Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Circumcision

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>
  • To: 'Corpus-paul' <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Circumcision
  • Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:04:40 -0700


I was going to write this note in response to some of the comments by Eric
Zeusse - a full draft was considered June 1 and shelved - but since then the
list has focussed around circumcision. (I am sorry this is so long - but it
is a complex issue and begs many questions.)

Hyam Maccoby has answered Mark Nanos' question about Paul's attitude towards
circumcision. And he did not include the comment in Galatians: "for neither
circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, but faith working through love"
(Gal 5:6) which also can be read out of context as downgrading the
importance of circumcision. Yet I suspect that contextual markers can
mitigate the damage to Paul's reputation as a good Jew, for he is, in
calling for castration (Gal 5:12) or comparing circumcision to a pagan gash
(Phil 3:2), using strong language to emphasize the integrity of gentiles in
Christ without the need for circumcision and he is not arguing against the
circumcision of Jews.

I am working my way through Mark's books on Romans and Galatians. I find
them very encouraging, but I have some nagging doubts about whether Judaism
could continue in the context of the full inclusiveness of the gentiles in
Israel. (Perhaps this was part of Saul's original problem - he foresaw the
dilution of Israel which he loved - but of course this has not happened.)

Mark's theses supporting the continuation of Jew and gentile, worshipping
together yet separate as to identity, are both attractive and well reasoned.
Attractive in that they offer us the possibility of revisiting the central
fracture within Judaism of the first century:

- whether Christ is the promised seed of Abraham - and how that was
presented and received,

- whether this brings in the new age anticipated by such books as Jonah (see
Jacques Ellul's little book, The Judgement of Jonah),

- that "Israel's bounds are broken" as Wendy Dauburne writes in Purpose and
Cause in Pauline Exegesis (1999)

- and the resulting inclusiveness for gentiles in worship (repentance of
Nineveh et al.)

- with its resulting non-requirement of circumcision, a situation which, as
Dr. Maccoby points out, made a split ultimately inevitable.

Is Paul's view of the faith in Christ and the continuation of his own
Judaism consistent, leaving us open to reconciliation or at least
constructive dialogue among Jews and Christians today? Mark suggests that
Romans could be read in both Church and Synagogue - what a vision! I for one
am looking forward to his answer to some of the questions Dr. Maccoby raised
for as I read Mark, he has resolved many contradictions with his approaches.

There have been a number of other comments on the list about circumcision
reflecting a modernistic view of the practice. What was the rationale is for
circumcision in the mind of the first century and what was the original
rationale of Abraham? I am looking for both the divine imputation as well as
the anthropological reason. Why would God ask for such a sign? or if one is
a humanist, why would a community invent such a tradition?

Dr Maccoby points out that it is an essential aspect of Israel as a
priest-nation. Paul's comments quoted by him together with Galatians 5:6
would certainly create nervousness among the Jews of the time (Acts 21:21
implies this question specifically - "they say you are advocating that Jews
living among pagans break away from Moses and that you authorize them to not
circumcise their children." A.N. Wilson, Paul, has a long section on how
disturbed this would make Jews.)

In the spirit of equality - "neither Jew nor Greek", I also find it
difficult to accept that the notion of a priest-nation among equal
worshippers would be stable. This is a large issue separate from the current
question but related. If really "there is no distinction" (Gal 3:28) then
shouldn't there be just that - no distinction. Also, the kingdom of priests
is applied to the church in Corinth (1 Cor 6:11) - so can it be applied to
Israel of the flesh also? Both distinction and priesthood are potential
sources of division in a community of equals.

Of course, Paul wasn't seeing stability in 'this present evil age,' but
rather the coming wrath (Romans 1:18, 2:5, 1 Thess 1:10) and judgment with
the return of Christ. Judgment certainly came and comes to each of us and
each nation, church, assembly, and synagogue - but not as we expect nor as
Paul expected (at least not yet).

Here is my attempt to summarize and address some of the questions above.

God called Abraham and blessed him and promised that through him all nations
would be blessed (Genesis 12-17++). God sealed his covenant with Abraham in
his flesh (Genesis 17:12). All Abraham's descendents speak of this promise
and the mercy it speaks of in turn (particularly the psalms - "for his mercy
endureth for ever"). Paul is born into this promise (Phil 3:5) and its
established tradition and hope. (Insert story of Paul's early life -
then...) In Paul's day, the gentiles to whom he and others preached were
sealed with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22). By this they knew themselves to be
'in the same mercy' as the Jews without their having to go through the type
of death which circumcision signifies. They 'in Christ' had been through
death in Jesus' death. There was no need to do it as a sign again. The proof
is in the "Abba, Father" spirit in them (Romans 8, also Gal 3:2, 4:6). They
are also counted among Abraham's children (Gal 3:7). As far as covenant is
concerned, they are, as Colossians 2:11 points out, circumcised in Christ.
In other words, prior to Christ, the promise was sealed with a type of
death. After the death of Christ, the sign of the former covenant would seem
to be no longer required and the promise is sealed with the Spirit. I am
reading back into Abraham what is explicit in Colossians. Would this be seen
as contrary to the mind of Paul?

The gift of the Holy Spirit shows a human what is real compared to what was
imagined prior to receiving the gift (e.g. John 16:8ff, or Peter's response
to the miraculous catch of fish, or Paul's statement that God chose to
reveal his son in me - Gal 1:15). Such gifts change our minds, but humans
know also that things are amiss for other reasons. E.g. to want to be 'saved
from the wrath to come' implies a recognition of guilt and deserved
judgment. For this kind of thing, humans - Jew and pagan alike - have
traditionally offered gifts and sacrifices, which in the offering can bring
about some sense of forgiveness. The experience of the Spirit and a
recognition of mutual love and building up by those who received and those
who preached was to them a present reality and 'earnest' of a hopeful future
(2 Cor 5:5), whatever comes - hell or heaven (Romans 8:31ff, Psalm 139).
This is the positive hope of 'inheriting the kingdom'.

The Spirit then teaches that the death of Christ has a greater impact than
other sacrifices. It replaces them all (Hebrews). It also has the power to
change behaviour. The Law, holy, and designed to guide behaviour (Romans
7:12, Galatians 3:24), is not able to change it of itself. But how is
behaviour changed? By participation in the death of Christ. So Paul writes
'if you by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body, you will live'
(Romans 8:13). One could say that circumcision (especially prior to Christ)
is also a participation in that death. The striking phrase that "the blood
of the covenant creates a new world" (perhaps someone can tell me where that
comes from - Shabbat 137 BC?) seems parallel to "If anyone is in Christ,
there is a new creation." (2 Cor 5:17). I am stretching here to connect the
old and the new - to see into the past what that connection might have been
like in their minds.

If circumcision is a type of the death of Christ, then is the state of
Judaism prior to Christ an equivalent blessing as the sacrifice of Christ?
This would have to include: the power implicit in his death (Romans 6:7),
the work of the Spirit in one who believes (Romans 5:5), and the
not-disappointing hope of glory (Romans 5:3-4). Paul implies that both Jew
and gentile require and would desire this gift and seal of the new covenant
(Gal 2:15-16,21, 3:8 and others).

While there are political issues arising out of the statement Jesus is Lord,
and political issues in worshipping the God of the conquered by the
conquerors, there is also an overriding personal motive for worship 'in
spirit and truth' - whether in the community and traditions of the pagans or
in the new community of the body of Christ. Paul finds a serious audience
through the community of the Diaspora synagogues where Moses is read to Jew
and God-fearer every Sabbath and then to many more gentiles as well.

This is an audience that saw its need for the inheritance of Abraham: as
defined by Nanos (p140 Mystery of Romans) this includes "righteousness
(Romans 4:22-25), forgiveness (4:3-8, 25, 3:23-26), salvation (1:16,13:11),
justification (3:24-26; 4:25); and the glory of the children of God, the
redemption of our bodies that the very creation waits to share in (8:16-25)
summarized nicely in 8:28-30, leading to all humankind glorifying God
together in 15:5-6,7 ff)."

Thanks for your patience with my questions and the joy of your dialogues.

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald AT shaw.ca
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca




  • Circumcision, Bob MacDonald, 06/04/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page