Or, What Really Counts to God
Scripture: Romans 2:24-29
Date: January 30, 2022
Speaker: Sean Higgins
While we talk a lot about circumcision this morning, which is not a frequent sermon topic, remember that sinners excel at missing the point.
There is a lot of iceberg underneath the tip of this paragraph. We see what’s above the surface, we see what Paul actually wrote to the Romans, and the problem isn’t as much which parts Paul left out but how much the Jews had left out. Circumcision wasn’t only a practice in Israel, but the Israelites came to define themselves by it, even more than by their geopolitical boundaries. (Judaizers didn’t push every man to move into the land, but they did pressure every man to be circumcised, see Galatians 6:12.)
Circumcision was a sign, given to Abraham by Yahweh, as a reminder of the LORD’s covenant to Abraham (Genesis 17). All Abraham’s male offspring were to be circumcised (including Ishmael). The law given by God to Israel required it; any uncircumcised male would be “cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14). It was more than a medicinal and hygienic blessing, it was a covenant blessing.
But it became a sign of sanctimony. There aren’t many synonyms for sanctimony, but it can be defined, and even more so it can be seen. Sanctimony refers to an affected or hypocritical holiness, it means acting as if one were morally superior. It comes from sanctus, a holy thing, but it’s a labored pretense over something sacred, a pietistic posture. Sanctified is good, sanctimonious is acting proud as if one were sanctified.
Paul started poking at Jewish pretense in verse 17. They boasted about their identity, about their possession of the law and how they could give light to those in darkness. But Paul confronted the hypocrisy of how this kind of Jew taught everyone but himself. This kind of Jew boasted in the law that he kept breaking, and God was blasphemed by the pagans who watched the hypocrisy.
In verses 25-29 Paul takes the sign of circumcision, a requirement of the law, and, as with a knife, cuts off their sanctimonious entitlement. Here we see what really counts to God.
Circumcision is the subject of the first verse in the paragraph, and it’s referenced ten times in these five verses. Since the subject changes from the standard of the law to the sign of circumcision, a new paragraph is appropriate. At the same time it extends Paul’s confrontation to the man calling himself a Jew (verse 17) and has an additional explanation (beginning with “For”) after the hypocrisy of the law-breakers.
The law commanded every male in Israel be circumcised (Genesis 17:10). Paul doesn’t say who asked about circumcision, but it’s easy to imagine that a Jew could have heard the part about his law-breaking and still felt secure because of his circumcision. This sign was the Jews’ citadel.
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
Circumcision was a physical act of cutting the foreskin, easiest when a boy was eight days old (Leviticus 12:3), and requiring more recovery when a man was full grown (hence how Simeon and Levi routed a whole town when the men were sore, Genesis 34:13-25). God almost killed Moses for failing to circumcise his son, and Zipporah was none too happy about it (Exodus 4:24-26). Circumcision was a sign of sonship, a sign of belonging to the covenant that God made with Abraham to bless him.
The cutting off of skin was always meant as a reminder about cutting off of sin. That is so much so that circumcision became a metaphor, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn” (Deuteronomy 10:16). Physical circumcision wasn’t the end, circumcision was a means to the end.
The sign was not meaningless, but it wasn’t magic. It was not useless, but is of value with obedience. That obedience had to come from faith. That faith was in God, relying on God’s mercy and God’s provision of sacrifices to cover sin. The sign meant that a Jew was obligated to love God with all his heart, it did not get him off the hook from his obligations to the Lord.
Without this obedience of faith and love, circumcision might as well have never happened. Unlike in English, there are two unrelated words in Greek (circumcision - περιτομή and uncircumcision - ἀκροβυστία). Being “uncircumcised” wasn’t just a fact in one’s medical chart, it was a derogatory category. Uncircumcised was synonym for the unrighteous, the ungodly, and ἀκροβυστία is not found outside of the Bible and Greek ecclesiastical literature (per BAGD); it was a way the religious looked down on the irreligious. Identifying others as Gentiles/Greeks was one thing, it wasn’t really polite to identify the uncircumcised as such.
When Paul wrote that “your circumcision becomes circumcision,” he was saying about the worst thing he could. What counts to God is not the sign by itself.
Here is a “therefore,” a “so,” with the consequences.
Verse 26 is recognized as a question in almost all the Greek texts with punctuation and English translations, while verse 27 is also understood as a question in the VLG, KJV, and NASB. I think based on the syntax of the verse, it is better taken as a question, which means these are two questions, both of which are about the uncircumcised.
Here is the first question:
If, therefore, the uncircumcised (man) keeps the requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
This is a question to convict the Jew, not an invite to the Gentiles. Paul never preached the good news of circumcision to the uncircumcised, he actually argued against it, even against other apostles (Galatians 2:12; 5:2-3, 11). The question is, what counts to God? The Jew thought the sign itself counted for something, but “neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15).
The form of this question in Romans 2:26 is a third class condition, if…then? Unlike a first class condition which assumes the truth of the “if”/protasis, this type of third class condition puts forward a hypothetical. The confrontation goes one way to show that obedience from the heart matters more than a cut on the skin.
This is not saying that Gentiles who obey the law are then a true Israel. The biggest reason is that no one keeps the law. John Calvin wrote that Paul:
“simply intended to lay down a supposed case—that if any Gentile could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value without circumcision, than the circumcision of the Jew without righteousness.”
If obedience could happen (and that is hypothetical, since Paul’s point is that faith is required), then it would prove what counts to God.
Verse 27 asks:
Won’t the physically uncircumcised (man) keeping the law condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law?
Obviously, yes. God cares about humble obedience, and anyone, including the possibility of a pagan who came to see the righteousness of God in the law, could see the blatant hypocrisy of those who claimed that they knew better.
Of course, circumcision was a matter of obedience for the Jew. A Jewish male was breaking God’s law by not being circumcised. So in Israel there was not a “spiritual” circumcision-only sort of righteousness, but also righteousness was not only in the “physical” circumcision.
The ESV adds some words to try to make the translation of these verses more smooth to read, which is fine. It also divides the two verses into two sentences, though it’s really one long sentence with two clearly different parts, external and internal. It explains what counts (most) to God.
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:28–29, ESV)
This is true, sort of. There are Jews who are not Jews like this, but they are still Jews. There are those who are not circumcised like this, but they have still been circumcised.
This might be a clearer way to read it: “For a Jew is not (only) one outwardly, nor is circumcision (only) outward and physical, but a Jew is (also) one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.” There isn’t anything about true Jew or true circumcision without any reference to the external, its saying that the external is not enough.
What counts to God is not only outward and physical, what is seen in public, and that has always been the case. At no point in the Old Testament has being in the right family, in the covenant, been sufficient. From the time of Abraham, those who are justified with God and have peace with Him are those who believe (see Romans 4:3). In fact, in Romans 4 Paul points out that Abraham’s circumcision came after his faith “as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Romans 4:11).
Jewish parents were to circumcise their sons, as a matter of obedience to the law, but that brought obligations to fear the LORD (Deuteronomy 6:2), by keeping all His commandments (also Deuteronomy 6:2), and love the LORD God with all their hearts and souls and might (Deuteronomy 6:5). Circumcision, which was just the most personal, but including all forms of sacrifices and ceremonies in the law, could not replace the heart. What is needed is God’s own Spirit, His supernatural and internal work.
Too many Jews loved the (superficial) status. They loved their presumed position of superiority, a constant state of humblebrag, and circumcision was a sign of their sanctimony. They loved the praise, whether from others or even from their own wrongly informed consciences.
This praise is ironic. The name “Jew” comes from the name “Judah,” and Judah means “praise,” which is why Leah named him so (Genesis 29:35), and why Jacob’s blessing involved praise (Genesis 49:8). Praise is a not whether but which. Every man wants praise, it’s a question of for what and from whom. Too many Jews were satisfied with being praised by men for the sign, when they should have wanted the praise that comes from God for their obedience of faith. They cut themselves off from what counted most: praise from God.
The message of Paul to Jews in Rome was not that they could do better. He wasn’t exhorting them to start obeying the law, and obey perfectly, and then everything would be alright again. He was pointing them to Christ by faith. This is actually what the law, and even circumcision, was intended to do all along.
By way of application baptism, as an external sign of identification, does not count as righteousness, though it is commanded for those who believe.
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)
Religious things, including the ones commanded by God Himself, that are boasted about to get praise from men are millstones hung around our necks, without living from faith to faith.
If there is any excellence in our liturgy, if there is anything worthy of praise about our worship, it is in the Father’s peace that fills and guards our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. And as you are charged to go obey, part of your obedience is to believe. Your tested/genuine faith will result in praise and glory from God (1 Peter 1:7).
The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers. May he not leave us or forsake us, that he may incline our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his rules, which he commanded our fathers. (1 Kings 8:57–58, ESV)