There is something I am not understanding. For a little while now I thought that the reason we did not have to be circumcised was because circumcision belonged only to "the [fleshly] descendants" of Abraham (plural), but that since we're the [spiritual] "Seed" of Abraham (singular) this rite therefore does not apply to us Gentiles. But apparently the Hebrew Bible only uses the singular version of the word “Zera” -- that is, the word that is usually translated as "Seed/offspring/descendants". This is the problem I am running into:

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and THY SEED after thee in their generations. 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. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
-- Genesis 17:9-14 (KJV)

Yet, Paul says:

And if you are Christ’s, then YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED, heirs according to promise.
-- Galatians 3:29 (WEB)

Here is God's Promise:

I promise that you will be the father of many nations. That’s why I now change your name from Abram to Abraham. I will give you a lot of descendants, and in the future they will become great nations. Some of them will even be kings.
-- Genesis 17:4-5 (CEV)

Yet, this is what God said just before that:

the Lord appeared to him again and said, “I am God All-Powerful. If you obey me and always do right, I will keep my solemn promise to you and give you more descendants than can be counted.”
-- Genesis 17:1-2 (CEV)

And this is what God said thereafter:

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant [or "obey Me"], you and your descendants [technically "thy Seed"] after you FOR THE GENERATIONS TO COME. This is my covenant with you and your descendants ["thy Seed"] after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
-- Genesis 17:9-14 (NIV)

Now if we are the Seed and there are no "Seeds" and this Covenant was made for a "futurity" or "continuance" then why are we actually Biblically exempt from this requirement according to the above passages? In other words, where was Paul actually coming from in this respect to circumcision?

I know that some would say that olam can merely mean "for a very long time" but that would then mean that the corresponding promises would only be valid for "a very long time" -- am I wrong?

From my understanding, the very first promise was given to Abram in Genesis 12 that God would bless all of the nations of the Earth through Abram. God then confirms this promise after he saw Abraham's faithfulness (Gen. 22:18). Now here is God's actual Covenantal promise: "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your offspring [A form of "Zera"] I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates--the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” (Gen. 15:18-12) Now apparently these two promises are one in the same because God again says: "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations." (Genesis 17:4) Now the reason I say that they are one in the same is because God just said that His Covenant with Abraham is the promise of land, then He says that His Covenant with Abraham is that he will be the father of many nations. On top of this, God says that His Covenant with Abraham is that he and his offspring must be physically circumcised. . .so obviously this is all linked into one promise and one Covenant.

Now we see that the promise was made to the Seed--not Seeds--who is Christ. (Gal. 3:19). So then, the promise was never actually given to Abraham's fleshly Descendants apparently. So then was the literal promise of "the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites" already received by the Seed (Jesus)? And if we are the Seed as well, then does that mean we received the literal promise after "the very long time" had been fulfilled -- that is, whenever the "everlasting" requirement of circumcision became null (thus fulfilling the "everlasting" promise of that "everlasting" covenant)?

This is especially Biblically inconsistent if you consider the fact that Paul says that we have been made heirs to the promise through the New Covenant (which is to say that we have entered the Abrahamic Covenant and the promises thereof through the New Covenant). For the verses above make it clear that “thy Seed” must be physically circumcised in order to enter/uphold that Covenant and thus become partakers in those promises.

Obviously, the circumcision that is being spoken of above is very clearly a circumcision according to the flesh, so I am not sure how this could be spiritualized.

I have been telling this Hebrew Roots/Messianic person that the reason that the Seed of Abraham does not need to be circumcised is because they are not the "descendants" of Abraham but rather they are the "Seed" of Abraham. Now I see that this argument is foolish and unfounded. I had assumed that since the many different translations say both “Seed” and “descendants” in different places that there was therefore a correlating distinction in the Hebraic texts as well. Apparently that is not true, especially here where it matters most.

I am new here and this is pretty much my first time posting here (to my knowledge). Any insight on this? How can this actually be reconciled? Your response on this would be much appreciated. One of the only things I can think of to ATTEMPT to reconcile this is focusing on where God said: "My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant"

There we find a distinction between God’s expectations of carnal Israel and His expectations of spiritual Israel. Yet this is not without theological contradiction either.

Obviously, we are not Abraham's flesh (his fleshly Descendants), but then why is his flesh still called "thy Seed" if that term is supposed to be a spiritual term? And for that matter, if "there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ”, then why does Abraham's flesh (A carnal descendant of Abraham) have to be physically circumcised for "a foreseeable future"?

That would ultimately mean that there is a distinction in Christ, would it not? There would be the physical descendant that must still be physically circumcised in order to keep from being cut off from his people and then there would be the Gentile. But yet they would both be “thy Seed.” Yet in the passages above we see that “thy Seed" seems to Abraham's flesh -- that is His "descendants" or "Seeds." Yet Elsewhere we see that all the nations of the world shall be blessed through “thy Seed.” We also see that the extension to the promise of Abraham (the promise of him being father of many nations, that is) hangs on the fact of whether or not he and his Seed (which is apparently us) keeps the external rite of circumcision.

So why is there not an actual Grammatical distinction between which Seed needs to be physically circumcised and which needs not to be if this is truly the case? And wouldn't that distinction still apply to a physical descendant that has now entered the New Covenant no matter what?

Although through it all my personal view on this is that Christ kept the “Law of a carnal commandment” and “the set of external ordinances” for us and set them aside in His flesh (or at least, He set aside the carnality thereof so that we could uphold the Spirit of the carnal portion of the Law through faith), and my view is also that “we are the circumcision” of the Body of Christ (who is the singular Seed of Abraham). Yet that does not properly explain away what is being said above.

What is said above is that “thy Seed” must be literally/physically circumcised and then Paul makes it clear that we are the Seed of Abraham, because “not all those who descended from Israel are Israel.” So the argument of us being a metaphorical circumcision of the singular Seed of Abraham (who is the Lord) kind of falls through because the requirement is obviously literal, not metaphorical. I am not saying that it can't be spiritualized, but it sure seems like quite a stretch.

I realize that we are ourselves the singular Seed because we make up the Body of that Seed (who is Christ), just as the hull and the embryo are both the Seed because they are what make it up. Yet where does that leave the actual descendants of Abraham? Does that mean that circumcision never applied to them in the first place being that they are “seeds” instead of “Seed”? For Paul has said that the promise was made to the Seed, not Seeds -- and yet the promise is upheld through the Seed keeping “circumcision of the flesh” according to God’s own Words in Genesis!

And if that is the case--that is, if circumcision only actually ever applied to Christ (“the Seed”) and to Abraham who the Seed descended from--then why does God make it clear that the requirement of circumcision of the flesh belongs to a great multitude of people?? And if we believers--both Jew and Gentile alike--apparently have more rights to being called the singular Seed of Abraham than the literal/carnal Jews are, then why doesn't this requirement (that is obviously being spoken to a great multitude of people) not apply to us? And what about the impartiality of God in all of this??

The Seed spoken of in the verses from Genesis above seems to be a physical one and not a spiritual one (which is why I am confused as to why the Bible does not make a Grammatical distinction between physical “Descendants” and spiritual “Seed”). So I don't feel that one could explain it away by saying Christ was that Physical Seed in this context. The reason why I feel this way is because what is being required here is that the “Great number” of that Seed must be physically circumcised.

“We are the circumcision” in a spiritual sense, yes, but what is being required above is that “thy Seed that I shall make as numerous as the dust of the Earth” (which could also very well be referring to “the many nations” from the sound of the wording) must be literally/physically circumcised. Such cannot be easily spiritualized from my point of view.

It is true that God made the promise to Abram (that is, the promise to make him the father of many nations in Genesis 12 verse 2) before his physical circumcision, yet God reveals later (in Genesis 17:4 and onward throughout the 17th chapter) the condition of this promise: That is, strict obedience/observance to the rite of circumcision.

God made the promise because he knew Abram’s faith and therefore he knew the faithfulness that this faith would produce, but that does not mean that Abraham and his Seed would be exempt from God’s expectations just because he had faith. So my question is ultimately this: After taking the above passages into account, how did Paul come to the conclusion that we could be Abraham’s Seed and yet be currently exempt from the expectations of Abraham’s Seed?

Is it possible that earlier Hebrew manuscripts made appropriate distinctions between “Seed” and “seeds” in certain areas and therefore Paul was clarifying that the passage he was quoting from was distinctly talking about the “Seed” and not the “Seeds”? And if this is indeed the case then could someone provide proof of this? Even the Septuagint seems to use “thy Seed” in Genesis chapter 17.

I am not saying that Carnal circumcision should be imposed on believers, but after taking a deep look at this--apart from the writings of Paul--I really have to ask why it isn’t. I know Paul had a reason for saying all of this and that he wasn't just “talking out of his butt” so to speak, but from the above passages I really have trouble fully understanding how he reached this particular conclusion. I do know that--in the millennial age--the prophets attest to the fact that we will be sacrificing animals (Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; Jeremiah 33:15-18) and that the Levitical priesthood will be reinstated by having others grafted in (Isaiah 66:21). The feasts will also be observed by all peoples (Zech. 14:16). So we can thus conclude that, at this time, circumcision will be necessary for every male. But that still does not explain why the Seed of Abraham gets to be exempt from this at this moment in time according to the Scriptures above if the requirement was for a foreseeable future.

Context clues could distinguish between what is Abraham’s “fleshly seed" and what is his “spiritual seed” but then you have the problem of trying to explain why Paul insinuated that Abraham’s literal descendants should inherently be referred to as “Seeds” instead of “Seed” (Gal. 3:16) -- which seems to be his whole argument in the first place: That God did not say that Abraham's “seeds” (literal descendants) were ever actually included in the promise in the first place, but that rather it was actually his Seed (Jesus and those in Christ) who the Scriptures were speaking to. In other words, why should Abraham’s literal descendants need to be labeled as “Seeds” in context to the passage in which Paul quoted while also not needing to be referred to as such in the Scriptures such as the ones found in Genesis 17? Such is a double standard. There would actually need to be a Grammatical distinction here for Paul to have a point, otherwise the command for carnal circumcision applies to “the Seed of Abraham” (those in Christ) just as easily as the promises do. You cannot have one without the other if there is no distinction.

So we see that Paul thus excludes all of Abraham’s descendants from the singular term “thy Seed/offspring” and replaces them with Christ and those in Christ. So that means Every time this term has ever been used in the Old Testament it refers to Christ and those in Christ and excludes Abraham's fleshly Descendants. How can this be? Also, that would contradict where Paul said, “Has God rejected His people? Most certainly not!” (Romans 11:1) Paul then Says, "For I myself am a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." So obviously there must be a distinction between offspring and descendants made in the OT, but I am apparently missing it.

Also, how can Abraham's fleshly descendants even be defined as God’s people if there was never a Covenant made with Abraham's “Seeds” but only his “Seed” to begin with? Do you get where I am coming from? And you cannot say that those who circumcised themselves in the past are a part of that Seed because Paul basically that those who have themselves circumcised are alienated from Christ -- who is the Seed. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever then that means those circumcising themselves “yesterday” (before the New Covenant) were alienating themselves from Christ--the Seed--yesterday too!

Is it possible that “the lying pen of the Scribes” did not see a significant difference between the singular and plural form of this word and thus “evened things out” as they saw fit? It would be a very easy thing to do if the plural form only appeared a couple of times. Is there any proof of this? Did perhaps the Holy Spirit let Paul know that there was originally a version of Genesis that had both “Seed” and “Seeds” in the appropriate places and that is why he made it appoint to point this out?

I really need help understanding this because I am writing a book and the integrity of the [very Pauline] theology that I use in much of this book is totally undermined by not being able to properly explain this one. I know that Paul is not a false teacher because too many of the things that he wrote--although while appearing to be erroneous/contradictory at first glance--prove out every time, so I know there is an answer for this too, I just cannot find it.

Plus, if he were a false teacher then that would make Peter false for endorsing him (2 Peter 3:15) and also for sharing in his theology (Acts 15:10-11), which would thus put Christ at fault for making Peter the head apostle, thus pushing over the religion of Christianity as a whole like a row of dominoes. Not to mention you can go ahead and throw out about half of the New Testament and most of our instructions for the New Covenant if Paul is indeed a false teacher. So obviously this is not an option. Please help!

Thank you for your time

P.S. Sorry for the length of this post.

****EDIT**** I read elsewhere that there is not a plural form of the word "Zera" but I seriously doubt this because of this: https://www.pealim.com/dict/6099-zera/

To me, the fact that Paul refers inherently to Abraham's fleshly Descendants as "Seeds" seems like proof for this type of thinking. For if Paul--a Hebrew who wrote much of the Bible through the Holy Spirit--saw "Seed" as having a possible plural form, then who is to say that Moses did not use the plural form of "Seed" in it's appropriate places?

  • 2
    I'm sorry; I really tried to read all the way through this to find some way to answer you but it's almost impossible not since you ask so many questions along the way. If you could condense down to get to one main question, I'm up to give it a shot.
    – alb
    Jul 25, 2018 at 23:16
  • Well, I guess what I am looking for is proof that there was a Grammatical distinction between Seed and Seeds in the OT that got lost along the way. The way I see it, the only way this can be reconciled is if there is an earlier manuscript that proves that there is a Covenant made with "Seeds" and also one made to the "Seed." The two main problems is that if the Covenant was only made with the singular Seed then why would just the promises apply to us and not the requirement of circumcision? Also, if the promise was only ever made to the Seed then where does that leave literal Israel?
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 26, 2018 at 4:49
  • That's really what it all boils down to. I drew the argument out to show that the answer isn't as simple as one would initially think, which led to even more questions, I guess. Essentially, I was doing my best to be proactive by going ahead and pointing out why what perhaps would initially seem like an obvious answer doesn't fully answer the question -- so as to try and pinpoint where all the theological problems are while they were still fresh in my mind so that they might be dodged. And by the way, thank you very much for your response and your offer at an attempt to answer all of this :)
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 26, 2018 at 5:07
  • Classy logo! Thank you for your post and welcome to the site. If you haven't done so yet, please take the tour when you have a few minutes: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/tour
    – Ruminator
    Dec 4, 2018 at 14:46

2 Answers 2


I don’t believe your answer will be found in manuscript evidence. I believe this is a contextual issue.

To net this down to the simplest factor, it appears to me that your issue boils down to Paul’s usage of “seeds” in Galatians 3:16 to be at odds with the normal meaning of “seed” in the Promise to Abraham in Genesis 17, where the normal understanding of “seed” singular refers to a plurality of people.

I believe that Paul’s intention in Galatians 3 is not a grammatical reference but an explanation of the meaning. The normal application of “seed’ in the OT when referring to descendents, would naturally understand that to mean plurality. However, Paul in Galatians 3 addresses the meaning and not the actual grammatical usage.

I am not a language expert but my simple reading of the meaning of the Greek word “lego” (“saith” in the KJV) has the latitude to be rendered “to point out with words”, “intend”, “mean”, “mean to say”. In short, the rendering could be: “he did not intend seeds as of many; but as of one and to thy seed, which is Christ.”

Hence, Paul was not talking about the literal word usage but rather was revealing the spiritual nature of the plan of God.

This is in complete harmony with the understanding that the OT covenant of the Law, with all its observances and requirements (and yes, many with “olam” tied to them) were rendered inactive by the superior covenant found in Jesus Christ. For we know that ALL the law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes.” (Rom 10:4) Further, 2 Corinthians 3 tells us that the glory of the OT covenant of the law was designed by God to fade away and be replaced by an enduring superior glory of the NT covenant of grace.

2 Corinthians 3

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

  • Hey alb, Thanks for your response! Although I may be misunderstanding where you are actually coming from here. From what I can tell you are saying that there are double meanings to the word "Seed." But to me that still does not satisfactorily explain things (especially not to the Hebrew Roots person that I am trying to reach). You had said that Paul was revealing the true meaning behind Seed to mean Christ and those in Christ, right? The fact is that Paul still insinuates that the plural understanding of Seed should inherently be known as "Seeds" in Galatians 3:16. [TO BE CONTINUED]
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 27, 2018 at 19:02
  • So if the Covenant of circumcision was made with the Seed of Abraham, then why does the promise only refer to Christ but yet circumcision seems to only refer to "Seeds." Paul makes it clear that the only way that God can be referring to literal descendants is if God would have said "And to your seeds" meaning many. What I am not understanding is that if Paul's words are meant to reveal the true meaning of the Word "Seed" and not to be a grammatical reference then why does he imply that, grammatically, the literal descendants of Abraham should be inherently referred to as "Seeds"? [TBC]
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 27, 2018 at 19:04
  • While I do sincerely appreciate your answer, I personally still don't feel that the answer you have supplied explained how--using the passages from Genesis that I supplied in the OP (apart from the writings of Paul)--Paul ultimately came to the conclusion that the covenantal promises exclusively apply to the spiritual Seed without the need of tying the Covenantal requirements with those promises; even though there is no apparent reason to reach that conclusion when reading the book of Genesis [TO BE CONTINUED]
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 27, 2018 at 19:05
  • I also still don't understand where that leads carnal Israel if the true meaning of "Seed" was revealed to mean Christ and those in Christ. That is some serious replacement theology from my view. So much to the point where Israel never actually had anything to do with the promise -- being that they are not in Christ and apparently never were seeing how circumcision alienates one from Christ and also seeing how Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 27, 2018 at 19:05
  • And yes, with all due respect, I realize that a teaching from the apostle Paul is in complete harmony with other teachings on circumcision from the apostle Paul, but that still does not explain how he reached these conclusions. Using the apostle Paul to verify the Apostle Paul does not work on a person (my HBR friend) who is on the verge of denying Paul's legitimacy anyway. If it isn't adding up with the Torah then it can and will be denied in the eyes of both Judaizers and even Jews (whom we are to be reaching) alike. And honestly, I can see where they'd be coming from. If the book of...
    – Seth Hall
    Jul 27, 2018 at 19:32

The bottom line Circumcision is an EVERLASTING LAW for all of YHVH's followers:

Genesis 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an EVERLASTING COVENANT.

Exodus 12:48 If a STRANGER shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised.

Paul was a self admitted liar:

2 Corinthians 12:16 Yet, 👉 CRAFTY 👈 fellow that I am, I caught you by 👉 TRICKERY!"👈

Philippians 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, 👉 WHETHER IN PRETENSE 👈 or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Romans 3:7 For if the truth of Elohim hath more abounded through 👉 MY LIE 👈 unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. 👉 I HAVE BECOME ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, 👈 that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

What does YHVH tell us of liars and lies?

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and👉 the father of lies.👈

Revelation 14:4-6 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for ELOHIM and the Lamb, 5 and 👉in their mouth no lie was found👈, for they are blameless.

Psalm 5:6 You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

Psalm 59:12 For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter,

Psalm 101:7 No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.

Psalm 144:11 Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of foreigners, whose mouths speak lies and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

Leviticus 19:11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.

Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.

Proverbs 14:25 A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful.

Proverbs 19:5 A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.

Proverbs 19:9 A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.

Isaiah 9:15 the elder and honored man is the head, and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail

Isaiah 28:15 Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with SAUL (NOT Sheol) we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter”

Isaiah 28:17 And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumb line; and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter.”

Isaiah 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies; your tongue mutters wickedness.

Isaiah 59:4 No one enters suit justly; no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity.

Jeremiah 13:25 This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, declares YHVH, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies.

Jeremiah 14:14 And YHVH said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.

YHVH also tells you in the end times you will have received nothing but lies. This is because people did exactly what Yahusha said they would:

John 5:43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me.
Though another comes in his own name, YOU WILL RECEIVE HIM.

Jeremiah 16:19 O YHVH, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in the day of trouble, to you shall the nations come from the ends of the earth and say: “Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit.

So if you are not circumcised I would get circumcised.


  • Not at all it is simply a comparison of scriptures and what they tell us Dec 5, 2018 at 14:24
  • Do you not see that someone calling themselves a liar and saying they are using the lie to promote YHVH might not be telling the truth? Dec 5, 2018 at 14:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.