Theological Opinions

[Mercutio]

I don't quite follow what you are saying... are you saying that views/ideas changed allowing divorce? or not allowing divorce?

The only Biblical grounds for a divorce is sexual unfaithfullness. One shouldn't arbitrarily use that to divorce though. When you married you made a covenant before God and committed yourself to that one person for life...you stick through it...even with something like abuse you get help for that person. If they wind up in prison you still try to help them. Yea it can hurt. Let no man split what God has joined.

[Count Comfect]

What I am saying is that that is a change from Judaism to Christianity. The "let no man split what God has joined" is a Christian sentiment (I believe it comes from Mark, Chapter 10). But Deuteronomy 24 says

[1] When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
[2] And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

KJV

I'm not saying divorce is or should be abused. I'm just saying it was changed by the New Testament from the Old, as an example.

[inked]

Count Comfect,

The issue of divorce in Judaism is a bit more complex. But the issue with the Christian understanding of divorce issues from Dominical utterances. What Jesus had to say about it is in the Gospels. Paul was following the same Jewish traditions in the light of what Jesus had said. One school of thought in that era held that burnt toast was sufficient for a divorce and a stricter school held that unclean-ness had to do with sexual physical unfaithfulness before a divorce could be granted. So to speak, the perennial arguments for no-fault versus really good reasons!

[Lief Erikson]

Count, another important fact is that Jesus used Old Testament scripture in order to argue that divorce was only acceptable in very specific circumstances. He used the Genesis scripture about them being made one flesh to argue this point, as did Paul.

Also you are forgetting the words of the Lord that came to the Prophet Malachi (Old Testament). Underlines are added.

Originally Posted by Malachi 2:14-16

You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

"Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

"I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the Lord Almighty.

The Trinity is also very definitely in the Old Testament. There are numerous times when God talks about himself as "us" and as "we". When the "Anointed One" or "Messiah" was described by the prophet Daniel, these were the names he was called: "Wonderful Councilor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

There are many other instances that can be brought up. The New Testament contains many explanations of the Old Testament Law, but as Jesus said, no refutation of it. He said, "I do not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it."

[Count Comfect]

See, that's where I'd disagree. For a start, Christianity very clearly abolishes certain Jewish laws. Dietary restrictions. Circumcision. Etc. There are means by sophistry to claim that those aren't "abolished," but they really are.

As for divorce, using another section of the Torah to argue against a section of the Torah is invalid. "Husband and wife are become one flesh" is no more valid than "let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." Indeed, the one is a statement, the other a commandment. Theologically, within the bounds of Judaism, it is not a valid refutation of divorce. Obviously, when setting up a new religion centered on Christ, it is. But it is an abolition of the old way.

[Lief Erikson]

I added some to that post. Hope you read the Malachi bit. It's important. It's clear even from the Old Testament that God hates divorce.

Jesus wasn't arguing against the words of Moses. He was explaining them. His words on the matter were, "Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hardened." What with all the massive sexual immorality going on in those days, this makes sense. It was some time after this that polygamy ceased to be generally accepted in Israel, you remember.

Given the context of those words of Moses, with the rest of the Old Testament taken into account, I think Jesus' explanation makes a good deal of sense. God said, "I hate divorce," and that the two were made one. That it should be fine in God's eyes for them to divide whenever they feel like it is not in accord with the rest of the Old Testament message.

[Count Comfect]

Good point about Malachi - although the King James reading is

"the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment,"

and the relation of "one covereth violence" with "putting away" is more clear. To me it is a cry against the abuse of divorce - but not a commandment that divorce never be used. Do not "deal treacherously" (KJ reading for "break faith") with your wife in order to divorce her.

However, much to think on.

A very loaded question here: is Jesus actually related to Joseph?

[Lief Erikson]

Certain laws were removed as binding to people. Dietary restrictions, circumcision, sacrifices and such. For some of these things, there were real theological reasons for the change. The removal of sacrifices, for instance, was for a perfectly obvious reason. All of the sacrifices of the lamb, all of the symbolism in the Old Testament from Exodus of the blood of the lamb protecting the people from the angel of death, all of this was symbolic and premonition of Jesus' final act on the cross. The change as far as sacrifices go makes absolute sense, in view of this.

An important point about the law that Jesus revealed was that it was not a matter of following rules but a matter of following the Spirit. When I am a child, Count, my parents have to set up all sorts of rules for me. I constantly have to have little details explained to me about the rules so that I know precisely what I can and cannot do. This is like the law. I need lots and lots of laws, because I am younger. I will do whatever I can get away with .

When I grow older I no longer need these laws, and many of them are rescinded. I am more mature. Laws preventing me from taking candy are rescinded, for it is known that I will take sparingly. Laws against my going to bed late are rescinded, because my parents know I am in full control of my school schedule and know how to organize it. If I stay in bed late, that won't necessarily ruin my day.

When Jesus comes into our hearts and brings his Spirit into our hearts, he transforms us from the inside out. In an actual, real way he makes us more loving, he searches out and ends those sins that exist within us. It is his presence within us that transforms us into the adulthood I spoke of, the trustworthiness. We then are under grace rather then the law, and the law no longer applies to us.

This is with the exception of certain laws, obviously. Few parents would allow their kids to come home and do drugs in the house, and such. Some laws will be kept no matter what. These are the moral Law, one which will not change. Other regulations can change. My parents may in the future allow me to drive their cars. They never in the future will allow me to burn their beloved rugs .

Originally Posted by Romans 2:28-29

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.

Circumcision is symbolic of being cut apart, of being set apart for God. It is another symbol, like the sacrifices, of something that was fulfilled in Christ. Therefore it is believing in Christ that counts, it is faith that counts, not the observance of the symbol of the reality.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

A very loaded question here: is Jesus actually related to Joseph?

I'm still in the process of answering your other questions .

Immediate answer though: No.


EDIT: Actually, I think I finished responding to your other questions. My child growing up example, the Spirit filling a human, is the prime explanation for most of those things. This was even prophesied in the Old Testament, when the Lord said, "no longer will a man tell his neighbor, 'know the Lord,' for they will all know me." Even so, when Christians are born again in Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit, they all come to know him personally and intimately.

[Count Comfect]

See, I see that stuff about the rules and the Spirit as a change, not a 'fulfillment.' Your Mileage May Vary. You're entitled to your belief about that happening, so I won't try to change it, except to say that circumcision is the ultimate sign of the covenant, and even Abraham, the chosen father of the chosen people had to do it at age 90, despite that he obviously had faith. To put it aside is a major change.

As for Jesus, if he isn't related to Joseph, how is he related to David?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

What I am saying is that that is a change from Judaism to Christianity.

Y'know, Count, I misread your original post! You had said "But the same is true, I would argue, of the Christian reading of the Old Testament." I misread it as NEW Testament! A thousand pardons!

But the good part is that it has started a very interesting conversation! I'll rejoin on Thursday - our family is planning a last-minute Disneyland trip for tomorrow so I'll be busy tonight and gone all tomorrow Talk on, people! I'll catch up on Thursday!

(Note to self - bring in concept of valid interpreters of scripture, authority, and abolish/fulfill)

[Lief Erikson]

Responding to Count's question about Jesus' heredity:

I thought that would be the next question . Mary was also descended from David, according to the second genealogy. Even in later Jewish Torah writings, written by the Pharisees, Jesus' major opponents, he was called a "son of David." Also, legally Jesus was a son of Joseph, which means that he would be considered a son of David both by birth, through Mary, and by legallity, from both sides.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

See, I see that stuff about the rules and the Spirit as a change, not a 'fulfillment.'

Why? I suppose in one sense the transition of a child to adulthood is a big change, but it also is a fulfillment of the parents' regulations, making the laws unnecessary. Why doesn't this make sense?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Your Mileage May Vary. You're entitled to your belief about that happening, so I won't try to change it,

You're welcome to try to change it.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

except to say that circumcision is the ultimate sign of the covenant, and even Abraham, the chosen father of the chosen people had to do it at age 90, despite that he obviously had faith. To put it aside is a major change.

Genesis 17 says that he was circumcised 14 years after he had been declared righteous. The Apostle Paul takes off from there,

Originally Posted by Romans 4:9-10

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

Originally Posted by Romans 4:11-12

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised by who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But the good part is that it has started a very interesting conversation! I'll rejoin on Thursday - our family is planning a last-minute Disneyland trip for tomorrow so I'll be busy tonight and gone all tomorrow Talk on, people! I'll catch up on Thursday!

Sounds fun . Enjoy it!!!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Even in later Jewish Torah writings, written by the Pharisees, Jesus' major opponents, he was called a "son of David."

A point: all Jewish scriptures that are holy writ predate Jesus. Anything afterwards is simply someone's opinion, however learned. The Torah also happens to only be the first 5 books of the Old Testament, although that's a very minor point.

Circumcision, however, is not merely being righteous. It is a committment to maintain that righteousness, and in exchange God "will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee" (Gen 17:7) and also give the land of Canaan to said seed. So there is more than just having been loyal to God - it's a pledge of ongoing loyalty, and part of a 2 way bargain.

EDIT: Enjoy yourself Rian!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

A point: all Jewish scriptures that are holy writ predate Jesus. Anything afterwards is simply someone's opinion, however learned. The Torah also happens to only be the first 5 books of the Old Testament, although that's a very minor point.

Regardless, the statement was by Jesus' opponents. It was in broadly accepted Jewish writings. I could look it up for you, but I don't have the book any more, so it would take several days. Actually . . . I don't know if I want to look it up . I probably should though, just to know.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Circumcision, however, is not merely being righteous. It is a committment to maintain that righteousness, and in exchange God "will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee" (Gen 17:7) and also give the land of Canaan to said seed. So there is more than just having been loyal to God - it's a pledge of ongoing loyalty, and part of a 2 way bargain.

Where does it say circumcision is about "maintaining righteousness" and "ongoing loyalty" in the scripture? I don't see it in Genesis 17. I don't remember it from any other scripture. I think you made it up .

There are loads of scriptures that talk about people being shown to be righteous or evil by what they do, in the Old and New Testaments. None of these show people becoming righteous by being circumcised or maintaining righteousness through circumcision. Circumcision, according to Genesis 17:11, is the sign of the covenant, and that's all. It is the sign of being set apart for God, the identification with him. Rejection of this sign is like . . . like burning an American flag is to Americans. It does not mean that you are set apart for God, though. Some Americans can be hideous beasts, and they aren't fulfilling the pledge of allegiance, aren't standing up for the country they pledge to uphold. They aren't "true" Americans. This is just an example, perhaps flawed .

Nowhere in the Old Testament or the New will you find a scripture that in effect says, "if you're circumcised, you're maintaining righteousness." It may well be a pledge to maintain righteousness- I agree with that. However, it is not righteousness in itself. People can be circumcised and evil, according to scripture. This pledge is not righteousness itself, nor does it bring righteousness. It is obvious from Abraham that people can be righteous without being circumcised. "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," before he was circumcised. The uncircumcised man was credited as righteous by faith. This is the same story throughout the many Biblical tales and heroes.

David stepped out and fought Goliath because he had faith in God, he believed God. Moses confronted Pharaoh through faith. Joseph stuck with God through great hardship through faith. Jonah turned and had faith in God, and then through him God brought the capital of Assyria to repentance. King Hezekiah believed God, and God destroyed approximately 200,000 enemy warriors for him. Faith, faith, faith. And according to scripture, it was by faith that righteousness also comes.

[Count Comfect]

Yes. To all of what you just said. Maintaining righteousness is my interpretation.

But. Following God is not the same as "righteousness." The covenant is God will be our God in exchange for circumcision. That IS directly in the text, as I quoted. Stop circumcision, God will not be your God. Quid pro quo. That's the covenant.

To be righteous is to act in the way God would want - but that doesn't mean God admits you as a follower and will be your God. That is what the sign of the covenant means, that God is our God.

EDIT: P.S. Abraham believed God in the sense that God directly spoke to him and he said "OK, that's right." Not in the sense we must do today in which we take writings from thousands of years ago that, yes, may be the word of God, and believe. The man had it a lot easier, what with the direct speech and everything.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Following God is not the same as "righteousness."

This is not the Old Testament's message, Count. Following God is righteousness. Listen to this passage (underlines added).

Originally Posted by Jeremiah 17:5-10

This is what the Lord says:

"Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not see prosperity when it comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives.

"But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water and sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond all cure. Who can understand it?

"I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve."

The rewards are based upon what the deeds deserve. Righteousness brings rewards, not circumcision. This is constantly visible throughout Israel's history. I can bring up tens of examples.

Many are the Israelite kings that were circumcised, but because of their wickedness they were punished severely by the Lord. When a righteous king served the Lord with uprightness of heart, he consistently in scripture is blessed by the Lord. Righteousness brings God's blessings. Nowhere in scripture does it say anything about circumcision bringing the blessings by itself. Circumcision is a symbol of an inner state. If the inner state is flying in the face of the symbol, then the symbol is meaningless.

In the scripture I above presented, the man who "lived in the parched land," (the opposite of Canaan's blessings) whose heart (rather then his penis) turns from God's path, will miss God's prosperity and blessings. It is clear from the passage instantly following that this is a man who does not have confidence and trust (another way of saying faith) in God. He is an anti-example of the one who has faith in God. It is faith which brings all of these numerous blessings.

Then this part is another part that implies righteousness comes by faith, for this is the blessing on the one who does have faith.

"He will be like a tree planted by the water and sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The covenant is God will be our God in exchange for circumcision. That IS directly in the text, as I quoted. Stop circumcision, God will not be your God. Quid pro quo. That's the covenant.

As I reread Genesis 17 again, I see that nowhere in the chapter does God say, "if you are circumcised, I will give you all these blessings." He unconditionally gave his blessing, and then he gave a command. That command was that they all be circumcised. I don't see a verse in there where he mentions exchange.

He does say that anyone who rejects circumcision must be cut off from the people. He seems essentially to be cursing that person. The person is rejecting being set apart for God, for that is what circumcision is the symbol of.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

To be righteous is to act in the way God would want - but that doesn't mean God admits you as a follower and will be your God.

This scripture seems to disagree. I believe that there are many others.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 18:5-9

"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord.

It is apparent from the last sentence here that it is based upon the righteousness of the man that God will have him live.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: P.S. Abraham believed God in the sense that God directly spoke to him and he said "OK, that's right." Not in the sense we must do today in which we take writings from thousands of years ago that, yes, may be the word of God, and believe. The man had it a lot easier, what with the direct speech and everything.

Oh, that's not true. Look at the New Testament. Look at Pentecost. Spiritual power was poured out upon the believers. The Spirit filled them mightily, which is one of the key reasons for the magnificent rise of early Christianity. This power is available to all the Christians today who will seek it. Paul said, "eagerly seek the greater gifts." I have done that, and some of my family are doing that. My sister was told by the Lord in a dream that she would receive the gift of healing. Since then, through her the Lord healed my mother's foot, which had caused her pain for years before the Lord healed it through my sister.

I received the gift of discernment of spirits, very early on in my Christian walk. I have seen spirits with my own two eyes on some occasions (not frequent at all), but have sensed them enormously strongly in other ways. Prayers against them have had dramatic results in changing things around me and in me.

Yesterday my father and I did something great. What demons we have banished are powerful, intelligent entities. That's what demons are. However, yesterday our garage was invaded by two large rats. We prayed against them, and they are gone.

Hearing from God is something that can happen very frequently. What happened at Pentecost is still going on in modern life. Too few people seek that kind of a relationship with God, though. Jesus said of people in his day, "you read the scriptures eagerly because you believe that by them you receive eternal life, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." And another time he said that it was eternal life to know him. In his parables, he turned away miracle workers because "I never knew you." The personal relationship is taught all over the New Testament. Look at the experiences of the Christians in the Book of Acts. That is what the Christian life still is, in many places. So we aren't any worse off than Abraham.

In fact, in many ways we are better off. I'm not only talking about ethical education here. The prophesies of the Messiah that are found in the Old Testament have been counted and analyzed by mathemeticians. They have come to the conclusion that the odds of someone fulfilling eight of the prophecies Jesus did (he fulfilled something like 240, about 70 of which were explicite and a large number of which were accepted at the time) were one in one hundred million billion. So the scriptures we have, particularly if you're a mathemetician, are very helpful to people's faith.

Jesus doesn't leave us with only scriptures to rely on, and there is loads of hard evidence supporting those scriptures being trustworthy. Very powerful evidence- you should read "The Case for Christ." It's one of my absolute favorite books, even though it's non-fiction.

But Jesus didn't leave us with only scriptures to rely on. The experience of Acts is our experience today. Some Christians deny that reality, but it is real. I have experienced it to some extent, and most of those Christians I know have experienced it. My grandmother saw with her own eyes miraculous healings on people's limbs that caused them to grow longer or shrink. It was a common miracle in the 1980s, according to her. The accounts are enormous in number. I can bring you several, just from our own family. Miracles are an evidence. Jesus used them as an evidence to convince people of the accuracy of his teaching, and the Pharisees could not deny them. In writings of the Pharisees, outside of the New Testament, they called Jesus one who practiced black magic. Anyway, they're an evidence.

The strongest and most wonderful evidence does not come from data, though. The most wonderful is that people can actually meet Jesus themselves. I'm not talking here about saying, "I invite you into my life, Jesus," and then going to Church. I'm talking about really meeting him in such a way that one is convinced that one has met God. That is possible. It does happen. When you hear his voice, you know that you're hearing it, whatever means of communication it's coming through. It is not the imagination. I found the scripture to be true that says, "ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you."

Here is the prophecy from Joel that has been fulfilled in our day and age: "I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. I will show wonders in the heavens and on earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved . . ."

It's a wonderful prophecy. Peter I believe was the one who declared that it was being fulfilled, and I agree with him.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The Torah also happens to only be the first 5 books of the Old Testament, although that's a very minor point.

Not always; sometimes it's used to refer to the Talmud and other writings, too, as well as the Pentateuch.

EDIT: Enjoy yourself Rian!

Thanks! We had a good time.

Two quick comments - re your question on revoking dietary stuff, it's in the book of Acts, God speaking to Peter. And re the other Levitical laws, Christians are not under that covenant (and thus don't need to follow the Levitial laws); they are under the new covenant of faith. Lots of stuff in the book of Hebrews on this. And I agree with (I think) Lief - the old laws were fulfilled, not revoked, in Christ, which is a very important point. I'll have to give specific refs later, or try searching with my name and "covenant" or something - I've written on it before.

And also, as the Lawgiver Himself, Christ has the ultimate authority for interpretation, and his interpretation of the OT laws is given in Matthew 22:37-40.

Rats - not enough time!!!

[Count Comfect]

Rian - on the minor quibble of the naming of the Torah, it is very much only the Pentateuch. The rest is the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, with the first letters made into a word... Nevi'im is Writings and Ketuvim Prophets, unless I have them in the wrong order). That's the correct meaning of the Hebrew words, however carelessly they made be utilized.

Lief - First, Genesis 17

[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
[8] And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
[9] And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
[10] This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

I will establish my covenant and be a god to thee. This is my covenant: every man of you shall be circumcised. That's where my belief that it is indeed the circumcision that is the covenant which in turn is what makes God our god.

And yes, the righteous shall receive life. That is a separate statement from "keep my covenant." As I said, it is different to be righteous and to have God as your god. Being righteous IS blessed... but it does not make God your god. The token of the covenant to have God as your god is the circumcision. Being righteous means God likes you (in a very very simplified way), while being circumcised means that you are keeping the covenant with God, the other half of which is that God shall be your god. They are two different things, both of which God would like to see in us.

And clearly "looking at the New Testament" and "looking at the Pentecost" aren't going to convince me that God talks to people, because I consider them false prophets, in a religious sense. However much their teaching may be good. And I really don't want to offend, but that would be the Judaic reading, that these are false prophets and false signs. And similarly I don't believe the bit of Joel has come true, as the Messiah has not come. Which ties into Rian's point, as Judaically Christ does NOT have final authority in interpretation.

This runs directly into the conflict between being Jewish and being Christian, so I don't think it is particularly fruitful. Clearly I don't believe in the NT or the Pentecost or Christ-as-Messiah and you do. That is plain and simple because we are of different religions. So I'm not going to go any further into it because I don't feel it is helpful to any meaningful discussion.

But the interpretation of the lines about circumcision I stand by. The covenant IS the circumcision. Note that God being "our god" does not preclude him from being someone else's god for different reasons, or preclude him from punishing us if we don't obey other commandments. But it does mean that an uncircumcised Hebrew does NOT have God as his god. Righteousness is needed for God's approval - but circumcision is needed first.