johndbrey@gmail.com
©
2003 John D. Brey.
Abraham was a Gentile until the circumcision allegory. The philosopher John D. Caputo tells us that: `Circumcision is a simulacrum of castration. . ..’[1] Abraham was therefore `castrated' at the time he fathered the `first-born' Jewish male. Likewise, Sarah's womb was virgin at the time of the birth of the `first-born' Jewish male (Isaac). Therefore, the establishment of the Jewish race is based on an ancient Passion play whereby Abraham engages in a symbolic castration prior to the birth of the first-born Jewish male. Isaac is literally the first born Jew. Ironically He is born of a castrated (`Circumcision is a simulacrum of castration. . ..’) pregnancy, symbolizing an immaculate conception.
Abraham was a Gentile until the circumcision allegory. The philosopher John D. Caputo tells us that: `Circumcision is a simulacrum of castration. . ..’[1] Abraham was therefore `castrated' at the time he fathered the `first-born' Jewish male. Likewise, Sarah's womb was virgin at the time of the birth of the `first-born' Jewish male (Isaac). Therefore, the establishment of the Jewish race is based on an ancient Passion play whereby Abraham engages in a symbolic castration prior to the birth of the first-born Jewish male. Isaac is literally the first born Jew. Ironically He is born of a castrated (`Circumcision is a simulacrum of castration. . ..’) pregnancy, symbolizing an immaculate conception.
To finish the `Passion play’ – Abraham takes the first-born Jewish male . . . born of a castrated pregnancy (the first virgin birth story) and brings him to sacrifice Him to God. God has Abraham substitute Isaac with a ram . . . and much later The Ram (arnion = Lamb) the Lamb of God who is a substitute for all humanity.
Abraham’s circumcision was a ritual emasculation.
This ritual emasculation (cutting off the foreskin of the phallus) represented the cutting off of the entire phallus, guaranteeing (in the ritual) the virgin mechanics of Isaac’s birth. Abraham’s establishment of the ritual of circumcision at birth, for all Jewish males, was a further suggestion that by emasculating all Jewish males at birth (circumcision), the offspring of all Jewish pregnancies would be born through a virgin procedure. In this way, and through this ritual, Abraham was guaranteeing (symbolically) the virgin pregnancy of a Jewish Messiah.
Abraham was sexually dead prior to the circumcision (Heb. 11:11), and made alive (sexually) after the circumcision.
So in this layer of the allegory, Abraham's dead `flesh' (his phallus) was made alive, through circumcision. By analogy, the individual born into the spiritually dead (sin nature) corrupted flesh of Adam (which corruption is incidentally transmitted through the tool symbolically cut off by Abraham) is made alive by the severing of his contaminated flesh, through spiritual circumcision (Col. 2:11).
Original Sin (which caused the disease sin nature) is passed down through the male’s semen in copulation. Therefore, by choosing the male phallus as the part of the anatomy (flesh) that would be severed in the allegory – circumcision was emphasizing the fact that the real act of spiritual circumcision (being severed spiritually from the flesh) would be made possible by a virgin pregnancy (a pregnancy brought about without the contaminating service of the male phallus). Every male Jew was circumcised (symbolizing emasculation) at birth to make sure (symbolically) that he couldn't impregnate (contaminate) the womb of the Immaculate Conception. Though God made it clear that the Messiah would be born a Jew, He also made it clear, though the symbolism of circumcision, that no male Jew would impregnate (contaminate) the seed of the second Adam.
The Messiah would need to be born of a virgin pregnancy to escape the contamination of Adam’s sin nature passed down through the male seed in procreation (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12). Although the sin nature is passed down through the man’s seed (sperm) in copulation (thus the figurative removal of the phallus to block the spread to the Messiah), one could rightly ask why the female reproductive cell wouldn’t carry sin nature, since it (sin nature) contaminates the entire cell structure of the body? In other words, how does cutting off the sperm guarantee that a virgin birth will provide a body uncontaminated by the sin nature? In R.B. Thieme, Jr.’s book, The Integrity of God, he describes how the seed of the woman is cleansed from the stain of Adam’s sin, and is therefore free (if fertilized apart from Adam’s progeny) to give birth to a Child uncontaminated by Adam’s sin nature.
Human cells are repaired and replenished though a process called mitosis. In mitosis one cell splits and becomes two identical cells; but a more specialized (two-stage) process called meiosis produces the reproductive cells. After the process of meiosis, each cell contains only half the original forty-six chromosomes - twenty-three chromosomes. In this way the child gets his characteristics from both parents as the twenty three chromosomes of the two reproductive cells combine to reconstitute the needed forty six chromosomes.
If the male and female process of meiosis were identical - the one immature female reproductive cell would produce four mature reproductive cells. But the female reproductive cell undergoes a unique additional process called oogenesis. Each immature male reproductive cell creates four mature reproductive cells (sperm). But, because of oogenesis, the immature female reproductive cell produces only one mature reproductive cell (ovum). During both stages of meiosis, the female reproductive cell throws off (through oogenesis) unneeded cell matter including the contamination of `original sin,’ into small non-functional polar bodies that soon disintegrate. All contamination related to Adam’s sin nature passes over into the polar bodies leaving one large uncontaminated ovum ready to be re-contaminated by the sperm.[2] It’s the injection of the twenty-three contaminated male chromosomes that re-contaminates the ovum – causing all non-virgin pregnancies to deliver up a contaminated biological body.
It’s an amazing fact that every biologist considers `meiosis' one of the most paradoxical activities in the biological process. There seems to be no explanation whatsoever for the `cross-over’ of the chromosomes into the polar bodies that disintegrate. The cost of meiosis has even worried many of the top evolutionary biologists. To quote Richard Dawkins: `Two of our foremost modern evolutionists have failed to explain to their own satisfaction the advantage of this extraordinary procedure [meiosis] for the individual organism. . .’[3] Dawkins continues:
When we
try to solve the paradox of the cost of meiosis, perhaps instead of worrying
about how sex helps the organism we should search for replicating `engineers’
of meiosis, intracellular agents which actually cause meiosis to happen . . .
Although at present it is just a joke to picture chromosomes being dragged
kicking and screaming into the second anaphase by ruthlessly selfish centrioles
or other miniature genetic engineers, stranger ideas have become common place
in the past. And, after all, orthodox theorizing has so far failed to dent the
paradox of the cost of meiosis.[4]
The
paradox of meiosis is solved when we realize that meiosis is necessary to undo
original sin by producing an ovum uncontaminated by the very disease infecting
every cell of the body. Meiosis is a miracle indeed, and thus Dawkins’
amazement at a picture of genetic engineers (during both anaphases) pulling the
contamination of sin nature over from the twenty-three contaminated chromosomes
into the twenty-three that are thrown-off through polar body. Dawkins and
Maynard Smith concede that there seems to be no explanation (outside Thieme’s
teaching) for why this process occurs!
Biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan agree with Dawkins that `meiotic sex’ is a major paradox as far as standard biological reasoning is concerned. In their book, Microcosmos, they dedicate an entire chapter to the “Riddle of [meiotic] Sex.” In chapter 10 they say:
At
first—even second—glance, this kind of sex [meiotic] seems a superfluous and
unnecessary bother. It has none of the virtues of the free bacterial genetic
transfer associated with the world-wide microcosm. In the economic terms that
biologists have used to describe it, the `cost’ of this kind of sex—producing
special sex cells with half the usual number of chromosomes, finding mates, and
timing and performing the act of fertilization—seems all out of proportion to
any possible advantage.[5]
Margulis
and Sagan state that two parent sex was never maintained by natural selection,
and that if evolutionary processes can ever bypass biparental sex—through
parthenogenesis (like that in beetles, or cloning of humans, or any other way)
while still preserving complex multicellularity—then according to Margulis and
Sagan, there is no doubt that meiotic sex will go the way of the dinosaurs!
They respond to the claim that meiotic sex persists because it increases
variety and newness of offspring, which supposedly allows sexual organisms
faster adaptation to changing environments, by stating that there, ` . . . is
absolutely no evidence that this is true. When the idea was tested by comparing
animals that can reproduce either asexually or sexually, such as rotifers and
asexually reproducing lizards, scientists found that as the environment varied,
the asexual forms were as common as or even more common than their sexual
counterparts.’[6]
In John Maynard Smiths latest work, The Origins of Life, he too goes into some detail to suggest (what every biologist knows) that sex itself appears to be inexplicable as far as evolution is concerned. Sex appears to exist for the express purpose of `meiosis’ and yet from a Darwinistic biologists perspective, what is the purpose of `meiosis’? Smith says:
To ensure
proper distribution of chromosomes, the production of gametes is a complicated
process, as anyone familiar with the accounts of meiosis in biology textbooks
will be aware. Because of these complications, and the obvious disadvantages
associated with them, it is not surprising that the origin and maintenance of
sex continues to be a matter of controversy among biologists.[7]
Sexual
reproduction is said (in the Scriptures) to have begun at the fall of Adam. Sex
is actually an allegory for the rising entropy of the universe. Sex causes the
human race to expand (like the universe) as rising entropy (the second law of
thermodynamics) brings about the death of the universe. Rising entropy in the
human race (which rising entropy is a result of original sin, and sin nature,
spread through sex) causes the expansion and rising entropy of the race. The
biologist William Clark says in his recent book, Sex and the Origins of Death:
Obligatory
death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into
existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of
programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting
with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of
innocence.[8]
Sexual
reproduction arose as a result of the Fall. Yet in His matchless grace, God
also provided `meiosis’ as a spiritual mechanism for the ultimate reversal of
fortune! Jesus Christ’s birth was the whole purpose of meiosis and polar body!
Jesus Christ is the mechanism whereby Adam’s fall will be `undone’ for those
born-again into Christ! Through meiotic sex, which began at the Fall, biology
provides the mechanism whereby the virgin birth of the second Adam (the last
Adam) can enable the human race to cleanse itself from the Fall, by being
re-born not by means of the genes of the first Adam, contaminated with sin
nature, but by means of the memes of the last Adam, who is beginning a new
spiritual race through memetic (linguistic) parthenogenetic reproduction. The
words (memes) of the last Adam were given to mankind prior to the imputation of
our sins to His body, and thus, His words, recorded in the New Testament
Scripture, are free of the contamination of sin nature.
Through meiosis and polar body the female seed (ovum) cuts-off the contamination of sin nature that's present in every cell of the human body. In this way, the prophesy of Genesis 3:15 (that through the `seed’ of the woman would come the Redeemer), is made possible though a virgin pregnancy, which `cuts off’ the re-contamination provided by Adam’s seed (male semen) in any non-virgin pregnancy process. If all Jewish males were emasculated, it would be impossible for the Messiah to be contaminated through procreation. Circumcision was therefore an unmistakable sign to the world that the purpose of the Jewish race was to give birth to a Jewish Male - born without the mechanics, or the contamination, provided through the male’s reproductive apparatus.
This understanding forms a profound and powerful suggestion that the ritual that established the Jewish race (circumcision), was in effect, an important element in the prophesy of the virgin birth of Christ. It was further, a frighteningly drastic mechanism (at least in the ritual - castration of all Jewish males at birth) of ensuring that no Jewish male contaminated the purified (meiosis and polar body) seed (ovum) of the Redeemer. This conjecture is justified, and made nearly inescapable, by the fact that Abraham brought Isaac (first person born a Jew – and through a virgin pregnancy because of the ritual emasculation) to a mountain (actual site of the future temple) to offer this virgin born son (no phallus in the procreation process) as a sacrifice to God. Isaac – the first man born a Jew (therefore a type of Christ) was by ritual - the product of an immaculate (free of Adam’s sin) birth.
Understanding of the purity of the female ovum, though meiosis and polar body helps to understand how an emasculated pregnancy can provide an Immaculate Birth.
Once Abraham had fully performed the circumcision allegory (removal of phallus in pregnancy – virgin birth – sacrifice of the one born of a virgin), God made him the father of the Jewish race. Circumcision is the ritual that sets the Jewish race apart from the rest of humanity. The Jewish race is `circumcised’ from the rest of humanity. The Jew’s circumcision/separation from the gentile body symbolizes the unique purpose for which the newest race (and the only spiritual race) was set apart.
Through biology we are born sons of the first Adam, and through the Spirit we undergo a virgin New Birth through the second Adam. The first birth is biological – the second birth is spiritual though the impregnation of the resurrected Spirit, by Christ’s words, His linguistic life encoded in the Words of the Gospel. Circumcision symbolizes that the biological life associated with our first birth in Adam will be cut off completely – emasculation. This happens for the micro-organism (the individual) at physical death, and it will occur for the macro-organism (all those who make up the uncircumcised flesh) at the `second death.’[9] At the second death, all soul life (micro-organisms) not circumcised from the macro-organism (made up of all non-circumcised biological life – Body of Death) will be cast alive into the Lake of Fire. All micro-organisms that were circumcised from the macro-organistic Body of Death, through faith in Christ, will enter Eternal Life as the Body of Christ.
Circumcision therefore symbolizes the fact that biological life is emasculated, or cut off, at both deaths; physical death for the micro-organism, and eternal soul death for the macro-organistic Body of death – sired by Satan. When Abraham cut-off the biological means of giving birth to Isaac, he was recognizing in the ritual, that without an impregnation mechanism beyond the biological flesh Isaac might as well not be born. Jesus Christ, for whom Isaac was a type, was born by that non-biological impregnation mechanism. The first Adam gave up rulership of the biological macro-organism to Satan. Satan is now the father and ruler of the macro-organism made up of biological flesh. Jesus wasn’t impregnated by the flesh (biologically encoded semen). He was impregnated by the Spirit, and is therefore the father of the Spiritual macro-organism that bears His Name.
[1] John D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, p. 240.
[5] Lynn
Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Microcosmos, (University of California Press,
1997), p. 155, 156. See Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Waters of Eden, where, among
other things, Rabbi Kaplan says: "Actually, there is no biological or
medical reason why the uteral lining must be expelled and restored each month.
There is no reason why the ovum has to `die' only to be replaced by another
egg. Most biologists look upon this as an example of unexplained inefficiency
in the human reproductive system."