 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
In our prior look at this verse, we focused upon Paul's choice of the most basic word for "to be strong". By that choice, he was deliberately eliminating human input from the scenario of "freedom in Christ" at the foundational level.
In this article I want to zero in on his choice of "circumcision" and "uncircumcision". At the most basic level, these words refer to the practice of removing the skin which covers the end of the male sexual organ, or to refuse to remove it. But this most basic meaning of the terms cannot have been what was in Paul's mind. Circumcision had been required by God of Abraham as an indication of his faith in God's promises approximately 2000 years before Paul wrote Galatians. Over the progress of time, the significance of the fact that God had required circumcision of Abraham as a sign of His covenant with him had been altered because the word and the practice had taken on a huge load of meaning beyond the basic physical action.
By the time Paul picked up the term, it had come to refer to an entire theological construct. That theological construct had as its most basic premise this conviction: human beings are required to submit in obedience to God if they expect to be granted His blessing. Then, from that basic premise, a second fundamental conviction grew: human beings can achieve God's blessing by the one act of submission to the covenant requirement of circumcision. From those basic roots, came the notion that if a person was circumcised, he would ultimately be granted grace by God and if he was not, he would be denied grace by God. Then yet another notion arose: that if a person who was circumcised had his sons circumcised, he had secured grace for them. There are powerful echoes of this theological construct alive today in the teaching of infant baptism as an efficacious means of grace.
The problem with the entire construct was that it rested upon two fundamental flaws. The first was the assumption that man had the ability to properly meet the requirement of circumcision. The second was the assumption that God was really just a machine with a circumcision lever that one could pull in order to receive grace. Let's look at these two assumptions. Can man properly meet the requirement of circumcision? That depends upon what is defined as "proper" circumcision. How does God's Word define it? To begin, the biblical revelation, from the beginning to the end, declares that God's responses to men are governed by what God sees in the heart of men, not by what God sees men do. Doing requires motivation. A single act can have multiple motivations. No act done by man is acceptable to God unless the motivation for the act is also acceptable to God. For example, if a man makes a generous donation to a gospel ministry, most people would say that the man did a good, and rewardable, thing. But, if the man made the donation so that others would think well of him, his motivation corrupts the act and God will not consider it a "good" thing, nor will He reward it. On the other hand, if the man made the donation because he thought that by so doing, God would be disposed to extend grace to him, he, in effect, sought to buy the gift of God with money and that also denigrates the action so that it is no longer "good".
Therefore, when the assumption is made that man can properly meet the requirement of circumcision, the assumption actually is that man can have the proper motivation prior to the act.
Now let's consider what true circumcision is so that we may answer the question of whether man can properly meet the requirement. When God gave circumcision to Abraham as a sign of the covenant He was making with him, what was the reality? The reality was that the covenant was already in place. Circumcision did not initiate the covenant, nor was circumcision an act of acceptance of the covenant. Rather, circumcision was a sign that the covenant had already been established. Paul makes this argument in Romans 4:9-12. Now, the next question is most critical: why did God choose circumcision? Paul answered that question in Romans 2:29 when he declared that circumcision was first of the heart and only afterwards of the flesh. In other words, circumcision of the flesh required a prior circumcision of the heart.
That brings us to the crux of the issue. Can man properly meet the requirement of circumcision? Only if he can circumcise his heart before he circumcises his flesh! Now, let us ask this question: is circumcision of the heart within the capabilities of man? To be sure, Deuteronomy 10:16 says "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked", and Jeremiah 4:4 says "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart..." But do the commands assume the ability? If yes, why does Deuteronomy 30:6 say "the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live"? And, if yes, why do these words follow hard on the heels of Deuteronomy 30:1-5 wherein the prediction is made that Israel will be banished by God into all the nations?
It is my contention that man cannot circumcise his heart. According to Deuteronomy 30:6 the result of a circumcised heart is love for God with all the heart and all the soul. Who does this?
Thus, it is an inescapable conclusion that unless man can circumcise his heart before he circumcises his flesh, he cannot properly meet the requirement of circumcision. Abraham met the requirement because he was circumcised of heart by God before he was circumcised in the flesh by human hands. Since Abraham, very few people have met the requirement of circumcision precisely because most circumcised men are circumcised as babies before they have any heart-circumcision by God.
This is why Paul was so bold as to write that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is strong for anything nor uncircumcision..." Paul's theology begins with a God who looks upon the heart and sees man's most basic motives and rejects all actions which spring from false ones.
This brings us to the second assumption: that God is a machine with a "circumcision lever". The automatic result of the dismissal of motive from the question of the validity of the act is that God simply demands an "act" and, if it is "done", grants the blessing. This is a theology of God as machine. Put in your quarter, pull the right lever, and out pops the candy bar! God is not a machine Who can be manipulated by the actions of men who give no regard to the motive issues that are invariably involved.
Because God is not a cosmic machine who has levers that can be pulled, Paul is quite right to say that "in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision is strong for anything, nor uncircumcision..." because those, if separated from their motivations, are simply "levers" designed by men to get them the candy.