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.)