November 3, 2013

From Jim McGuiggan... Circumcision in Romans 2:28-29


Circumcision in Romans 2:28-29

As surely as there is a Jew and a Jew there is circumcision and circumcision. In this section of Romans Paul is stressing the ethical implications of an already existing circumcision rather than the theological implications of an eschatological circumcision. This is an indictment. His point here is that ethnic Jews in their religious, ethical and moral lives have not reflected the true meaning of circumcision. Since he is making a general survey of Israel's historical response to the torah (see 2:23 and 3:9-19) he is not saying that they lack a "Christian" circumcision that can be found in Christ alone and by the eschatological Spirit. He claims that they had never lived up to the implications of the circumcision they always had. Had they lived up to that circumcision it would not have been merely fleshly but would have been in or by "the (S)pirit". It's surely a mistake to make the Old Covenant graceless and "Spiritless". (See The Spirit: Old Covenant and New )
The circumcision in or by the (S)pirit is contrasted with one that is in or by letter. So what does Paul mean by the "letter"? Moo and many others take it to mean the Mosaic law but that's unlikely. He thinks that Paul sees the Mosaic law as a law written on stone tables and so it has the nature of "letter". But what makes us think Paul saw the Mosaic torah itself as "letter"? If, for example, Moses called Israel to have a circumcised heart and to have the torah on their hearts was he describing the torah as a "letter" condition?
But it isn't quite accurate to say that "the letter" is simply "a way of viewing" the law as people like Dunn suggest. It is less a way of regarding the law (being concerned only for its external embodiment) than it is of how the law relates to the individual (or the nation as a whole in Paul's agenda). If the law is taken into the heart (is written on the heart) it is no longer letter whereas if it remains an "external" requirement it is "letter". So, it's less "a way of viewing the torah" than it is of not keeping the torah because it is not in the heart. When the torah is called "letter" it is the torah that is called letter and not a view of the torah. Paul insists that the torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14). That's it nature, so it doesn't relate only to the external (with respect to Moo). But when Israel claims to possess it while refusing to live up to it, it becomes (mere) "letter". It is a relative description and not an absolute.
"And these words I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently"...(Deuteronomy 6:6) "You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart"... (11:18)
When Jeremiah or Moses speaks of the circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4 but see 9:26 and Ezekiel 44:7) we know literal circumcision isn't in view but we also know that we're dealing with more than a merely national symbol. In these cases the mark has been moved (as it were) from the flesh to the inner centre of the person so that the meaning, faith and commitment for which circumcision stands becomes the motivating principle of their lives. This doesn't mean that physical circumcision is irrelevant to Moses or Jeremiah but they're making the point Paul makes, a true Israelite takes to his heart the meaning of the covenant of circumcision. Nor should we think that Moses or Jeremiah would think that heart-circumcision was the result of human endeavour apart from God's gracious work. That misses a central truth of the Old Testament by a long way.
In Colossians 2:11 we have a different setting and a different agenda. We have "the circumcision of Christ." What are we to make of that genitive? Does Christ perform the circumcision or is he the one who is circumcised (cut off) or does the genitive here simply say that their "circumcision" is the kind that belongs to Christ (it is a heart circumcision)? It probably means more than "this circumcision is a heart circumcision, the kind that belongs to Christ" because such a circumcision existed prior to Christ. Besides, the precise issue here isn't ethical content--it's more theological and doctrinal than that. A heresy of some kind is being exposed (a heresy that certainly includes some Jewish elements) so that one circumcision leaves the other redundant (see 2:17).
The forgiveness of sins is clearly involved and is connected with the "putting off the body of the flesh" which is the act of circumcising (2:11,13). This putting off and circumcising is done "in Christ" (2:11) and is said to be "the circumcision of Christ". What if it's the case that the circumcision of Christ is his being cut off and that the circumcision of the Colossians is seen as taking place in identification with Christ? It would be the case that they would not only be circumcised "with" Christ, they would be circumcised with him because they are circumcised "in" him. (Just as the Romans died "with" Christ by dying "in" Christ--Romans 6:3-8.)
In this section we have a series of sun verbs. The Colossians are co-buried, co-raised and co-resurrected with Christ (2:12-13). It's certainly the case, and should be insisted on, that these realities aren't experienced alongside Christ as if independent of him. They are experienced with Christ only because they are experienced in Christ.
I
n either case, Paul contrasts it with a Jewish national circumcision done with hands (2:11). So in this sense it is the "true" circumcision, which is no doubt what Paul has in mind in Philippians 3:2-4 when he contrasts Messianic believers with merely nationalist Jews who bitterly oppose the Messiah.
The idea that the Spirit had not been at work in pre-Christ days is clearly unacceptable. Paul claims that persecuted Isaac was born of the Spirit (Galatians 4:29) and goes on to say "it is the same now." How difficult is it then to think that circumcision of the Spirit was an ancient experience? It isn't necessary, then, to think that because the true circumcision is in or by the Spirit that this circumcision is an eschatological experience (as it most certainly is in Colossians 2 and Philippians 2).
There's this too. In Romans 4 Paul sees the circumcision of Abraham as peculiar. In historical fact he was the only one of the elect whose circumcision marked him out as already justified by faith, independent of circumcision (4:9-12). This was not true of Isaac or Jacob (Israel) and consequently they could not be the father of all (both the circumcised and uncircumcised). Which leads me to say that while all believers are "Abraham's seed" (Galatians 3:26-29) they are not "Israelites" or "Israel". Israel (Jacob) is not the father of all that believe. In fact it appears from Romans 4:11 that Paul makes a deliberate play on the timing of Abraham's circumcision--it was post faith and righteousness. "The purpose," he says, was "to make him the father of all who believe." (RSV and the versions which take "eis to eina" as purposeful rather than mere summary as in the NIV.)

No comments:

Post a Comment