How can Paul say circumcision is not necessary any longer, when Ezekiel says it is even in Messianic times?

Question

Galatians 5:6-"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."
Exekiel 44:9-"Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel."

This is regarding many of your answers (this will address several of your answers): The verse in Ezekiel specifically refers to the need for circumcision of the flesh, in addition to circumcision of the heart (spirit). Ezekiel, in chapters 40-48, is clearly and explicitly giving a Messianic prophecy regarding the future temple and its rites and the future inhabitation of Israel by jews and the future Jerusalem (read the chapters- you will see). Now Ezekiel was certainly aware of the New Covenant, and yet in this messianic prophecy he specifically specifies circumcision of the flesh. Also- note that Ezekiel did not say anything about baptism- he said quite clearly that he is referring to circumcision of the flesh. If Paul is right, then Ezekiel must be a liar. Also, if circumcision of the flesh is no longer necessary since Jesus fullfilled the law, then Ezekiel must be lying when he tells us that in messianic times flesh circumcision will be required.

Guitarpicker- you say that G0d said that circumcision is no longer a requirement for male infants. That is very interesting since Ezekiel explicitly says "thus says the L0rd" in that very verse, and Paul does not claim any such thing in this verse in galatians, nor in anywhere any of his epistles, nor is this claim made anywhere in any of the NT at all (although this phrase occurs quite often in the OT). What is your basis for making this claim, please?

Question for those of you who differentiate between the covenant/requirement for jews, and that for gentiles- if your reasoning is correct- then how come no christians teach or preach to jews that they must be circumcised? No missions to the jews stress or even mention this as significant, for the jews, at all. If circumcision is not necessary for gentiles, but it is for jews- then why not?

dewcoons- you are correct in stating that there are many covenants in the bible. Another good example, which you did not mention, would be G0ds covenant with Phineas. But you refer to G0ds covenant with the gentiles. Please show me a scripture that says that G0d made a covenant with the gentiles (other than that which he made with Noah). Even Jeremiah 31:31-34 is says explicitly that this is a covenant between G0d and the Jews. Amos 9:12 does not substantiate this statement either (Acts 15:17 is not consistent with the hebrew of Amos 9:12). In the original hebrew, says "In order that they may inherit the remnant of Edom and all the nations; those whom my name is called upon." Acts changes edom to adam (which means man), changes the word "inherit" to "seek," changes the fact that in the original hebrew edom and the nations are the ones how are inherited (as is clear from the fact that the phrase "the remanant of edom and all the nations" is prefixed with the proposition "et," which

is prefixed with the verb "they will inherit"- anyone who knows any hebrew grammar knows that the noun following the word "et" always is the direct object of the verb- in this case the object of the inheritance- that is- they are inherited). Acts compresses the two seperate phrases of "all the nations" and "those upon whom my name is called" into one phrase. This is clearly not correct because now there is no subject of the "inherit" verb in the verse- the verb is left dangling in mid air without a subject- ie- without anyone doing the inheriting. This is in addition to the fact that this interpretation is explicitly against the diacritical markings in that verse. Further, the whole context of this chapter is about Israel and has nothing to do with the gentiles at all.
Dewcoons- can you please bring a scripture (not Jer 31 not Acts 9) that actually says that G0d made a covenant with the gentiles?

faith-
Per Genesis 17, Gensis 21, and Leviticus 12- circumcision is to be done on the eigth day- not 13th.
What you say about the reason for circumcision being cleanliness- that is your own reasoning and is not supported by scripture. Genesis 17 clearly connects the circumcision with G0ds relationship with Abraham and his inheritance of the land of Israel. It doesnt say anything about cleanliness. Nowhere does the scripture ever say such a thing.
You say that circumcision allows a male to enter the temple to perform the sacrificial services. From a plethora of references in Leviticus and Numbers it is clear that it is Aaronic male descent that allows this. Many will be circumcised and not be able to enter the sanctuary to perform the sacrifices, so this point is also incorrect.
It is not true that only priests could perform sacrifices- scripture records Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob al doing so, and they were not priests.
You say that before Jesus man could not pray

directly to G0d. Please show me where it says that in the scripture (it doesnt- that idea is not based on scritpure, and it is not correct).
You said that Jesus now allows us to have a direct line of communication to G0d. In your very next sentence you said that Jesus is our intecessor. You have therein contradicted yourself. And further, If Jesus is the intecessor, then man has no more of a direct line to G0d with Jesus than without- as before they needed to go thorugh a priest for sacrifice, and now they need to go through Jesus.
And in all of this, faith, I do not see where you have at all answered my question.
Explain, please.

Suzanne-1)The context of the verse which you quoted from Leviticus is referring to animals which have a physical blemish in them (those listed in the verses there). Verse 25 is saying that from a stranger you shouldnt accept an animal for a sacrifice if it is from any of these [animals mentioned in the prior verses which are blemished] because they [the animals are blemished]. The verse does not say that they- the foreigners- are blemished- rather just that they- the animals- are blemished. Meaning that a foreigner, like a jew, cannot offer a blemished animal as a sacrifice. The verse never says that the forgeigner is blemished and cannot offer a sacrifice. That is not correct.
2)You said that the term "circumicsed of the flesh" is meant in a spiritual manner and not literally. That being the case, how do you differentiate between that which it says in the verse "circucised of the spirit"- which you say means circumcised of the spirit, and that which it says "circumcised of the flesh"

which you say also means cirumcised of the spirit. Why would the verse say the same thing twice? Also, seeing that the verse refers to the two things with two different terms, how can they be synonymous? Also, seeing that this phrase of "circumcised of the flesh" always means just that elsewhere in scripture, why would it mean something else here?

Answer 1

It is circumcision of the spiritual heart that is the New Covenant. The Lord God writes His love & laws on our new born spiritual hearts.

Answer 2

The new Temple to the Ezekiel is measuring in chpater 44 will be unique that it will house the "saved" of two religions: both the Christians and the Jewish. Thus it has two different requirements for inclusion. You must be circumcised either in the heart - the sign of the Christian covenant, or circumcised in the flesh - the sign of the Jewish convenant. Either group is permitted to enter into that sactuary.

Paul, in Galatians 5, does not say that circumcision has no value. It does in the Jewish convenant. He states that it has no value "in Jesus Christ". It is not part of the Christian convenant.

If one studies the Bible, you will find that God made several different convenants with different people at different times. His covenant with Noah did not involve circumcision or the Mosaic law. But rather the building of a boat. His covenant with Job involved the taking of a ritual meal of bread and wine (See Job 1). Yet both those men were as "saved" as any other Bible saint.

God has a convenant with the Jews that begins with an outward ritual of circumcision. For one to be "saved" by the convenant, they must undergo the ritual. God has a covenant with the non-Kews that begins with an inward change to the heart. For one to be "saved" by that convenant, they must confess Christ as Lord. Then each must live by the terms and rules of their respective convenant.

So there is no contradiction in Ezekiel 44. Rather an acknowledgement that God has cut two major convenants with mankind, and has saved people under both.

Answer 3

Until Pentecost and the baptism of the holy spirit (that is Christ indwelling the heart of man) there was no one truly circumcised in heart. Those who went into the sanctuary in the Old Testament must be first one of the children of Israel, circumcised in flesh and, in lieu of being circumcised in heart, covered by the blood of animal sacrifice; which again spoke of things to come.

The circumcision of flesh was a sign of the spiritual reality which was to come, and which Paul speaks about. Those without the baptism of the holy spirit are strangers to God. The sanctuary of course is analogous to the human body which God seeks to make his temple or sanctuary.

One could ask: How could Ezekiel say there were people circumcised in heart in his day? The answer is he couldn't. What he is speaking is prophecy about me. Those of us who are now circumcised in heart are heirs of the promise; under the blood of Jesus Christ and no longer strangers but are made the Israel of God.

We have what those people could only hope for. What they had hope for, speaks to our hearts of those things which we now receive from God today.

Your answer requires seeing the relationship between the physical requirements of Old Testament law and the greater reality of what God planned and provided for our spirit; in order to restore us to fellowship as sons and daughters.

This will always be an issue with people who are under law. Remember that while the law will not be done away; it was set up to be fullfilled and not as a matter of eternal practice. If you in truth love God and your neighbor; what more need do you have of any law. All your actions will flow from His love which is shed abroad in our hearts by faith.

So Paul can say the circumcision of the flesh is nothing; for it only pointed to what God planned for our hearts. The law only leads us to accept the work and person of Jesus Christ. Consider the Rich Young Ruler. He kept the law and God loved him for it. But he turned down the law giver and failed to inherit eternal life.

Answer 4

Old Testament law required all Hebrew males to be circumsized within 13 days of birth. At that time, only the Hebrew circumsized their newborn males. The reason behind the practice was two-fold. Circumsized males were less prone to germs & disease & since males were the only ones allowed behind the Holy of Holies curtain where The Tabernacle dwelled their bodies were more sacred, clean, & able to enter Heaven at their death.

Jesus Christ says, "I came NOT to destroy the law but to fulfill it." And He did.

Before Jesus only the priests were allowed to make sacrifices, burn offerings, and to offer up prayers directly to God Almighty in the synagogue.

After Jesus all people had a direct line (audience) to God Almighty. Jesus Christ became their Intercessor. No longer did people have to have a priest, rabbi,...etc. etc. to offer up their prayers and sacrifices. God can hear all peoples prayers thanks to Jesus Christ pure, innocent sacrifice.

Paul is reminding people, all peoples not only the Hebrew that they are not saved by following the laws solely, but through Jesus Christ alone, who is the Only Way The Only Truth & The Only Life.

Answer 5

Paul was speaking to the Jews in Greece and Rome. They were trying to force the Gentiles to get circumcised. Paul was trying to explain to them that circumcision was not the point. The point was about the condition of the heart and knowing God by His love.

Answer 6

circumcision was necessary in the OT only b/c God commanded it of the Jews. if a Jewish male was not circumcised physicaly, he was cut off from his people, unable to paticipate in th Passover, & subject to the divine penalty of death. by refusing circumcision, he manifested unbelief & disobedience.... even tho God honored the obedient faith of the uncircumcised Gentiles, to whom he had given no command to be circumcised.

Under the new Covenant (NT), God abolished the requirement of physical circumcision .
Today, we receive salvation through obedient faith - by circumcision of the heart (obeying the Gospel), not by physical circumcision.

however, today keeping God's commands still does matter & always will. He still requires faith that works by love, which means faith is always obedient ... "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My Word." (John 14:23)

Colossians 2:11-12 compares Christian baptism to circumcision. This does not imply that baptism is unnecessary, but indicates that baptism under the New Covenant in the NT is at least as significant as circumcision under the Old Covenant in the OT....
meaning that water baptism is meaningless unless it is accompanied b obedient faith, repentance & circumcision of the heart (the inner spiritual work).
therefore, today a refusal to be baptized manifests unbelief & disobedience.

so a true Jew in the OT was one who was circumcised physically, while a true Christian of today is one who is born again spiritually.
true Christians are spiritual Jews who have been spiritually circumcised.... referring to the new birth which involves water & Spirit.

Answer 7

The scriptures of the Prophet Ezekiel are in the Old Testament. When Jesus Christ came into mortality, He fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament. That does not mean He eradicated the Ten Commandments. The laws and the commandments are two separate entities.

Circumcision for male infants is no longer a requirement, so said the Lord Himself.

Answer 8

First rule of scholarship; who is talking, and who is being spoken to?

Ezekiel is where God speaks to Israel.

We must also take into consideration the time setting. It is from the past, and there is nothing here to indicate it is talking about "Messianic times" in the future.

Paul was addressing the conditions extant at his time in relation to Gentile converts to Christianity. There is presently no "sanctuary" on earth, and Gentile Christians are not some subset of Judaism referred to as the "children of Isreal." Christians are the children of God.


.

Answer 9

Paul (in Galatians) was addressing the issue of bringing non-jews to Christ. For many, this created the problem of bringing them up to date on all jewish customs (such as circumcision) before they could come to Christ. But in his letter to the Galatians, he basically says that Christ came for all people, not just those who grew up with Jewish customs.

Answer 10

Bloody circumcision was replaced by bloodless baptism in the New Covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ.