Was circumcision required for the other feasts?

[Robert Truelove]

We know that circumcision was required for the foreigner before he could partake of Passover (Exodus 12:48).

Question: Was circumcision also required of the foreigner before he could partake of the other feasts? We know that the 'sojourner' could partake of both the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths (Deut 16:11,14), but where do we learn that they must be circumcised to do so? Exodus 12:48 is explicit that one must be circumcised before partaking of Passover, but the Scriptures appear silent in this regards to the other feasts?

Was the sojourner required to be circumcised for these feasts? Is there a text for this? An inference...or, in the case of these feasts, were strangers freely invited to partake.

 

[Robert Truelove]

38 views and no answer...well...I felt a little silly thinking this was a no brainer question but apparently you all are not any quicker on answering this question than I. I'm not feeling as stupid at this point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I saw the title but have been busy. That's a good question. I honestly don't know for sure.

Part of me thinks that the answer would be No because we know of "God fearers" going to the feasts. The Jews had courts for Gentiles to approach the Temple as long as they went no further. That makes me wonder how they knew but that's a different thread.

As for the feast of Passover itself, it wasn't that foreigners were prohibited from being at Jerusalem at the time of the feast or at the Temple but they were prohibited from participating in the meal itself.

 

[Robert Truelove]

This is the difficulty, gentiles were allowed to partake of Passover if they had been circumcised.

Numbers 9:14
14 And if a stranger sojourns among you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its rule, so shall he do. You shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native.

Exodus 12:48
If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

Is there any reason to think that circumcision was also required for The Feast of Booths and The Feast of Weeks?

As for the feast of Passover itself, it wasn't that foreigners were prohibited from being at Jerusalem at the time of the feast or at the Temple but they were prohibited from participating in the meal itself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why is that a difficulty? They are not gentiles at the point they are circumcised but Jews at that point. I noted that they could be physically present for the feast but could not participate in the actual Supper itself. I'm unclear what the difficulty is.

 

[blhowes]

Is there any reason to think that circumcision was also required for The Feast of Booths and The Feast of Weeks?

If this were a poll, I'd cast my vote for yes. Here's why:

Deu 16:10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deu 16:11 And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.
​

When it says in verse 11, "...thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant...", it sounds like another way of saying "thou and thy household", which means all those who are part of the covenant (ie., circumcised).

or ?

 

[Robert Truelove]

To provide the backdrop for my question...this plays into the paedocommunion debate if you are familiar with the material. To be sure, it is not a major factor either way (whether or not uncircumcised gentiles could partake of the feasts in question) but some anti-paedocommunists use the arguement that the Feast of Weeks and Feast of Booths did not require circumcision as a case for presenting a particular view of Passover and its participants.

I don't think I need this arguement (that these feasts did not require circumcision of gentiles), to establish the case that only adult males (puberty and upward) partook of Passover. I was just throwing this bone out there to see what sort of response I got back without using the 'P' word in connection with the question.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Difficult question for me also, Robert. I had to study it a while.

We know not all of the males living in the precincts of Israel were circumcised, for the prohibition re the Passover speaks to that. There is a distinction made between the “sojourner” (“stranger” KJV) who is circumcised and the foreigner or alien who is not.

The feasts of the LORD were for the children of Israel. In Leviticus 23:1,

…the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.​

And throughout the chapter are the reasons and regs for keeping the various feasts, and the last verse reads,

And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD.​

Note (in this chapter) that these feasts are often spoken of as “unto the Lord.” In the last days of the Israelitish nation there were “God-fearers” who were not actually of the Household of God and “strangers from the covenants of promise” (Eph 2:12), yet had some faith in the God of Israel. I doubt these participated in the national feasts with the nation, for they were not of the nation, though they may have simulated them in some way on their own. These were feasts – “holy convocations” – for the congregation of Israel. Note that members (including servants of all sorts) of a family/household had to be circumcised, per the covenant command given to Abraham in Gen 17:9-14. They would celebrate the feasts with their households. So I would hold with those who say no, the uncircumcised would not be allowed to partake of the feasts with the covenant community of God’s people.

An interesting side note: the children of the Israelites who came out of Egypt, who died not in the wilderness, were not circumcised until they had crossed over Jordan into the promised land under Joshua (Joshua 5:2 ff.). It was their wandering – uncircumcised – and living in temporary shelters in the wilderness, that the feast of booths commemorates.

Did not the children eat of the first Passover meal, as with any other they ate with their families? Of course infants unable to chew would eat what their mothers made for them. The memorial meal was for the instruction of their children also, per Exodus 12:26, 27.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Reformed theologians outside of the Paedocommunion camp tend to deny this (and I agree).

Rather than getting into this now, I am teaching a series right now in defense of the confessional view of children and the Lord's Supper. I'll post a link to the messages when the series is complete.

Did not the children eat of the first Passover meal, as with any other they ate with their families? Of course infants unable to chew would eat what their mothers made for them. The memorial meal was for the instruction of their children also, per Exodus 12:26, 27.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Robert, I'd be interested in seeing your view on this (did children eat or not of the first Passover meal). I am not in the paedocommunion camp. I do not see that one follows the other.