A fascinating commentary from Dr Ian Elmer today. It explores how St Paul justified his embrace of the Gentiles. Yes, it's a commentary about circumcision again but these are far more important issues that our learned friend is discussing with us here than the cutting of genitalia to prove our membership of God's people. Ian draws from a number of sources to discuss the radically different approach to Law that Paul proposed based on his understanding of the message being offered by Jesus himself. This is one of those sort of commentaries where you might feel your faith and belief axis shift a degree or two around its polar axis as you read it.

Why Do Christians No Longer Practice Circumcision?

Several weeks ago (Elmer, 2010 LINK) we examined the origins of circumcision and how male circumcision became the sign of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. This week, I'd like to take up that issue afresh and ask why Christians today do not, as a matter of universal faith practice, still hold that circumcision is the God-given sign of divine favour. Behind that question lies another, even more puzzling, one: how free are we to dispense with precepts and laws that once boasted biblical and, therefore, divine warrant?

The issues of circumcision per se, and biblical truth more generally, are, of course, huge subjects that cannot be adequately addressed in a commentary such as this. I propose to limit the focus of the discussion to Paul's Letter to the Galatians; for various reasons in addition to the need for brevity. First, Galatians is likely to be one of the earliest, if not the very first of Paul's letters and, therefore, perhaps the very earliest text in the New Testament. Written sometime around 50 CE, Galatians affords us a window onto Christianity's emergence from its Jewish root.

Second, Galatians specifically addresses both the issue of circumcision and the Abraham story (Genesis 17) upon which the divine command to circumcise is based. In this Letter, we see one of the founding fathers of Christianity struggling to reinterpret sacred scripture in the light of his new-found faith in Jesus.

Re-writing Sacred Scripture...

In Galatians, we find Paul vehemently defending his gospel and his right as an apostle to preach this gospel among the Gentiles (1:16; 2:8) against accusations to the contrary advanced by opponents who were advocating "a different gospel" (1:6-10). The content of the Letter seems to imply that this other gospel entailed faithful adherence to the Mosaic Law (3:10), including circumcision (5:2-4; 6:12-13), as well as the observance of the Sabbath and the Jewish feast days (4:8-11).

As to the basis of the missionaries' warrant they appear to have resorted to two avenues of authority. First, they apparently appealed to Scripture, particularly the story of the Abrahamic covenant (3:6-29; 4:21-31), at which the institution of circumcision was imposed on God's chosen people (Gen 17:1-27) (Elmer, 2009).

Paul's response is to offer a midrash on the Abraham story, which effectively reconfigured the original meaning of the legend. In Galatians 4:22-5:1 Paul presents an extended allegory focusing on the two consorts of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. At this point, Paul is returning to a scriptural argument that he has already visited in his earlier discussion of Abraham (3:6-18). In Galatians 4:22-5:1, however, Paul introduces the allegory of Hagar and Sarah as a contrast between a prior covenant and the new covenant.

According to Paul's exegesis, the allegory serves to support his claim for the subordination of the old regime to a new agreement which God wrought by the death and resurrection of Christ. In so doing, Paul overturns the whole thrust of the Abraham cycle that Israel is descended from Isaac, the son of Abraham's wife Sarah, and equates the nation of Israel with the descendents of Ishmael, the son of the slave woman Hagar.

This curious reversal of the accepted tradition would have shocked anybody familiar with the Torah — but, then, Paul's audience were Gentiles who would not have been intimately aware of the sleight of hand Paul was pulling here. Effectively, Paul rewrites sacred scripture in order to twist his opponents' arguments against them. How can he do this?

Paul effectively co-opts Abraham as "father" of the Jews and juxtaposes Abraham with God as universal "father". In this way he can argue that the Gentiles are adopted sons and daughters of Israel (Esler, 2006). Paul takes the Abrahamic tradition of circumcision and spiritualises it in such a way as to make the uncircumcised, rather than the circumcised, heirs of the promise, making the cross of Christ the divine instrument of the Gentiles' inclusion in the people of God (3:13-14).

By redefining the "family of God", Paul can reiterate the baptismal formula that must have been current when he first came to the towns and cities of Galatia, which serves to remind his converts of their incorporation "in Christ…where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, man nor woman" (3:27-28). Accordingly, Paul is able to twist the Abraham narrative in such a way as to outline the process by which the Gentiles are adopted into the family of God, thus becoming heirs who are able to join with other Christians in addressing God as "Abba! Father!" (4:1-7) (White, 1992).

Abba! Father!

The term Abba is used by Paul in the specific sense of Christians being "adopted" into the family of God (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6) – a use that was common in the first century for slaves, employees and orphaned relatives who were adopted into families and, thereby, given the right to call the "head of the family" by the familial term "Abba".

This usage apparently mirrors Jesus' understanding of the Jewish reform movement that he founded — it would constitute a new eschatological family that was defined, not by ties of blood, but by spiritual adoption. Hence, in the Gospels, Jesus can say to a gathering of his disciples that it is they who are his "mother and brothers", rather than his blood relations (Mk 3:34). Even more pointedly, Jesus demands that his disciples must "hate" their parents and family if they are "to be worthy of him" (Matt 10:34-37); and the Twelve were called upon to leave their families, family homes and inheritance to embrace discipleship (Mk 10:9).

Part of the Community Scroll discovered at Qumran

Very similar language is used by the Community Scroll from Qumran, where the membership was called upon to enter into what we would call a "monastic" community, taking vows not unlike the later Christian monks to eschew family and personal possessions. Where Paul differs is in the fact that he specifically attributes this gift of divine adoption to "the spirit of God's son" (Gal 4:6), as opposed to an inheritance due by virtue of blood relationship.

Beginning with Galatians 3:26, Paul makes extensive use of familial language, recognising his Gentile converts as "children of God" (3:26; 4:6-7), "children of Abraham" (3:7) "children of the promise" and "children of freedom" (3:7). By bringing together the Abraham story and Law-free theology in this manner Paul effectively radicalises the familial metaphors so deeply embedded in the Jewish tradition to embrace the Gentiles, who were never formerly considered family members. A status that was considered the sole preserve of the circumcised elect of Israel was, according to Paul's reading of the Abraham story, granted to uncircumcised Gentiles.

Paul's tactic was to separate what his opponents' gospel no doubt held together, Abraham's faith (Gen 15:6) and his Law-observance (Gen 17:10-11). Arguing that God's promises were to Abraham's seed (cf. Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 24:7), a singular form that he interpreted as referring to Christ (Gal 3:16), Paul could assert that it was through faith in the seed of Abraham, not through Law-observance expressed via circumcision, that Gentiles were made the children of Abraham. Not only was this a highly innovative interpretation, it must also have been read as offensive and polemical to the Law-observant.

As H. D. Betz (1979: 323) has noted, in a manner not unlike the rhetoric of the Qumran Covenanters, Paul's blatantly sectarian language served to exclude other Law-observant Jews from the family of God by asserting that only the Law-free Christian community constituted the true Israel of God (6:16).

The Whole Law...

Paul's appeal to the story of Abraham, a story that doubtless his critics and rivals had used against him, was ingenious. However, his creative and unprecedented co-opting of that story into his defence of Gentile inclusion was susceptible to criticism.

His critics would agree that Abraham was a man justified by faith, but they could easily argue that scripture also testifies to the divine requirement of circumcision (Gen 17:5) as a ratification of one's place among the elect (Gen 17:10-11). In addition to Genesis, other scriptural passages and traditions (e.g., Sir 44:19-21; Jub 23:10; 2411) could be cited in corroboration of the claim that circumcision was the indispensable, divinely-ordained sign and seal of full membership in the covenant relationship with God. Again, it seems unlikely that Paul would have embarked on this line of argument if it were not fundamental to his opponents' case.

Still, Paul's creative reworking of the Abrahamic traditions serves to remind us that even the members of the earliest communities of faith understood that scripture does not have the final word on faith practice. Authority lies not solely with scripture; but with the community and its living tradition. Once again, we see that, contrary to some more conservative views of the immutability of Church doctrine, beliefs and practice do undergo development and redefinition. Even sacred scripture can be reinterpreted in the light of the lived experience of the communities of faith.

So, why do Christians no longer practice circumcision? Paul answers that question by suggesting that the death and resurrection of Christ has brought about a "new creation" (Gal 6:15; cf. 2 Cor 5:17). Hence, a new covenant has been wrought in Christ's blood and it supplants the old covenant mediated to Moses via angelic messengers (Gal 3:19; cf. 1:18). While the first covenant was sealed in the flesh via circumcision, the new covenant was written in the Spirit (Gal 3:3; 4:23-24; 5:24; 6:8); and those who adhere to the first are enslaved to the flesh, as opposed to the new covenant, which brings freedom and liberation.

There is one other important distinction. Clearly what we are dealing with here is a clash between two radically different understandings of the Christian message; one of which focuses on the "particular"; and the other, which presents the Christ-event as universally significant.

This point is made well by Jewish scholar, D. Boyarin (1994), who takes Paul's assertion in Gal 3:26-29, that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus", as the interpretive key to universal application Paul's Gospel-message, which, for Paul, stands as a critique of Christian Jewish "particularism".

By means of the distinction between spirit and flesh, Paul allegorizes Israel according to the flesh, and the law for that matter, into a universalized conception of "one faithful humanity", where there is neither Jew nor Greek. In that frame of reference, the particularism of Paul's opponents at Galatia is clearly transcended. As Boyarin (1994: 38) writes:

"Thus, just as the materiality of the language is transcended in the spirituality of its interpretation, so also the materiality of physical, national, gendered human existence is transcended in the spirituality of 'universal faith' ... It was Paul's genius to transcend 'Israel in the flesh'".

The issue was not circumcision alone. The fact that Abraham figured strongly in the gospel of Paul's opponents suggests that circumcision was not the sole aspect of the Law at stake in Galatia. R. N. Longenecker (1998: 31-32) remarks that Jewish traditions frequently considered Abraham to have observed the Law despite the fact that the Law was given to Moses generations later (Jub 16:28; Sir 44:20; 2 Bar 57:2; Philo, Abr., 5-6, 60-61, 275; b. Yom., 286; m. Kid., 4:14; cf. Gen 25:6).

Moreover, we know of no ardent Jews in the Second Temple period who upheld Abraham as a central figure in Jewish self-definition while at the same time suggesting that his significance was limited to observance of only some of the Law. Accordingly, we must assume that the troublemakers at Galatia were demanding that the Gentiles adopt complete observance of the Mosaic Law. This much is suggested by 5:2-3, where Paul warns the Galatians in the most strident terms that if any man allows himself to "be circumcised, he is obliged to obey the whole Law".

Paul's reminder that the whole Law is binding was probably not a negative statement within first-century Judaism, and it certainly would not be a surprise to his opponents. In most forms of Judaism during this period, the Law was perceived to be an indivisible whole. This is indicated by the Mishnah, which stresses that one must heed the light as well as the heavy commandments (m. 'Abot, 2:1; 4:2).

Closer to Paul's own time, the author of 4 Maccabees (5:20-21) proclaims that transgressions of the Law in either small or large things is equally indictable, since both demonstrate that the transgressor despises the Law. Finally, we might quote Sirach (7:3) who suggests that any sin renders one guilty of violating the Law, not just a law.

Apparently, therefore, a person or community was not at liberty to pick and choose their practices, or discriminate about which legal regulations were binding — a sentiment shared by some Christians as well. Thus, we find that the author of the letter of James (2:10) decrees that "whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (cf. Matt 5:18-19).

So, for Paul and for us too, it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Do we seek to earn our redemption by wearing "badges" of allegiance or trying to fulfil legalistic obligations? Paul warns that once you go down that path, you are forced to surrender your adult responsibility and revert to an infantile mentality (cf. Gal 3:25). He equates this legalistic mentality with a form of slavery (5:1). Moreover, relying upon infantile point-scoring and uncritical law-keeping robs the death and resurrection of Christ of its salvific significance. Who needs Christ, if one can earn God's favour by one's own efforts?

Bibliography and Further Reading:
Betz, H. D. (1979), Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Boyarin, D. (1994), A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California.
Eastman, S. (2007), Recovering Paul's Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Elmer, I. J. (2010), "Why Was Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant (Gen 17:11)" Catholica URL: www.catholica.com.au/gc0/ie2/139_ie_260210.php
Elmer, I. J. (2009), Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Esler, P. F. (2006), "Paul's Contestation of Israel's (Ethnic) Memory of Abraham in Galatians 3", BTB 36: 23-34.
Longenecker, R. N. (1998), The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
White, J. L. (1992), "God's Paternity as Root Metaphor in Paul's Conception of Community", Forum 8: 271-295.
Photo Credits:
Clicking on the images used in the story will take you to the original source.

[Index of Commentaries by Ian Elmer]