Romans pt 28: An Entire Chapter about Circumcision!
Romans chapter 4 is a weird one, but it is also a profound one, so I’ll see if I can summarize the entire chapter and its meaning into just a few paragraphs. But real quick, I want to give you a primer on circumcision and why it was such a big deal in Jewish life. Circumcision in the Ancient Jewish world was a sign of Abraham’s Covenant (Gen 17:11) and it was commanded for Israelites, all those born into the lineage of Abraham. It was also required for Gentile converts who wanted to enter in to Judaism.
There’s a lot of other reasons they site too: Exodus 4:26 tells a story of circumcision divinely saving a mans life; the extra-biblical Jewish book of Jubilee’s (15:26) tells of circumcision helping people avoid destruction, be delivered from Gods wrath, and warding away evil spirits. Philosophers like Philo wrote how it improved hygiene and virility… It was a symbol of faith, piety, and a life fully devoted to the desires of God over the desires of the flesh.
And most important of all, it was one of the three Jewish cultural boundary markers: keeping the sabbath, dietary restrictions, and circumcision. If you kept these three things, you were justified in keeping the whole of the Torah. They were placemarkers for the whole thing, so they were protected above all else as most important.
Two Sides to This Story:
There are two sides because there are two different kinds of church members in the church in Rome: the circumcised and the uncircumcised.
The Circumcised are the Jewish Christians. They believe that circumcision is a sign that you belong to Gods people, and for the Jewish Christians, that also means the church.
The Uncircumcised are the Gentile Christians. They were often literally called the uncircumcised by their Jewish coutnerparts, which comes after a very long history of the Jewish people using it as an insult to speak perjoratively about people like “this uncircumsized Philistine!”, that would be David, speaking about Goliath in 1 Samuel.
So Paul has written Romans chapter 4 to address this separation which is causing judgement and division in the church. But instead of just telling them not to worry about it, Paul opts to use the Jewish tradition of midrash to make his point. Midrash is an interpretive technique that strings together several different passage os scripture and points out the aggreeance between them in order to make a larger point about God, his attributes, or his character. That is what we see Paul doing in his use of the passages referring to both Abraham and David. It goes like this:
Step 1: Abraham was circumcised after he received faith and salvation (4:1-5), therefore, Abraham was the first uncircumcized Gentile saved by faith (v9-11), and is the father of both the curcumcized and the uncircumsized (v11-12).
Step 2: David received Gods blessing and forgiveness, not because he claimed to be a part of Gods covenant through circumcision, but because he repented and begged for forgiveness (v6-8). So david was saved and blessed, not because of the works of the flesh, but because God chose to gift it to him.
Step 3: Now we can see Pauls argument:
”Now that it has been shown that both of these patriarchs have been saved by faith, and not works, don’t you also think that these Gentiles could be included even though they have different cultural boundary markers than you?”
Modern Cutting, Modern Boundaries
If you want to be Godly, then you wil learn to love people well — how God loves them. And if you want to love people how God loves them, then you need to pay attention to how God loves them and juxtapose that next to how you love people:
Do you treat people better or worse based upon their bumper stickers?
Wether or not they have a certain colored had or a certain colored flag?
And if so, what must they do to earn your loving embrace?
What are you requiring that they take a knife to?
Their politics?
Their identity?
Their nationality?
Their race?
If so, you are in the position of the Jewish Christians, the weak, in the church in Rome. You are the fundamentalist, the one who believes that rules are more important than people.
Paul writes Romans 4:11b-12 for this type of person… the person that requires cutting before entering:
So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Ro 4:11–12)
This is the crowning argument: Since Abraham was embraced by God before being circumcised, Abraham is the first Gentile convert! He is the God who embraces us before we start cutting things off. We edit ourselves to earn the approval of our peers, but God looks at the heart. God is simply asking “do you trust me? Can you trust me with even this? Can you trust that you can move towards this person in love, despite all your disagreements, and believe that somehow, if you die to yourself and humbly move towards the other in love, that God will work to bring reconciliation?”
The Chapter ends perfectly:
The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (Ro 4:23–25)
Discussion Questions:
How does the concept of circumcision serve as a symbol of faith, piety, and a life fully devoted to God's desires over the desires of the flesh? How does this symbolism tie into the theme of faith versus works presented in Romans chapter 4? How might this understanding impact our perception of external markers in our faith journey today?
In Romans chapter 4, Paul addresses the division between circumcised Jewish Christians and uncircumcised Gentile Christians. How does Paul's interpretation of Abraham's faith and David's repentance challenge the cultural boundary markers set by circumcision? How can we apply this lesson to modern contexts where differences in beliefs or identities often lead to division within faith communities?
Tommy seems to suggests that those who demand certain conditions or "cutting" before embracing others are in the position of the weak, believing rules are more important than people. How can we distinguish between maintaining core principles of faith and imposing unnecessary barriers to acceptance and love? Can you think of any current issues or scenarios where this distinction might be relevant?
We have focused on the idea that God's embrace and approval are offered before any "cutting" or self-editing is required. How can we cultivate a mindset that values authentic relationships and focuses on heart transformation rather than outward conformity? How does understanding God's unconditional acceptance of us influence our approach to reconciling differences with others, especially within the context of faith communities?