." Thus, as it is used in both Gen 17 and Deut 10, it means "cut away" -- but in two different senses. Only later, in middle classic (Davidic) Hebrew did these meanings merge.<BR/><BR/>And thus, Paul (being steeped in that merge) observes something about the Jews in Romans 2 that Abraham would not have known.<BR/><BR/>Is that a fair summary?<BR/><BR/>JeffJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-83837396594177541022008-02-29T11:08:00.000-05:002008-02-29T11:08:00.000-05:00Jeff,I must admit to being confused also and am mo...Jeff,<BR/>I must admit to being confused also and am most likely the source of this confusion. Sorry. Here is what I have (by the way, this is not a big deal, just a curiosity):<BR/><BR/>I asked: "You say that circumcision is the sign of 'purity.' Where do you see it called this in Scripture?"<BR/><BR/>You responded with what you understand circumcision to mean and a number of verses that indicate this to you.<BR/><BR/>I responded with my view of circumcision as 'just a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant' and my view that Paul used this sign to explain a deeper truth than what God had revealed to Abraham. In that post I also discussed Deut 30:6 and said that this verse used the English word circumcision but that it was not talking about circumcision per se but simply the figurative 'cutting away' of something. This use of mul shows up a lot in the OT. So all I have been trying to say (albeit not very well!) is that we are possibly being lead astray by the translators. mul always means cut away. It does not always mean anything related to the physical rite of circumcision or circumcision as a sign of the covenant. Although it is most often translated as circumcision.<BR/><BR/>Holiness is required to be His people, yes. The Israelites were holy (i.e., they were set apart). They certainly were not pure. But, circumcision (the physical kind) did not make one pure it just showed that the person was a member of the covenant people. Now, that was supposed to result in that person living a life of purity. But, it did not do this. The figurative circumcision of the heart always accomplishes this purity in Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-88975454398634849242008-02-26T18:46:00.000-05:002008-02-26T18:46:00.000-05:00Dunno. I'm confused. I thought you were saying t...Dunno. I'm confused. I thought you were saying that 'mul' originally meant 'cut off', but then developed into a metaphorical meaning of 'purify' by the time of David.<BR/><BR/>So then I asked about Deut., where a metaphorical meaning is evident long before David's time.<BR/><BR/>So ... I'm confused as to where we are.<BR/><BR/>To me, it looks as if the metaphorical usage of 'mul' either developed very quickly (i.e., by Moses' time) or else was regarded from the beginning as having metaphorical significance.<BR/><BR/>One argument in favor of the latter would be the connection that God makes in Gen. 17 between circumcision and belonging to His people: "I will be their God" would seem to require holiness on their part, no?<BR/><BR/>JeffJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-87482125438028098162008-02-25T21:08:00.000-05:002008-02-25T21:08:00.000-05:00"But what about Deut. 30.6?"I am not exactly sure ...<B>"But what about Deut. 30.6?"</B><BR/><BR/>I am not exactly sure what you are asking. This series started with the question about the idea of purity being inferred in the word circumcision (Heb. mul), I believe?<BR/><BR/>I don't want to just repeat myself; but I understand the word to originally to have had the meaning of to cut off/away. God had to explain to Abraham just exactly what to cut off when he gave it to him as a 'sign' (i.e., the <B>cut organ</B> is the sign; the <B>act of cutting</B> is not the sign) of the covenant. So now mul has taken on the meaning of circumcise instead of just cut off. In many places the word mul is used when it clearly means a figurative cutting away of something other than the original organ as in Genesis 17:11. Of course, if one removes that which is unpure than what is left is purer. But, the word itself, circumcise, does not have the idea of purity in it as far as I can tell.<BR/><BR/>Surely in Deut 30:6 God is not saying that a physical part of the heart is to be cut away so that they can then love him with all their heart! The use of mul in this verse has 'figurative' written all over it. By the way, Deuteronomy 10:16 is even clearer. Although most English versions have 'circumcise your heart' the actual Hebrew is 'mul the foreskin of your heart.' So reference to circumcision in these verses is really a reference to the Abrahamic Covenant and the way in which one who was under the covenant was to live their lives. Once this cutting away is applied to the heart it is talking about a spiritual cleansing so that one can conduct their lives as God desires. But, I don't think the rite itself is a picture of purity. Not that it matters one iota what I think, of course. Are we getting closer or farther apart on this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-81326385279083721332008-02-24T20:50:00.000-05:002008-02-24T20:50:00.000-05:00But what about Deut. 30.6? There's the "circumcis...But what about Deut. 30.6? There's the "circumcise your hearts" phrase used by Moses (or Joshua).<BR/><BR/>I'll send you an e-mail for the other.<BR/><BR/>JeffJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-92028488257207800832008-02-24T19:52:00.000-05:002008-02-24T19:52:00.000-05:00Your first question is hard. I really don't know ...Your first question is hard. I really don't know what was in Moses' mind as he wrote Genesis 17. However, at least up to Psalms 118 (during King David's time?) it still had the 'non-metaphorical' meaning. After Psalms, it only appears twice in Jeremiah. In 4:4 it definitely seems to be a figurative use in the vein of the Israelites purifying themselves. In 9:25 it has both the literal (cutting of the foreskin) and the figurative meanings in the same verse. And, of course, Paul uses the word to teach the spiritual (purity) idea and to discredit trust in the physical rite. Does it sound to you like we are on the same page?<BR/><BR/>As to your second question, I have an MS Word talk that I have given in a few churches that I will send you via e-mail. Alas, I don't have your e-mail adress. Here is mine and if you send me yours, I'll forward my brief testimony to you. cdweiner at comcast dot net.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-38328684400659625322008-02-24T17:59:00.000-05:002008-02-24T17:59:00.000-05:00Hey, thanks for that. Two questions:(1) So are yo...Hey, thanks for that. Two questions:<BR/><BR/>(1) So are you suggesting that the meaning of circumcision developed into a metaphorical sense from Abraham's time until Moses'?<BR/><BR/>And given that Moses wrote Genesis, would you say that he had the fuller meaning in mind in Gen. 17 or the more limited meaning?<BR/><BR/>(2) How did you come to Christ?<BR/><BR/>JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-15084780137224109602008-02-24T17:35:00.000-05:002008-02-24T17:35:00.000-05:00Well, I did a little study and this is what I have...Well, I did a little study and this is what I have concluded about the Hebrew word mul. I think I may have told you before that I studied Hebrew for five years in order to be ready for my bar mitzvah. However, at this point, I know nothing and have forgotten much more than I ever knew. At any rate, the original meaning of the word is unclear. Now that is a surprise!!<BR/><BR/>The meaning of 'cut off' seems to be the most likely pre-Genesis meaning. For example, psalms 118:10 has mul and it is usually translated this way; with no reference to circumcision, the rite. When God gave the sign to Abraham in Genesis 17:10 he defined what it was that was supposed to be cut off and the idea of cutting around came to the fore (no pun intended). So, the English word, has the idea of cutting around from the Latin circum + caedere (to cut).<BR/><BR/>Originally, then, it just had the meaning of cutting and then (here is where my opinion gets in the way) it took on the other meaning of cutting away bad stuff and thus leaving a pure version in its place. So as always, one has to know the context to have a clear understanding of what a word means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-80749733905327301922008-02-24T14:50:00.000-05:002008-02-24T14:50:00.000-05:00More info on 'mul'; it is the same word used in Ge...More info on 'mul'; it is the same word used in Gen 17.10 "every male among you shall be circumcised."<BR/><BR/>JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-40664963056547481622008-02-23T20:09:00.000-05:002008-02-23T20:09:00.000-05:00Interesting thought; perhaps the translators have ...Interesting thought; perhaps the translators have overly influenced our reading? Not being a Hebrew scholar, I have to rely on tools like BDB and such for lexical meanings. I have "mul" -- to circumcise. The LXX has περικαθαει, to clean around (not περιτομει, to circumcise). What do your sources have?<BR/><BR/>But also, it's not just you and I that make that connection; Paul does too in Rom. 2. Hmm...<BR/><BR/>JeffJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-4452260637685291632008-02-23T19:34:00.000-05:002008-02-23T19:34:00.000-05:00the effort towards purity . . . (b) cannot be purs...<I>the effort towards purity . . . (b) cannot be pursued to such a degree that we deny God's work through families.</I><BR/>I'm confused by this statement; want to say a bit more?<BR/><BR/>Yes, there is a tension (e.g., RC approach, puritan approach) in trying to purify the VC. But, when either side goes off the tracks it is because they have stopped following Jesus and are leaning on their own understanding. How easy it is to stumble when one has the best of intentions and becomes convinced of their own righteousness.<BR/><BR/>I knew I was <I>pushing</I> it with <I>unique</I>. Just my way of trying to point out how I thought <I>holy</I> without explanation could imply too much. I am pretty sure we both see it in the same way as used in Scripture and applied to <I>man</I>.<BR/><BR/>That is exactly my view on Genesis 5; although I can't remember ever hearing it that way from the pulpit or the pews.<BR/><BR/>Circumcision as <I>purity</I>:<BR/>Thanks, I now see how you get this. Circumcision according to Genesis 17 is the <B>sign</B> of the covenant; it is not the covenant. The covenant was that God would be their God and they would be His people and He would bless them, if they obeyed. Additionally, He promised to give them the land and there were no strings attached. Somebody who did not want the sign, was cut off and not part of this covenant.<BR/><BR/>Since the Jews understood this, Paul used this idea of circumcision to explain a deeper truth than what God had told Abraham in Genesis 17. Further, you mention several verses that support this idea that circumcision relating to purity. I'll just pick one so as not to bore you to death. Deuteronomy 30:6: "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, in order that you may live."<BR/><BR/>I say this has nothing to do with the sign that God gave Abraham, i.e., circumcision. The Hebrew word (moul) just means to cut or cut away. Here, God is indeed talking about cutting away the hard heart (i.e., the new covenant of Jeremiah 31). This is clearly a figurative usage of the word. But, this cutting and the cutting of circumcision are not the same thing. It is only our creative linking of them that makes the connection and leads to the purity idea of circumcision, the sign. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-57863136515242672892008-02-23T12:55:00.000-05:002008-02-23T12:55:00.000-05:00David, you have always been a gentleman, and I am ...David, you have always been a gentleman, and I am happy to converse with you at length as the Lord leads. And thanks for reading them.<BR/><BR/>:)<BR/><BR/><B>So, doesn't that say that there should be an ongoing effort by 'us' to purify it and not just accept it as 'God's family?'</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I think clearly so. In fact, the purpose of church discipline is precisely that. <BR/><BR/>I would say, however, that we recognize that the effort towards purity (a) will not be 100% successful, and (b) cannot be pursued to such a degree that we deny God's work through families.<BR/><BR/>Historically, where the RC church went off the rails, among other places, was in overemphasizing the nature of the visible Church in its doctrine of ex operato sacraments and theories of papal vicarship. But the Puritans imploded by trying to overpurify the visible Church and guarantee congruence between VC and IC in their endless quest for the perfect metric of God's true regeneration.<BR/><BR/>What you see in my response is the tension that I mentioned in the post. We can't make the visible Church the whole show (as in Catholicism), but we can't deny its role either.<BR/><BR/><B>"When God created Adam and Eve, he created them to be the firstborn of a holy race"<BR/><BR/>Could the word holy here be replaced with, for example, 'unique' and still have the sentence carry the same meaning? Holy is what God is called; it just seems to imply the wrong thing when it is applied to man.</B><BR/><BR/>Ah, yes, I would not mean it in the Isaiah 6 sense, certainly. But I would mean it in the sense of "Be holy because I am holy", or in the sense that Adam was happy and holy in the garden.<BR/><BR/>Something a little stronger than unique is required, I think, to convey that Adam is in God's image.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I didn't mention it in the post, but this reading makes Genesis 5 make sense. I've read interpreters who want to make "the sons of God" be fallen angels who sleep with men and have children by them.<BR/><BR/>Leaving aside the obvious biological problems, this interpretation is IMO inferior to seeing "the sons of God" as Seth's line, and "the sons of men" as Cain's. We thus have a continuation in Gen 5 of the narrative of failure of the first Adam's seed to be a holy race, leading directly to God's judgment in Gen. 6-9 (followed by a reaffirmation of the creation mandate!).<BR/><BR/><B>You say that circumcision is the sign of 'purity.' Where do you see it called this in Scripture?</B><BR/><BR/>Here's one of the clearer passages:<BR/><BR/><I>Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.<BR/><BR/>A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. -- Rom 2.25-29</I><BR/><BR/>Circumcision means something: the obligation to keep the Law; the obligation to be holy. It reflects on the outside what is to be true on the inside, the "circumcision of the heart", a cutting away of the sin nature.<BR/><BR/>Other passages that reflect circumcision as a symbol of purity: Deut. 10.16 and 30.6; Is. 52.11; Jer. 4.4 and 9.25; Ezek. 44.7 and 9; Acts 11 esp. vv. 3 and 9; Col. 2.11.<BR/><BR/>The meaning of circumcision as purity also forms the backdrop for the Judaizing conflict in Acts 15: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."<BR/><BR/>More speculatively, I would suggest that circumcision applied to the organ of procreation speaks of the clean descendant of Abraham who was to come: Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>JeffJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-13574735344943511132008-02-23T12:00:00.000-05:002008-02-23T12:00:00.000-05:00Jeff,First, relax; I have no intent of attempting...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>First, relax; I have no intent of attempting to drag you into an extended exchange. It is just that these two posts on the Church haven't gotten any comments and so to make sure you know that at least one person is very interested in what you have to say on the subject, I thought I would comment.<BR/><BR/>But first, you said on Greenbaggins in your exchange with Mark that "We cannot push beyond this and say that God sees the visible Church as his body. Else, 2 Cor 6 makes no sense." Right, the VC is a mixture and one which seems to be explicitly rejected in that chapter. So, doesn't that say that there should be an ongoing effort by 'us' to purify it and not just accept it as 'God's family?'<BR/><BR/>"When God created Adam and Eve, he created them to be the firstborn of a holy race"<BR/><BR/>Could the word holy here be replaced with, for example, 'unique' and still have the sentence carry the same meaning? Holy is what God is called; it just seems to imply the wrong thing when it is applied to man.<BR/><BR/>You say that circumcision is the sign of 'purity.' Where do you see it called this in Scripture?<BR/><BR/>"Paul gives no qualification that children are to obey their parents in the Lord, unless they happen to not belong to Christ."<BR/><BR/>Another possibility here. Paul is talking to elect members of the church: whether husbands, wives, children, slaves, or masters. My 'proof' of this is 1 Cor 6:5b-8, 9b. Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com