# Who is Preaching on Jesus' Circumcision on January 2nd?



## N. Eshelman (Dec 25, 2010)

Just wondering if anyone who preached on the incarnation is going to be mindful of the first blood flow for our sins by preaching on Jesus' circumcision January 2nd (or January 1)?

I wonder especially of my Dutch Reformed brothers who hold to the Synod of Dordt's schedule for "Christian Feast Days"? 

The circumcision of the Lord Jesus is a very important part of our redemption.... will those who set aside certain days set this one aside?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 25, 2010)

I preached on circumcision in general last Lord's Day, but nothing specific about Christ's circumcision.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 25, 2010)

> Just wondering if anyone who preached on the incarnation is going to be mindful of the first blood flow for our sins by preaching on Jesus' circumcision January 2nd (or January 1)?



That's interesting that in the case of all Jewish men and boys apart from Christ it was the blood of a sinner that was shed in circumcision, unlike the shedding of the blood of animal sacrifices which represented innocent blood.

Thus in the case of all Jewish men and boys apart from Christ their circumcision involved a token of the threat that they (and their line) might be cut off if they didn't exercise faith.

In the case of Christ's circumcision innocent blood was shed as the beginning of His life of suffering for us, and as a reminder to Him, the Holy Lamb of God, that He was to be cut off.

Thanks for the thought, Nathan.


----------



## Herald (Dec 25, 2010)

Nathan, are you being serious in your question or are you in jest?


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 25, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> I wonder especially of my Dutch Reformed brothers who hold to the Synod of Dordt's schedule for "Christian Feast Days"?



It is my understanding that this Feast Day schedule was part of the Church Order of the Reformed congregation at Dort, and was produced in about 1575. It must not be confused with anything that was decided by "the" synod of Dort, which was in 1618-19.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 25, 2010)

Wow, I've never heard of this before.

Should we consider his circumcision part of his acts of redemption? It wasn't for our sins direclty but to fulfill the law, right, that he was circumsized? Should we even speak of his bleeding during cirucmcision as being "for our sins" then?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 25, 2010)

Nathan, every act of Christ is important. His fulfilment of the Covenant of Circumcision was also. I am not sure it would be on par with his incarnation nor his resurrection. I see more importantly his coming, death, burial, and resurrection to be more emphasized I believe.

I believe I would emphasize his fulfilment of the Covenant of Circumcision. 



> (Rom 2:28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
> 
> (Rom 2:29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.





> (Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
> 
> (Eph 2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:



I personally see for a call upon our lives to immulate the incarnation than his circumcision. Nate I think that should be emphasized. Every man born under Abraham was commanded to be circumcision and to be placed under a covenant. The New Covenant is different and more defined. Circumcision is abrogated. We are not called upon to give attention to it like we are called to give attention to his incarnation in our lives. 



> (Php 2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
> 
> (Php 2:6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
> 
> ...



Just some thoughts to consider....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 25, 2010)

As a side note I believe Nate's question (and I am assuming, sorry if I am incorrect Nate) was pulling into question some historical significance and the historical inaccuracies of celebrating Christmas on December the 25th. A Hebrew Child was to be circumcised on the 8th day from his birth. January 2nd would be that day if December the 25th was historically his birthday. Since this is true, Christmas is inaccurate and a shenanigan.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 26, 2010)

Herald said:


> Nathan, are you being serious in your question or are you in jest?


 
No, I am very serious. I am wondering if any one, especially my Dutch Reformed brothers, are preaching on the Circumcision of Christ?

---------- Post added 12-26-2010 at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-25-2010 at 11:57 PM ----------




Phil D. said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder especially of my Dutch Reformed brothers who hold to the Synod of Dordt's schedule for "Christian Feast Days"?
> ...



Article 67 of the Church order from the Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-1619: 



> The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, with the following day, and wheras in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others.



So, again, the question is, are you observing the Day of Circumcision? 

Personally, I think that it is a great sermon in the making, but I doubt many that argue that Christmas is part of the Reformed heritage (as it clearly is amongst our Dutch Reformed brothers), will be preaching on it. I am just wondering if anyone is conforming to the historic Dutch standards?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 26, 2010)

Are you Nathan?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 26, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...


 
Sorry Nathan, I see I was assuming. I should have thought better.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 26, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Are you Nathan?



No, but I don't preach a sermon on the incarnation during Christmas time. If I did preach on the incarnation at Christmas time, I would follow up with one.

---------- Post added at 12:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Phil D. said:
> ...



Well, Martin, I guess it's connected to the Christmas thing. So many Reformed Christians get all worked up about those of us that don't celebrate it (I know we that don't get WAY MORE worked up at times), but I think for consistency, if we are going to keep the Dutch Reformed Church calendar, then we should keep all of it! 

I don't know why Christmas has taken the higher ground to any of these other "Christian Feast Days" to those that see days to observe outside of the Sabbath Day. Just a thought...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 26, 2010)

So then I guess I would refer back to my first post as why some may be more significant than others. 

Thanks for bringing this up in a historical context. I didn't know that the Day of Circumcision was a day the Church celebrated. I do understand why the others should overshadow it.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2010)

> first blood flow for our sins




I am still uncomfortable with this phraseology.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 26, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> > first blood flow for our sins
> 
> 
> 
> I am still uncomfortable with this phraseology.



That's okay.  

Humiliation and exaltation were for the purchasing of his elect. Circumcision was part of Christ's humiliation as well as he active obedience (passive-active obedience?) for our salvation. It really was the first blood flow within him for our salvation.

---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------

his not he.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 26, 2010)

Side note: 

On Sermon Audio when you do a search on _Circumcision Christ_ only 4 sermons come on the circumcision of Christ: 3 Baptist preachers and 1 Presbyterian. No Continental Reformed guys. Interesting.


----------



## raekwon (Dec 26, 2010)

I'm mentioning it, very briefly.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 26, 2010)

Nathan:

I suppose it hasn't been a practice for hundreds of years and is not listed in the URCNA Church Order. In fact, I don't know any Reformed church that celebrates the circumcision of Christ. And I cannot account for why not. 



nleshelman said:


> So many Reformed Christians get all worked up about those of us that don't celebrate it


 True that.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 26, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> > first blood flow for our sins
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
We need to remember that Christ was representing His sinful people from the beginning of His life to the end of His life in active and passive righteousness. It's just that there is a greater emphasis on His passive righteousness in paying the price for His people's sins at the end of His life. He suffered at different levels throughout His life and He had no sins of His own to suffer for.

_He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:3, ESV) _

An interesting alternative reading to this verse in the ESV notes. It would be interesting to know how much credence it has, although it changes nothing fundamental theologically-speaking, except that some deny that Christ could ever get, or was ever sick or unwell, and this translation may point against that.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > > first blood flow for our sins
> ...


 
Why don't we celebrate every single recorded act of Christ then, since his whole life was a fulfillling of the law? Every single moment of his life then "was an important part of our redemption" if we reason thusly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 26, 2010)

He came to redeem those under the law and those not under the law of circumcision. And Paul made a distinction. 



> (1Co 9:20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
> 
> (1Co 9:21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 26, 2010)

I've been tempted to preach on this. I guess I just never had the nerve.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 27, 2010)

Edwards states somewhere that the blood of Christ's circumcision is as much a part of our redemption as the blood of his cross (words to that effect).

On topic, though, Nathan makes a good point. If Christmas is _defended_ on the grounds that it draws us to think of the incarnation, then in order not to be guilty of neglecting some part of the counsel of God we need to have times to think on other redemptive acts as well. If not the circumcision (though it is an excellent illustration of _made under the law_) or the baptism, certainly the death, resurrection, ascension and second coming, as well as the outpouring of the Spirit. But who gets all annoyed if we don't celebrate Pentecost? And that shows that for a lot of Christmas-celebrators, meditation on the incarnation is an incidental benefit, not the genuine rationale behind the observance.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 27, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Edwards states somewhere that the blood of Christ's circumcision is as much a part of our redemption as the blood of his cross (words to that effect).
> 
> On topic, though, Nathan makes a good point. If Christmas is _defended_ on the grounds that it draws us to think of the incarnation, then in order not to be guilty of neglecting some part of the counsel of God we need to have times to think on other redemptive acts as well. If not the circumcision (though it is an excellent illustration of _made under the law_) or the baptism, certainly the death, resurrection, ascension and second coming, as well as the outpouring of the Spirit. But who gets all annoyed if we don't celebrate Pentecost? And that shows that for a lot of Christmas-celebrators, meditation on the incarnation is an incidental benefit, not the genuine rationale behind the observance.


 
Hmmm, clever.


----------



## baron (Dec 27, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Edwards states somewhere that the blood of Christ's circumcision is as much a part of our redemption as the blood of his cross (words to that effect).



I found this link which might be what you are reffering to.
Reformation Theology: Christ?s Active and Passive Obedience by W.G.T. Shedd

This is part of link refrenced above.

It is a true remark of Edwards that the blood of Christ’s circumcision was as really a part of his vicarious atonement as the blood that flowed from his pierced side. And not only his suffering proper, but his humiliation, also, was expiatory, because this was a kind of suffering. Says Edwards (Redemption 2.1.2):


I found it intersting never thought of this before.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 28, 2010)

Thanks, John: yes, that was what I had in mind.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 28, 2010)

I heart Shedd...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2010)

I happened to read Gabriel Biel' sermon _The Circumcision of the Lord_ ca. 1460. In it he says, "To heal the wounds inflicted by our sins, he, through the effusion of his blood, earned efficacy for the sacraments." He also states that because of His circumcision, "Today we magnify him with all our hearts because he put on our fetters and bonds and because he put his own innocent hands into our chains in order that we criminals might be set free."

This is very interesting to me. Personally I had never really thought about Christ's circumcision in any special way.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 28, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I happened to read Gabriel Biel' sermon _The Circumcision of the Lord_ ca. 1460. In it he says, "To heal the wounds inflicted by our sins, he, through the effusion of his blood, earned efficacy for the sacraments." He also states that because of His circumcision, "Today we magnify him with all our hearts because he put on our fetters and bonds and because he put his own innocent hands into our chains in order that we criminals might be set free."
> 
> This is very interesting to me. Personally I had never really thought about Christ's circumcision in any special way.


 
In John Brown's systematic theology (Originally _A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion_, etc.) he has a very fascinating section on what the sacraments sealed to Christ. You can find it at Internet archive if you haven't purchased the reprint.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2010)

Thanks


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 28, 2010)

> This is very interesting to me. Personally I had never really thought about Christ's circumcision in any special way.



He not only had to become a man in order to represent us, but He had to become the Covenant Man. He had to become a Jew (the Jew) by circumcision in order to represent the Old Covenant Israelites, and He had to become a Christian (the Christian) by baptism in order to represent the New Covenant Israelites, the Church.

He was one of us, and from among us, and for us, not only in that He was _the_ Man, but also in that He was _the_ Jew and _the_ Christian.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2010)

Richard,

Thank you for the insight. I had always thought of the circumcision as, "that is just what the Jews did." Now both his circumcision and baptism serve a purpose in my eyes.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 28, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > This is very interesting to me. Personally I had never really thought about Christ's circumcision in any special way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for that....thought-provoking!


----------



## CovenantalBaptist (Dec 30, 2010)

In answer to your question, Nathan, as I'm going through a series on Luke, yes, indeed I will be preaching on this, this very Sunday. And, yes, I preached on the incarnation last Sunday.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 30, 2010)

I am going to do it this week. This thread convinced me that I was wimping out by preaching on the incarnation during Advent & then going back to my regular series immediately after xmas.


----------

