Living by Faith - Romans

Profitable Circumcision

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Living by Faith

Lesson: 7-64

Genre: Talk

Track: 007

Dictation Name: RR311D7

Location/Venue:

Year: ?

Grace be unto you and peace from god our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Give unto the Lord the glory do unto His name, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Let us pray.

Oh Lord our God we give thanks unto Thee that Thou art our Father, and we Thy children. We thank Thee that Thy love and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the joy of salvation is ours, now and forevermore. Bless us now as we give ourselves to the things that are of Thy kingdom, in Jesus name, amen.

Our scripture this morning is from Romans 2:25-29. Romans 2:25-29; our subject Profitable Circumcision.

“25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The common interpretation of these verses warps the meaning. As we have seen, supposedly Paul began by saying: “The just shall be saved by faith” whereas what he said was: “The just shall live by faith.” Similarly it is assumed here that Paul begins by saying that men can be saved by circumcision, if the law be kept to perfection; and since none can do so, we are told that Paul is saying that none can be saved by the law or by circumcision.

To look at some of the comments about this verse in particular, verse 25, Calvin said: “They, the Jews, thought that circumcision was of itself sufficient for the purpose of obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according to such an opinion he gives this reply: that if this benefit be expected from circumcision, it is on the condition that he who is circumcised must serve God wholly and perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same may be said of our baptism; when anyone confidently relies on the water of baptism alone, and thinks that he is justified as though he had obtained holiness by that ordinance itself. The end of baptism must be adduced as an objection, which is that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life. The grace and promise which baptism testifies and seals need not in this case be mentioned, for our business is with those who being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not nor consider what is material in it.”

Now this is an excellent comment, but is it relevant to the text? It relates to verses 28-29, but much less to verse 25 or verse 27. An important Catholic commentary gives a similar statement and I quote: “Circumcision without the observance of the entire law availeth nothing. One might as well have been without the circumcision.”

Again this is very true, but is it relevant to verses 25 and 27?

A Lutheran commentator, Lenski says: “There is no help for sin from moralism, thus the gospel alone saves.”

Again we have a very fine statement, but is it related to the text at hand?

Now, Paul is not telling us that either Circumcision or the law can save us, but simply that circumcision and keeping the law are profitable or beneficial. The word is ‘profiteth’ which means advantageous or beneficial.

As a result we need to look at the passage with different eyes. Paul is writing a letter to Roman Christians, believers. Some of them are of a Gentile background and some of them of a Jewish background. The problem within the church was that Judaizers were going out, and insisting that before a person could become a Christian he had to be a Jew, he had to be circumcised. So Paul is dealing with this matter; he is not dealing with the unsaved, but he is dealing with a problem within the church. He is not dealing with the reprobate, he is not dealing with those outside the faith; so that when he writes this verse he is using a common term of the day, circumcision, for covenant.

Now we find this in Jeremiah, and we find it in the prophets over and over again, covenant and non-covenant spoken of as circumcision or non-circumcision, or the circumcised and the un-circumcised. In some parts of the Middle East this is still the usage. They do not use the word covenant, they are talking about covenant, but they use the sign of the covenant as a name for the covenant.

We therefore cannot understand what Paul is talking about unless we use the idiom he uses in the sense he uses it. As a result, let us read verse 25 as Paul meant it, using the language of the day: “For the covenant verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy covenant membership is made non-covenant.”

Paul is not setting aside the law, Paul is talking to believers, and he is saying “Circumcision and for that matter baptism will not save you; if you are a covenant man you walk in faithfulness to the word of God, the law word. You obey Gods commandments. But if you have a covenant status, if you are both circumcised and baptized,” (As many were as a kind of double insurance) “and you do not keep the law, it becomes un-circumcision, un-baptism for you; and you are then outside the covenant.”

What he is saying is that faith without works is dead. In fact, a little later at the end of the third chapter he says: “Do we make void the law? Nay, rather, what I am doing with all that I am telling you is to establish he law. I am telling you that it is profitable, that it is advantageous; and without keeping it, your covenant, your circumcision or baptism becomes non-covenant, non-baptism, non-circumcision.”

One commentator, a Jewish convert, Mills, is very much to the point when he says and I quote: “But if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become no-circumcision, and is in the final analysis condemnation. Thus by not keeping the law, circumcision is become un-circumcision.”

Now that is a good paraphrase of what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that the covenant man has to live by the covenant law of God, it is his way of life. If we are in the covenant, we find the covenant rite, baptism, a sign of a new life; and the law means a blessing. Then instead of seeing Gods covenant law as a limitation or an infringement on our life and freedom, we see it as the way of life and of blessing. This is the point of Deuteronomy 28, and of the Sermon on the Mount. Then our covenant membership profiteth, it is beneficial, it is advantageous.

Thus, Paul does not make void the covenant and the covenant law, rather he tells us it is a life of blessing, of profit, of advantage.

Now in verse 26 “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” Paul is continuing with this subject. Judaizers were saying: ‘The Gentile Christians were baptized but not circumcised, for the uncircumcision they were outside the covenant of God.’ And Paul is telling them: ‘These people when they obey the word of God, and manifest the love of God by keeping His commandments, shall not their uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Shall not what you say keeps them out of the covenant, their lack of circumcision, be rendered null and void because they are the faithful ones? They manifest the life of the covenant by their faithfulness.’

Thus we fail to understand what Paul talks about unless we realize how Jewish Paul was. He says he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, he was of the elite of the Jewish aristocracy, and he uses the language; after all he was schooled in the language, so he uses the language that was commonplace, circumcision and uncircumcision for covenant and non-covenant.

In verse 27 Paul tells us that: ‘the uncircumcised or the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?’

‘What’s the test of being a Covenant man? Is it not to live the life of the Covenant?’ And he is telling Jews: ‘Can you be a good Jew, faithful to the Covenant, if you do not abide by the law?’ and he is telling the Christians: ‘Being circumcised and being baptized is nothing if you do not keep Gods law.’

So, to possess the certificate of circumcision or a certificate of baptism, but to manifest ungodliness, marks us as being outside the covenant. A little later, verse 10 of the third chapter, Paul tells us: “There is none righteous, no not one.” Paul is not suggesting that there ever was any other way than Christ’s atonement to God. He is simply saying: ‘If you are in the covenant of God, and if you tell me your circumcision or your baptism has made you a covenant member, I am telling you it is uncircumcision, it is un-baptism, if you have not kept the law.’

At this point, Luther was very much on target in declaring and I quote: “Here the apostle speaks of the heathen who believe in Christ.” (By heathen he means gentiles) “And he puts them in opposition to the Jews who boast of their righteousness. Otherwise, without faith in Christ they would not keep the law rightly; only he is a genuine Jew who is one inwardly, that is, who believes in Christ.”

Or as Hodge puts it, in verse 27 Paul tells us and I quote: “The obedient uncircumcised would be better off, he would stand on higher ground, than the disobedient, circumcised Jew.”

Thus Paul makes clear that faith without works is dead. The true Jew, the true covenant man, and here again the word Jew is used as a synonym for covenant man, the true Israelite, is one who keeps the law; one who is a covenant man in all his being.

So we may say in verse 28-29, that what Paul is saying is that he is not a covenant man which is one outwardly, neither is that a true baptism or a circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a covenant man which is one inwardly; and circumcision or baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.

Now Paul uses here the expression: ‘of the letter’. He is not denying the validity of the covenant rites, but he is saying the covenant rite of itself does not save. It is a mark of salvation. It marks us as being Gods possession, Gods property, as having been given to the Lord; so that the covenant rite is not mere externalism which is a mark of the profane, those who are reprobate, those who do not meet the test; the covenant verily profiteth if thou keep the law, but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy covenant status is made non-covenant.

As scholars have pointed out, the marks of the covenant have been circumcision and baptism. The terms as used signify, baptism and circumcision, signify the covenant. So Paul’s concern is with covenant membership.

(P. H. Gifford?) more than a century ago stated it very accurately when he said that Paul’s statement here is in line with an important strand of Jewish thought which emphasized in terms of the Old Testament, that true circumcision is of the heart; it is manifested in our faithfulness to God.

(Gifford?) wrote and I quote: “Saint Paul is not here in verse 25 stating the necessity for an exact fulfillment of the whole law, and the effect of an individual act of transgression. He supposes in the one case a habitual practical regard to law, and in the other a habitual transgression of it. He is describing not the condition on which a Jew could earn righteousness, but that on which he might hope for a promised blessing. The nature of this blessing is explained afterwards; the effect of habitual transgression is that the covenant is annulled. Circumcision has thereby become uncircumcision so far as any benefit from it is concerned. Saint Paul’s words of course bear this figurative meaning, but similar language is used in a literal sense by the old rabbis: ‘let not heretics, apostates, and impious men who are Israelites say: “Since we are circumcised we go not down to hell.” What then does the holy and blessed God? He sends an angel and turns their circumcision into un-circumcision, so that even they go down to hell.’”

Now this is the way the text was understood during much of church history. The sad fact is that under the influence of antinomianism, we have obscured the meaning and we have forgotten that Paul’s point is: “I do not make void the law, yea rather, I establish the law.”

To keep the letter of the law, Paul says, that is to circumcise the male child or to baptize it, is not in itself sufficient. Unless we recognize that it means that we are the Lords property and possession, as are our children, and we therefore serve Him with all our heart, mind, and being, and give Him all, all that is His, everything in our being. This is Gods commandment in Deuteronomy 6:5, in Leviticus 19:18, and elsewhere; and of our Lord in Luke 10:27.

Paul does not preach another gospel. Let us pray.

Oh Lord our God, Thy word is truth, and Thou hast declared a great benefit, the profit, the advantage that faithfulness to Thy law word gives us. Oh Lord our God, bless us in our faithfulness, give us joy in Thy law word, that we may serve Thee with all our heart, mind and being, and rejoice in our calling to be Thy people. Grant us this we beseech Thee, in Jesus name amen.

Are there any questions now? Yes.

[Audience Member] I think the most frustrating thing for me when I talk to Christians about the law is that they can’t understand that it is to their advantage to keep the law, in a very practical sense. When for example you talk about the importance of hard money, as a premise of Biblical law, they all agree, but they don’t see it as incumbent upon them to promote hard money. When you talk about the advantages of not going into debt and staying solvent, they say: “That is all well and good, but that is not the way the real world is, and we have to live in the real world.” And the toughest thing to do with these people who profess Christianity is to explain to them: “Look, it is to your advantage, you will profit greater in the long term by adhering to the Biblical law, than if you take the short term “practical” view of the non-Christian position. They acknowledge the validity of Biblical Law, but it is not necessarily incumbent upon them because of the practical nature of the world.

[Rushdoony] Yes, they are interested in the ‘real world’ and they forget that according to God the real world is for burning.

[Audience Member] That is one of the most frustrating things I think when you talk to Christians, and I really haven’t figured out how to overcome that sort of thing.

[Rushdoony] Well, only the Holy Spirit will overcome that, and judgement. Remember, when God sent Moses back into Egypt with a word to Pharaoh: “Let my people go.” There were two kinds of things that took place: one, Pharaoh and Egypt were judged; second, Israel was put on the spot. Their first reaction when Pharaoh said “No,” and increased their burden was: “What a mess you have gotten us into Moses. Why don’t you go back to the desert, we are sorry we ever saw you; you are nothing but trouble for us.” So they had to be put through a form of judgement themselves before they were ready to leave Egypt. And of course because they weren’t ready to grow enough, God let them die in the desert and took their children to the promised land.

So it was judgement both ways, to prepare them. So today before people are ready to hear the truth, they have got to be knocked in the head. Truth doesn’t come easily, man being a sinner is hostile to the truth. He is hostile to everything that God says because it is an indictment of him. So he likes the form of the faith without the power thereof, because that would put him in opposition to the whole world of our time, and that he doesn’t want. Yes?

[Audience Member] One thing I sometimes thought about here, is, do you see any significance in the fact that under the old administration of the covenant, the covenant sign of circumcision by its very nature could only be done to the boy babies, whereas in the new administration of the covenant, the covenant baptism, we give to all babies regardless of sex; is there a symbolic significance in this change?

[Rushdoony] No, there is a practical significance. In the Old Covenant, old form of the covenant, circumcision was for the male child because it was a national covenant, an entire people called out, and the head of each household was to be the priest of that household and to guide and govern it. But now, with the new covenant as it began and went into all the world, those who were brought in were brought in on an individual basis, and one of the problems in the early church, and Paul deals with it in 1 Corinthians 7, was that in some cases only the wife was converted, or a child in the family, or the husband alone.

So that the covenant sign had to be applicable for those who were converted, because they didn’t come in as a family, they came in individually. This is still a problem on the mission field; I remember vividly in the fifties talking to a missionary who went upstream on a boat, working in various small communities and towns, cities, and preaching in the open air, and making converts here and there, staying to organize them into a group with someone as their leader, and going on. And in this one community as they prepared to leave there was just one convert, a young girl just barely in her teens; and they had a problem. It was a policy of the mission that you did not create rice Christians, you did not take them in and feed them and all, because then everybody with a problem wanted that, which meant everyone you converted. Her parents had thrown her out, and there she was and it was time to leave, and without care she would have been fair game for any man in the community because they knew now she was homeless. All they could do was to pray about it. Well, at that point another boat came chugging up the river, and it was someone who was from a totally different province whom they knew, a very fine Christian, an older man, and he was there on business. So he took the girl into his home.

Now, you see, the covenant sign of baptism is realistic in terms of the kind of world since the resurrection, where people all over the world are reached on an individual basis.

Yes?

[Audience Member] I have a problem about certain words, and that is that certain words are only allowed for God, for instance righteousness. He is the only one that is truly righteous; sovereignty, He is the only one that is sovereign. I would also say perfect could be another word I could only use for God, yet we use perfect for Job.

[Rushdoony] Perfect for what?

[Audience Member] Job.

[Rushdoony] Ah, yes, well, first of all, the word sovereign or Lord belongs only to God. Righteousness is another word for justice, it is the same word; and we are all called to be righteous. Now we are never capable of perfect righteousness as God is. The word perfect in the Bible is not our English word which means flawless. Both Job is called perfect, and we are called to be perfect by our Lord; and the word which the Bible uses and which is translated as perfect means mature. And this was the English usage; for example the preamble to the constitution speaks of a “more perfect union”. Now in terms of current usage, that is bad English, because how can you be more perfect than perfect in our use of the word? But at that time the word perfect meant: ‘A more mature union than the articles of confederation.’ So that is the meaning of the word. Yes?

[Audience Member] Going further on David’s comment with regard to the circumcision of the covenant only being applied to the male bringing families in as you explained; what about the male and female converts under the old dispensation, was there any particular covenant sign or anything that they went under to designate the fact that they were converted?

[Rushdoony] No, simply the faithfulness to the covenant word.

Well, if there are no further questions, let us bow our heads now in prayer. Oh Lord our God whose word is truth, and whose word is law, we thank Thee that Thou hast spoken to us through Thy servants the prophets and apostles. Make us ever joyful in Thy word, knowing that it is a word of strength, of freedom, of blessing and of profit. And now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, amen.