Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
It would be a matter of heritage even as it was under the Law. Circumcision of the flesh is not something prohibited to believers...unless it is given a salvific value.
And that was the problem with those under Law...they viewed the external a a means of righteousness.
As I said, in the Millennial Kingdom, there is no reason for Jews to forsake their Heritage.
Physical circumcision was not a means of righteousness...it was a sign. And performed on a child before that child had any clue about anything.
The fact remains that in Ezekiel - your supposed future scenario - we have God calling those who are not circumcised - Gentiles and Jews - an "abomination".
And what does that uncircumcision represent?
Those outside of relationship with God.
You completely ignore everything I said and continue with an argument that ignores the intent of circumcision and it's intent.
Again, there is no reason to see Jews continuing in their heritage in the Millennial Kingdom. There is no reason to think men will not be circumcised in that day.
And one not circumcised according to heritage and tradition, which has no salvific connotation, coming into the Temple...speaks of one who definitely should not be there. That is the issue, Tom.
Those who allow them to come in will also be considered out of relationship with God. That is the issue, Tom.
You are imposing significance to external services or traditions which fit within the framework of Israel but are not salvific in nature.
The argument you are creating does the opposite of what is actually in view in that instead of understanding Paul in Galatians as he addresses the error of Judaizers...you impose something not in Paul's teaching.
Let me explain: Paul is not forbidding men to be circumcised. What he is saying is if one believes they can only be in relationship with God if they are circumcised then they err.
Your train of reasoning is as erroneous as the Judaizers, except you are doing the exact opposite of what they were doing. If you are correct, then many are an abomination unto the Lord.
In this passage God calls uncircumcision (including physical uncircumcision) an abomination.
And the intent is to speak of those not in relationship with God.
This text and the Law does not impose salvific quality to circumcision, which was a sign of the circumcision of the heart, which was relationship with God in truth.
The point is "You have allowed infidels into My Temple." Which shows the disregard they had for God.
And the simple point is that will not be the case when Israel is restored.
In the NT Paul calls circumcision an abomination (though he does not use the exact word). Just looking at Galatians, one book of many:
"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law." - Gal. 5:2-3
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." - Gal. 5:6
"But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed." - Gal. 5:11
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." - Gal. 6:15
I don't see Paul saying it is an "abomination."
What I do see is the simple point of "I am not preaching the Covenant of Law."
The "Circumcision" deals with legalistic false teachers. They were contrary to the Gospel.
Nothing in this forbids Jews from being Jews. Nothing in this forbids circumcision. It is believing circumcision and keeping the Covenant of Law has to be maintained in order to be saved which is the error Paul is dealing with.
You need to let these verses sink in.
You need to understand Paul is not teaching "Don't be circumcised!" lol
That completely obscures his teaching here, and the only reason to do that is to support your eschatological position. So we see the importance of eschatology and how it can impact our views, and how we present important lessons taught.
For God to turn all these inspired instructions form Paul to his readers, Jews and Gentiles, would be tantamount to Him going back on His word - and His Word.
The only one seeing that done is you.
Because you see Paul forbidding circumcision.
You do understand the audience was not exclusively Jewish, right? And there is a distinction drawn in instruction for a distinctly Hebrew audience (hint hint, lol), right?
Can you show me in Hebrews where Jews are forbidden to maintain their heritage as Jews? Rather than the exhortation to leave the Covenant of Law and progress to the New Covenant?
Quote:
In the same manner animal sacrifice has never had salvific value. Not under Law, not in the Millennial Kingdom.
Once again, the presence of the word "abomination" strongly invokes a salvific context.
On the contrary, it should invoke the exact opposite: those who were not in relationship with God.
It is not the "Circumcision" of Galatians in view, it is those in disobedience to the Word and will of God in that Age. And it was in that Age they came under rebuke for allowing those not in relationship to have a part in a Covenant relationship which was disobedience.
Now, speaking of some "sinking in,": here are your proof-texts:
"Eze 44:6 And say to the rebellious house, to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations,
Eze 44:7 in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations.
Eze 44:8 And you have not kept charge of my holy things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.
Eze 44:9 "Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. "
Who is rebuked?
What Age does this rebuke occur in?
Where does it say no-one will be circumcised in Israel in the Kingdom promised?
All we see is that these errors on the part of Israel will not be repeated.
It is just a basic concept of that time when Israel is restored:
Hebrews 8:10-11
King James Version (KJV)
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
The promise of the New Covenant was made to divided Israel. Gentile Inclusion was a Mystery.
Neither lose their heritage, as a Jew is still a Jew, and a Greek still a Greek.
And in that day we will not see the error of Israel in regards to the Temple and it's services.
Continued...