#17. Romans 4:9-12 - The Chicken or the Egg? (Justification Series, Part VI)

 Part III: Our Justification, Confirmed

This happiness, then, is it for the Circumcision, or for the Uncircumcision also? For we are saying, “To Abraham faith is being reckoned for righteousness.” How then, is it reckoned? Being in circumcision or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Thank you, Paul, for these words. I used to look at these sentences and find myself baffled. I now look at these sentences and find myself baffled, in peace.

Paul is going to put it all together here, watch. He restates the question, now that the evidence has been laid out in the first 8 verses of this chapter. Is He the God of the Jews only? Now, Is the happiness David spoke of only for the Jews, or for the gentiles as well? Paul then reaffirms his stance, that faith is being reckoned for righteousness. Then he shifts gears again, asking: how is this faith reckoned? Well, if we look at the simple timeline in Genesis (I believe irrespective of the version you read,) Abraham’s justification (Gen. 15:6) comes before his later circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14.) Thus, Paul concludes, by the simple logic of “last I checked, time moves in a straight line,” that faith comes before his circumcision, thus his faith was counted in uncircumcision.

This is rough for the Jewish hater (or any hater, for that matter.) Not only was the promise made in uncircumcision, but the circumcision is revealed, indeed, to follow a completely separate covenant, which gave birth to Jacob (who was literally renamed “Israel.”) Welp!

And he obtained the sign for circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was in circumcision, for him to be the father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be reckoned to them...

The sign for circumcision (being the tippy of your dicky being slitty,) is not just a fun idea God had whilst smoking a pipe. There is a purpose; the cut was a seal of the righteousness that was in Abraham’s faith. No wonder the Jews got so excited over this physical rite! They saw it as an automatic “righteous” card!

Here’s the thing about a seal: it’s valuable, yes, but only when it is fulfilling its duty, if that makes sense. The Declaration of Independence, for example, holds many names of America’s founding fathers. Their names, if written on a random piece of paper, are valueless. However, their names written on the bottom of the document is to show that the words are sealed in their hearts. The same goes for circumcision: the seal, if implemented on someone without faith, is valueless. However, if this seal is attached to the faith that it’s purposed to seal, then it’s to show that the faith is sealed in that one’s heart.

Do you see the Jews’ dilemma, and better yet, what Paul is getting at, then? All these Pharisees were circumcised without the faith being written in their hearts, and now that God has ended this covenant with unfaithful Israel on account that they couldn’t hold up their end of the bargain (Matt. 27:51,) the seal holds no value on those who don’t believe. Thankfully, God is, like, intelligent, and didn’t attach “faith” to “circumcision,” but “circumcision” to “faith.” This displayed their nationality at the time, and did not define their internal spirit.

This means that Abraham, while the father of the circumcision, also the “father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision.” In this sense, the circumcision are, indeed, second to faith, because God dealt with the faith in uncircumcision first. Take that, religious zealots.

Anyways, then there’s that last little phrase we love so much: for righteousness to be reckoned to them. Obviously, with the proper words in their proper places, this becomes righteousness being reckoned to the uncircumcision, or, the faithful, and not the circumcision, with their law. There’s a defined, definite separation, here. Paul will go on, way later in Phil. 3:4-7, to say the following:

"And am I having confidence in flesh, also? If any other one is presuming to have confidence in flesh, I rather: in circumcision the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, in relation to law, a Pharisee, in relation to zeal, persecuting the ecclesia, in relation to the righteousness which is in law, becoming blameless.

But things which were gain to me, these I have deemed a forfeit because of Christ."

Now, this isn’t to say that if you’re physically circumcised today, you’re automatically subject to the law. This just isn’t true, because Paul wasn’t subject to the law, and he was certainly circumcised. The physical rite of passage here holds no bearing for those forfeiting the Jewish qualifications above, in the name of Christ.

The reverse would also be true; a gentile who seeks to adhere to the above qualifications would be forfeiting Christ, thus forfeiting the justification God is speaking of in Romans right now, in the name of putting yourself back under the law.

You know what? Now that I think about it, this kind of sheds light on Romans 3:30, does it not? I should’ve seen this before. Again, the circumcision is being judged out of faith, while the uncircumcision (those with faith,) are judged through that faith, and deemed justified. Very interesting thought, that the most complicated verse so far, in my opinion, is given this elaborate breakdown, as if God knew it would be complicated for readers today to fully grasp.

…and the father of the Circumcision, not to those of the Circumcision only, but to those also who are observing the elements of the faith in the footprints of our father Abraham, in uncircumcision.

Remember, the law was not even a thing until well after Abraham was gone. He was promised a kingdom before the law had ever been written. This is Paul’s evidence for Abraham serving two purposes, the secondary being the circumcision.

Yes, he is the father of the circumcision, of Isaac, who would give birth to Israel. He is of this calling, but not solely to them specifically. The focus of Abraham’s history is faith, apart from law. Here is the proof, in Gen. 17:3:

“And Elohim spoke to [Abram,] saying: As for Me, behold, this is My covenant with you: You will become the father of a throng of nations.”

In relation to his circumcision allotment, God says, in Gen. 17:13 (which comes second):

“He shall be circumcised, circumcised, the manservant born in your household or acquired with your money. Thus will My covenant be marked in your flesh as an eonian covenant.”

The specific circumcision allotment is a fleshly allotment, serving as the physical separation between the Jewish nation and the rest of the world. This is a divine distinction, and does clarify that God separates the nations in one of two manners: Jews, then everyone else. Oh, racist, you say? Well, I would argue more nationalist, not racist, but the fact that all are classified, physically, as equal, beneath the Jews, is the closest thing you could get to a “racial” distinction in Scripture, and this distinction is dropped anyway in Christ (Gal. 3:28,) so enough with this “Jesus was this race” stuff cuz it doesn’t matter! And again, suck it religious zealots!

That’s not how I thought the previous paragraph would end. Anyway, yeah, the Jews aren’t special in Christ, and that bothers them. The simple fact is that the “national superiority” nonsense ends at faith’s doorstep, as Abraham gave birth to many different nations with which faith is intertwined. The circumcision ideal begins on day eight for a Jew (Gen. 17:12.) Day eight! You would say, with a straight face, that the little Jewish baby knows all about faith and its various internal qualities?? Its spiritual connections?? The baby knows about God’s covenant with Abraham??

No. A baby is a baby. He knows that he can’t control his poopy time, when he can eat, or when another is going to cut part of his peepee off. The circumcision is inflicted by an external source, not their internal decision, because the tradition of his nationality says so. Ishmael received this mark, though he is certainly the type of an unbelieving nation. Esau received this mark, though by selling his birthright and Jacob stealing his blessing separated him, placing him equal to the uncircumcised.

To conclude this, it’s not about whether one is circumcised, to be of faith, but to disregard that circumcision in following these footprints of faith, which can reckon us to righteousness, now, through Christ. Circumcision is secondary, uncircumcision primary. Which came first? The faith.

- GerudoKing