First he comments that for non-Jews, they do NOT need to convert and get circumsised as you said in the other thread.
A person who is compassionate, forgiving, and benevolent -- qualities demonstrated by Avraham until this point -- is merely the embodiment of the ideal noahide.
[Rabbi Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash.]
So, no requirement for a non-Jew to become circumsised and follwo the law. Just be a good person. That's all that's required.
Being a "Noahide," though it's good enough for
goyim, is not the same as converting to Judaism. A Gentile can function as a "Noahide" yes. But he can also convert to Judaism and become a Jew, not a Noahide, but to do so requires allowing a Jewish male to make a determination, and also circumcision is required. If the Gentile is already circumcised (as is often the case in Western nations) he still must have blood drawn from the offending organ (the Genitile organ).
The concept of "Noahide" versus "Jew" is, right or wrong, eliminated by Jesus and Paul. According to their teaching, there's now neither Jew nor Noahide but one unified body where before there was a multitude of ethnicities and nationalities. Which segues into this:
Further, Rabbi Hirsch also interprets the "goyim" in the covenant as representing the tribes of Israel in addition to the nations of the world. This shows that "goyim" is not code for non-Jews in ever instance.
Rabbi Hirsch also says that the covenant was to create a nation, not a church.
ונתתיך לגוים. But for this purpose of elevating mankind to spiritual and moral heights, and in addition to this universal significance, My ברית [covenant] ensures you of something unique: You yourself will be the ancestor of a great nation [singular]. This nation will stride before the general multitude of nations [plural] as a model nation [singular] . . ..
The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.
Rabbi Hirsch notes that the purpose of the covenant is elevating all mankind, universally, to spiritual and moral heights. -----But, "
in addition to this universal significance" of the covenant, the covenant ensures Abraham of something unique in relation to the "multitude of nations": his physical descendants, through Sarah, will play a unique role in the establishment of the covenant of universal spiritual and moral heights. In this something unique, we have Abraham and his physical descendants undeniably being spoken of as distinct from the general "multitude of nations." They will "stride" or "strut" before the "multitude of nations" as the model nation. They're clearly and undeniably distinct entities at this point in the exegesis (a singular nation, versus the multitude of nations).
Nevertheless, the text of Genesis 17:4 speaks of the covenant as making Abraham not the father of a singular nation strutting before the multitude of nations, but, get this, the father of a "multitude of nations." So Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis naturally becomes somewhat labored in trying to equate the singular nation, with the multitude of nations, since we've already read him saying this in the self-same chapter:
What is the meaning of this latter phrase ["multitude of nations]? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6. The name "אברהם" also shows that, here, the phrase is not to be taken in the physical sense. Were אב meant to be taken literally, in the physical sense, the form of the name would be "אבהם" and the ר would be meaningless and disruptive.
The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.
Rabbi Hirsch unequivocally questions how "multitude of nations" can be speaking of Abraham's physical descendants? He says: "
here [in the establishing of the covenant], the phrase ["multitude of nations"] is not to be taken in the physical sense." He even gives sound exegetical reason why it can't. And in the same exegesis, of the same chapter, Rabbi Hirsch says this about the very "sign" or "symbol" of this covenant making Abraham the father of a "multitude of nations":
מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," [i.e., rebirth] man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.
The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.
Rabbi Hirsch says the very sign of the covenant that makes Abraham the father of a "multitude of nations,
i.e.," brit milah, ritual circumcision, "
is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth," it's a mark of a higher birth (a rebirth) since physical conception takes place at night, while circumcision, takes place in the daytime. In other places Rabbi Hirsch remarks that circumcision isn't about physical birth whatsoever, but is about a spiritual birth.
So how can the "multitude of nations" be Abraham's "physical descendants" when in every way Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis says it can't? Well, if the traditional understanding of Israel is correct, it simply must, and thus does. So we're not surprised that after all his sound exegesis pointing out the problems of equating the physical seed with the spiritual seed, the singular nation with the multitude of nations, we read this:
This nation will stride before the general multitude of nations as a model nation, and will itself appear as גוים [goyim], a plurality of nations.
The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.
He goes on to imply that each tribe symbolizes a nation and Israel can thus be thought of as a "plurality of nations" even though this makes the exegesis extremely labored if Israel gets to be both the singular nation strutting in front of the multitude of nations, and also the multitude of nations too.
God founded through Avraham not a church, but a nation . . ..
The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.
The word "church" speaks of an assembling of a multitude of nations and peoples under one heading, making them one body, such that Rabbi Hirsch's statement is tautological: it can't be refuted since if a "nation" is a "multitude of nations" then, as Wittgenstein points out as the case for a tautology, there's no argument that can deny the tautology since it takes for itself the whole realm of reality.
Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis is not only at least strained in the sense that it's tautological (his nation, is also his multitude of nations, leaving nothing for the poor non-Jewish
goyim), but the exegesis whereby he attempts to turn the multitude of "tribes" into a unified assembly, a church-like multitude under one heading, is problematic since the word for the "tribe" מטה is specifically related to patrilineal authority and patronage such that the "staff" of each tribe represents the masculine staff that father's the offspring of each tribe such that taking a knife to that staff, the determinant of patrilineal, tribal, privileges (
brit milah, ritual circumcision) appears to speak of the end of tribal privilege, say, for instance, tribal, patrilineal, determination of who can be a priest, thereby opening up the entire realm, priesthood and all, to the entire population of this unique multitude of nations.
Determination of who can be a priest in the nation of Israel is based on "physical" birth, physical patrilineage: who's yer daddy? But the spiritual offspring of Abraham aren't determined in any way by physical birth, but whether or not, in Rabbi Hirsch's terminology, they've been born-again?
The same Jesus and Paul who taught that there's neither physical Jew, nor physical Gentile, in the new assembly, the multitude of nations and people brought under one heading, the ἐκκλησία, also proclaimed that all who are part of this new epoch are priests, and much more than that, are all high priests (with full access to the most holy place), one and all, irregardless of what tribe, ethnicity, religion, or even gender, they are physically, or in the flesh. It matters not a wink who their physical father is, be he Abraham or Gengis Khan, in Christ, all are One, and have, every single one, equal privilege and equal opportunity in every way: no one can stride or strut in front of another based on physical patrilineage or birth. The organ through which those kinds of determinations have been made is bled to death in the establishment of the new covenant of universal equality.
John