Before we answer this question, we need to set forth some basic understanding regarding the concept of physical circumcision.

As we will see, in the Old Testament, physical circumcision was a type or forerunner of spiritual circumcision (as the animal sacrifices were instituted temporarily, pointing to the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ). Compare Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 9:25-26; Jeremiah 4:4.

In the New Testament, it is emphasized time and again that true Christians must be circumcised spiritually… not physically; compare Colossians 2:11. This is the reason why Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19: “Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”

Notice, too, Romans 2:28-29: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly [i.e., by being circumcised, verse 27], nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.”

Finally, notice Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” He adds in Galatians 6:15: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.”

It also became clear in the New Testament that physical circumcision is no longer required and it would be even wrong, if it is done with the mistaken belief of circumcision being a health-law, or, even worse, that it is necessary for spiritual salvation.

Based on this understanding, we can proclaim dogmatically that physical circumcision is NOT a health law. We address this question in a Q&A, where we stated the following:

“God gave man timeless physical and spiritual laws, including health laws, as well as temporary ritual laws, which had a passing and time-related purpose. For instance, God told man that certain animal food is good to eat, while other animals are not fit for consumption (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). These are health laws, given for the good of man, which are still in effect today. In fact, they will still be in effect at the time of Christ’s return (compare Isaiah 66:16-17).

“The law of circumcision was clearly not a timeless health law, but a temporary ritual law. We should, first of all, consider why God commanded circumcision. God commanded the practice of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (Romans 4:11; Genesis 17:11), which God made with Abraham and his descendants, along with any who would want to come under the same covenant of promise. At the same time, circumcision constituted itself a covenant (Acts 7:8). But circumcision was not to be understood as a timeless health law. The reason is that the law of physical circumcision only came into effect long after the creation of man, and that it is no longer required today. If it were a health law, then it should have been in effect from the time of man’s creation, and God would still require it today, as He would not deprive man of something that is good for him…

“It is clear to us that God would not have asked Abraham and ancient Israel to become circumcised, if this procedure had been harmful to them, and if it had produced medical side-effects. At the same time, we must emphasize that God did NOT give this law as a health law. It was strictly a temporary ritual law, such as the laws of sacrifices and washings…

“We also read that Paul taught the Gentiles, who wanted to become Christians, that they did not have to become circumcised. IF circumcision were a health law, Paul would have taught them to violate and break one of God’s timeless physical health laws. This very concept, that Paul would have taught this, is preposterous.”

In addition, physical circumcision is clearly NOT required for spiritual salvation.

In our free booklet, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” we said the following, quoting from the Authorized Version:

“[Paul] states in Galatians 5:2–4:

“(Verse 2) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Verse 3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (Verse 4) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

“In these verses, Paul addresses those who were teaching the Galatians, that they must be circumcised to obtain justification and salvation. But Paul says in verse 2 that if the Galatians feel that they must be circumcised for their salvation, then Christ will profit them nothing and they have rejected grace (verse 4)…”

We might ask why God even introduced the temporary concept of physical circumcision and animal sacrifices, since they were not in force prior to Abraham or Moses, and since they are not in force today. The reason could be seen in the tremendous gravity of sin and the consequences of sin, causing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to become a man, live as a man and die as a man, in order to save man from death.

The sacrificial law with its animal sacrifices was added because of transgression or sin against God’s spiritual law (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20). The introduction of circumcision might have been for a similar reason. Abraham and his household had come out of a godless environment of paganism and idolatry, so physical circumcision became a physical sign of separation from ungodliness. Animal sacrifices as well as physical circumcision were introduced to point to Jesus Christ’s supreme Sacrifice. He HAD to be physically circumcised and He had to die for us, so that we could have forgiveness of sin. He became sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).

We know that in the Millennium, animal sacrifices will be given temporarily… mainly by and for physical Israelites, but notice too Isaiah 19:21, showing that Egyptians and other nations, if they want to become part of Israel, will also give sacrifices on a very temporary basis. The answer why animal sacrifices will be given for a short time is addressed in chapter 8 of our free booklet, “Biblical Prophecy… From Now until Forever”:

“It is important to understand that the millennial sacrifices will NOT be brought for the purpose of forgiveness of sin! Only Christ’s shed blood accomplished this—once and for all! But God introduced the sacrificial system to ancient Israel because Israel had sinned and the sacrifices served as a reminder of their sins. Apparently, for the same reason in the Millennium, sacrifices will be brought so that carnal, unconverted people can begin to appreciate the awesome purpose and meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice and how God looks at sin…

“Physical Israelites will bring animal sacrifices to a new temple in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Millennium. These sacrifices will not be given for the purpose of obtaining spiritual forgiveness, but just to remind the people that they had sinned, and help them to focus on the ultimate Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As it was the case in Old Testament times, these sacrifices will be temporary and will be administered by physical Levites to physical unconverted people, so as to allow the transgressor to remain within the community of Israel.”

Since there will be, apparently on a very temporary basis, animal sacrifices after Christ’s return, will the practice of physical circumcision also be re-introduced? After all, Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), even though he had made it clear that circumcision was no longer required. We state the following in a Q&A regarding this event:

“Timothy was circumcised because Paul wanted him to be used effectively for the preaching of the gospel. While it is not necessary for salvation, it is not wrong to perform… By circumcising Timothy, he became accepted as a Jew, and avoided unnecessary disputes… Paul did not want Timothy to become a stumbling block to the Jews… The circumcision of Timothy was an action performed to prevent unnecessary conflict…”

However, this particular incident cannot be used as a general injunction for circumcision; nor can it be used to state that, therefore, circumcision will be universally practiced in the Millennium. While we find passages in the Bible clearly saying that animal sacrifices will be given at the beginning of the Millennium, we would need to find passages which would express something similar for physical circumcision.

There seem to be only two biblical passages which address circumcision in the Millennium.

The first passage is in Isaiah 52:1, stating that “the uncircumcised and the unclean Shall no longer come to… Jerusalem, the holy city.”

However, it is overwhelmingly agreed that this passage does not address physical circumcision and the need to be physically circumcised in order to be allowed to enter the city of Jerusalem in the Millennium.

Barnes Notes on the Bible states:

“The uncircumcised and the unclean – The idea is, that those only should enter Jerusalem and dwell there who would be worshippers of the true God. The uncircumcised are emblems of the impure, the unconverted, and the idolatrous… the view of the prophet extended to the purer and happier times under the Messiah…”

The commentary of Jamison, Fausset and Brown agrees, stating:

“uncircumcised—spiritually… Christ’s kingdom shall be exalted…”

The Pulpit Commentary says:

“Henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised… When the influx of the Gentiles comes (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6, 22, etc.), it will be one of Gentiles who are ‘circumcised in heart and lips,’ and no longer ‘unclean’ (Acts 10:15).”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges adds:

“… the uncircumcised and the unclean, i.e. not foreigners generally… but the ‘destroyers’ and ‘wasters’…”

The second passage can be found in Ezekiel 44:7-9, which states that “no one uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh” shall enter God’s sanctuary.

The explanation for this passage is similar to the one given for Isaiah 52:1.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states:

(7) In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers,… Unregenerate men, who are in a state of alienation and estrangement to divine and spiritual things: strangers to God; to the true knowledge of him… strangers to the nature of sin, and the exceeding sinfulness of it; to the deceitfulness of sin, and the consequences of it; to true repentance for it, and to the right way of atonement of it, by the blood of Christ: strangers to the Gospel of Christ, and the truths of it; and to the saints and people of God:

“and uncircumcised in heart; who never were pricked in the heart for sin, or felt any pain there on account of it; never had the hardness of their heart removed, or the impurity of it discovered to them; never were filled with shame and loathing because of it; or ever put off the body of sins in a course of conversation…

“and uncircumcised in flesh; carnal, as they were born; men in the flesh… and do the works of it; having never been taught by the grace of God to deny ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to abstain from fleshly ones: or, who put their trust in the flesh, in outward things, in carnal privileges, and external righteousness: these the Lord complains were brought “to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house: either to be members here, and partake of all the ordinances and privileges of the Lord’s house; or to officiate here as priests and ministers of the Lord…”

Elliott’s Commentary for English Readers states:

“(9) Shall enter into my sanctuary—To guard against the evils of the past, the command is now given that none of the strangers described shall even enter the sanctuary; but our version gives a wrong impression of this prohibition by rendering, “nor uncircumcised in flesh.” It should be, as in Ezekiel 44:7, “and.” The command is not that no uncircumcised person should be allowed to enter the sanctuary, for the residence of strangers among the Israelites is expressly provided for in Ezekiel 47:22-23; but the emphasis here, as before, is upon the ‘uncircumcised in heart.’ No godless heathen should be allowed to enter in to profane the Divine worship.”

From this it follows that there is no clear biblical passage suggesting that the practice of physical circumcision will be re-introduced in the Millennium as a requirement. Physical circumcision was never a health law or a law which was necessary for salvation. But as it is the case today, to circumcise one’s baby boy on the eighth day is a personal decision by the parents. It is not required, nor is it forbidden, as long as it is not done because of improper and unbiblical reasons or beliefs. We might therefore conclude that under certain circumstances, physical circumcision might be permitted in the Millennium, but that it would not be required.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In a previous Q&A about Matthew 27:52, we stated that many saints who were raised at the time of Christ’s resurrection were raised to ordinary physical life, continuing, “The fact that the people who were raised appeared to many in the holy city implies that they had been contemporaries of the people who saw them.” Doesn’t this contradict our teaching that during the life of Jesus Christ here on earth as a human being, no one received the Holy Spirit? How could the saints then have been “contemporaries of the people who saw them”?

In our Q&A on Matthew 27:52, we explained:

“… the Bible includes numerous examples, prior to Christ’s death and resurrection, of dead people coming to life again. 2 Kings 13:21 relates the record of a dead person who ‘revived and stood on his feet,’ when the bones of Elisha touched him. Also, John 11:38-44 records the story of the resurrection of the dead Lazarus. We also read, in Luke 8:49-56, that Christ brought a dead girl back to life. In all these cases, however, we must realize that these were resurrections to temporary physical lives — not to eternal, immortal life. In the case of the young girl, we read that Christ commanded the parents ‘that she be given something to eat’ (verse 55) — indicating that this was a resurrection to physical life, as immortal beings have no need to eat physical food.

“When we carefully analyze the nature of the resurrection of the saints, described in Matthew 27:52… we must conclude that these were likewise resurrections to physical life, not to eternal life… The resurrected saints in Matthew 27:52-53… came out of the graves ‘after His resurrection’ (verse 53), and they appeared to many in the holy city, apparently to confirm the fact that God DOES resurrect the dead. Nothing more is reported about those saints — but we know that they did die, in due time, to await the resurrection to eternal life…

“The Nelson Study Bible points out: ‘Because the Lord Jesus is the firstborn from the dead… and the firstfruits of those who are asleep…, these people could not have received their resurrection bodies. They probably were raised, as Lazarus was, to ordinary physical life. The fact that the people who were raised appeared to many in the holy city implies that they had been contemporaries of the people who saw them.'”

As we can see, the passing comment regarding “contemporaries” was a quote from the Nelson Study Bible. The purpose of our Q&A on Matthew 27:52 was not to prove that point, but rather to show that the resurrected saints were raised to physical life… not to eternal life.  However, in this Q&A, we will explore the question as to whether the Nelson Study Bible was correct in stating that the resurrected saints were or might have been contemporaries of the people who saw them.

As was pointed out above, we do indeed teach that no one received the Holy Spirit while Christ was alive as a human being. This question was addressed in a Q&A dealing with John 7:39. We stated the following:

“In John 7:38, Christ spoke of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the apostle John added in verse 39: ‘But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom [better: which] those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.’… Christ’s glorification and His ascension to heaven were necessary BEFORE the Holy Spirit could be given to His disciples. While He was alive as a human being, He told His disciples that He was WITH them, but He also said that there would come the time when He would be IN them. He referred, first, to His presence as a Man who was WITH them, but in the future, to the gift of His Holy Spirit which would dwell IN them (John 14:17). But in order for Christ to dwell IN His disciples (John 14:18; Galatians 2:20), through the Holy Spirit, He had to be first glorified with the glory which He had BEFORE He became a human being (John 17:5). As a mere human being, He could not live IN somebody else. That could only happen after He became again a glorified being.

“When a true disciple of Christ receives God’s Holy Spirit, it is the Spirit of the Father AND the Son which emanates from both glorified God beings, and which dwells in the disciple (John 14:23; Romans 8:11, 14-17; Romans 8:9, second part; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19).  When Christ was here on earth as a Man, it was the Holy Spirit of God the FATHER that dwelled in Him. He did His mighty works because of the Father’s Spirit in Him (Acts 10:36-38; John 14:10-11). When He became a human being in the womb of Mary through the power of the Father’s Holy Spirit, He ceased to be a glorified being. He became flesh–He changed into flesh (John 1:14). With that change, His Holy Spirit–the Spirit emanating from the glorified God being called the Son, the second Member of the God Family–no longer existed! Rather, it was the Holy Spirit of the Father which was within Him, without measure, from His inception; and which was with and in Him throughout His human life. And we read that God the Father, through His Spirit, resurrected Christ from the dead (compare again Romans 8:11).

“Christ was resurrected as a glorified God being, and from then on, His Holy Spirit emanated from Him again in the same way as it did prior to His human conception. That is why the apostle John said, in John 7:39, that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. It was not only the Holy Spirit of the Father, but also of the Son, which would be given to true disciples AFTER Christ’s glorification…

“What John’s statement in John 7:39 means, then, is that in New Testament times, nobody who was born after Christ’s conception as a human being would receive the Holy Spirit until after Christ’s glorious resurrection. We read that John the Baptist had God’s Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb–but he was conceived six months BEFORE Christ’s human conception. One might ask what happened to the Holy Spirit emanating from Christ, which was dwelling in John the Baptist, when Jesus became a human being. But we need to remember that the Holy Spirit emanates from both God the Father AND Jesus Christ, and the Bible teaches that it is ONE; that is, it is the SAME Spirit, as God the Father and Jesus Christ are ONE in mind, goal, purpose and action.

“Even though, upon Christ’s becoming a Man, the Spirit of Christ ceased to exist as emanating from the glorified Son–the second member and God being within the ‘Godhead’ or Family of God. But the Spirit of the Father continued to dwell IN John the Baptist. However, as is pointed out herein, once Christ became flesh and blood, the Holy Spirit would not be given henceforth to human beings until after Christ’s glorification.”

To clarify and to repeat, the Holy Spirit is “one,” insofar as mind, goal, purpose and action are concerned. But it is still Holy Spirit emanating from the Father AND from Christ. It is NOT one “entity” (the Holy Spirit is not an entity or a person), but it is Spirit flowing from the Father and the Son which has the same characteristics (being “one” in that sense), as the Father and the Son have the same characteristics.

With this background, we proceed to consider further who the “saints” were who are mentioned in Matthew 27:52.

We have addressed the meaning of the word “saint” in a Q&A about this topic. We stated the following, pointing out that the word “saints” refers to living persons (not dead ones who “went to heaven”):

“When the Bible speaks about saints, it addresses LIVING Christians. Paul wrote to ‘the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who ARE in Colosse’ (Colossians 1:2). He also wrote to the ‘saints who ARE in Ephesus’ (Ephesians 1:1), or to ‘ALL the saints in Christ Jesus who ARE in Philippi’ (Philippians 1:1)… He also wrote, in Romans 16:15: ‘Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who ARE with them.’ In 1 Corinthians 16:1, he spoke about ‘the collection for the saints,’ who were, at the time, in need of physical help. In Acts 26:10, Paul is quoted as saying: ‘This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison… and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.’ (Compare, too, Acts 9:13.)…

“Christians are called saints in the Bible BEFORE they die. We are told, in Psalm 116:15: ‘Precious in the sight of the LORD is the DEATH of His saints.’  According to the Bible, a saint is a person who is ‘holy’ or ‘sanctified’; that is, he is set aside or set apart for a special purpose. Once a person is ‘sanctified,’ he is ‘holy’ — or a saint…

“W.E. Vine explains in ‘Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,’ that the word ‘saint,’ as used in the New Testament, is derived from the Greek word, ‘hagios,’ meaning ‘holy’… Psalm 16:3 tells us that the ‘saints… are on the earth’…”

Using this explanation for the saints mentioned in Matthew 27:52, we must conclude that they had received the Holy Spirit PRIOR to Christ’s conception as a human being in the womb of Mary. This would not invalidate the above-quoted comments in the Nelson Study Bible, as they could have lived for a while after Christ’s conception, then died and were subsequently resurrected to physical life after Christ’s resurrection (Christ was about 33 ½ years old when He died), and they still could easily have been contemporaries of those who saw them after their resurrection.

There is an additional explanation regarding the use of the word “saints” in Matthew 27:52. As mentioned, the Greek word for “saints” is “hagios,” which is translated as “holy.” This word is used in a variety of cases. It is used for “holy” angels (compare Mark 8:38); for a “holy” place (Acts 6:13); and for the unconverted mate of a Christian and the children of Christians. We read in 1 Corinthians 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” In that passage, the Greek word for “is sanctified” is “hagiazo” (derived from “hagios,” i.e., to be sanctified), and the word for “holy” is “hagios.” It is the same Greek word which is translated quite often as “saints” in the New Testament, including in Matthew 27:52.

But the English word “saint” is a translation of the Greek word “hagios,” as is the reference to “holy” children or a “holy” unconverted mate. The point is, children or unconverted mates do not have the Holy Spirit, but they are still called “holy” (or one might say, “saints”), because they are set aside or sanctified for a holy purpose (the possibility of having a holy relationship with God).  Applying this understanding to Matthew 27:52, the “saints” who were raised could have been those who had been set aside for a special holy purpose without having God’s Holy Spirit within them when they died… the holy or special purpose for them could have been to appear to many after their resurrection to physical life, testifying and validating the concept of the resurrection. We read that after Christ’s resurrection, they came “out of their graves” and went into the holy (“hagios”) city and appeared to many” (verse 53). In that case, they could easily have been “contemporaries” of those who saw them when they entered the holy city of Jerusalem.

The use of the word “saint” is somewhat of an interpretation. The New International Version states, “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” The New Living Translation reads: “The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead.” The Weymouth New Testament writes: “… and many of God’s people who were asleep in death awoke.” In Old Testament times, for example, Israelites who did not have God’s Holy Spirit would still be called “God’s people,” as they were set aside for a godly purpose.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes: “Of course, it is not known who these were… It is probable that they were persons who had recently died, and they appear to have been known in Jerusalem; at least, had the ancient saints risen, they would not have been known, and would not so soon have been credited as those who had recently died.” Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible adds:  “But it should seem rather, that they were some later saints, such as Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, John the Baptist himself, good old Simeon, Joseph the husband of Mary, and others, well known to persons now alive.”

In conclusion, the quote in the Nelson Study Bible about “saints” appearing to contemporaries after their resurrection, seems to have much validity.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link