“A Circumcision Made Without Hands”

Sunday, July 10, 2022

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness… (Romans 4.3-5)

With these words, Paul begins his discussion of justification by faith, centered around Abraham.  Since he’s writing to a church dealing with friction between Jewish and Gentile members, he’s been focused since chapter 2 of this letter on lumping these two groups together—in guilt, as well as in salvation.  Accordingly, he points out that Abraham was labelled righteous in Genesis 17.5, on account of his belief—and it wasn’t until verse 10 that God instructed him to be circumcised.  He obeyed the command “that very day, as God had said to him” (v23), but nevertheless, even if we disregard the 24 years that Abraham had been following God’s instructions, going where he was told, and demonstrating trust in God, the text of Genesis 17 tells us Abraham was righteous in God’s eyes “before he was circumcised” (Ro 4.10).  The point Paul is really driving here is that righteousness—also called justification throughout this section of the book—was not, even from the beginning, the exclusive domain of the Jews.  It was easy for God’s chosen people to think there was no way for a gentile to attain salvation from sin and enter a covenant with God without converting to Judaism, because they knew the Law and the Prophets, and in them God said that the Gentiles were unclean; but there was a mechanism available for even the heathen to become clean and thus enabled to enter God’s Presence, entailing adherence to the Law of Moses, including circumcision.  However, God had already shown that an individual Gentile could, in fact, enter into a covenant relationship with him and be counted righteous, because Abraham was just such an individual, before God gave him circumcision, the first hallmark of Judaism.

The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Romans 4.11b-12)

Today, most of this is completely ignored in the typical discussion about justification by faith.  Perhaps this is simply because the proportion of practicing Jews who also profess Christ is now vanishingly small, and so we face different struggles today; but there also appears to be a shakier motive, tied up in the refusal to obey certain of God’s commands.  Inasmuch as circumcision is a relatively simple, outward act that carries with it an enormous weight of spiritual  symbolism, it’s easy to put baptism in its place and say that the two are equivalent in being unnecessary.  But if that’s the case, why didn’t Paul mention that anywhere in all of his writings, and why did he uphold baptism at every turn?  It requires us to deliberately ignore an enormous amount of what Paul (to say nothing of the other apostles and Jesus himself) said, and focus instead on a carefully selected few portions of Galatians, Romans and Ephesians, to build the case that baptism is unnecessary.

Even without that comparison, we may wonder: if Abraham was counted righteous, on the basis of his faith, before he was circumcised, then what was the point in telling him to be circumcised at all?

First of all, God can do what he wants, and doesn’t owe us an explanation.  This is an adequate answer to most of our questions; but in this case we can find a more satisfying reason.  Paul calls Abraham’s circumcision “a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Ro 4.11a).  God himself told Abraham, “it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Ge 17.11).  Why did God choose circumcision, instead of perhaps a funny hat?  We can only speculate, but removing a sensitive and precious piece, however minor, of one’s own body, and undergoing the substantial pain and bloody mess involved in the procedure, gave a stark demonstration of what God expected the Israelites to do, spiritually, out of devotion to him.  We don’t have the requirement of fleshly circumcision, but God does command the removal and casting away of intimate, integral aspects of ourselves that God has deemed unfit for his Presence.  It will be just as painful, just as messy, and just as permanent.  In fact, Paul points out that circumcision was a shadow of this Christian covenant:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2.11-14)

Just as circumcision never made anyone righteous, neither does baptism today.  At the same time, refusing circumcision made God’s chosen people unrighteous, and so it is with baptism today.  Circumcision carried a deep symbolism, reminding the Jews of pain and blood; baptism reminds us of death and burial.  The key difference is that the Law of Moses built up a record of sins; but in Christ, they are nailed to the cross and forgiven.

Jeremy Nettles

Share