How is circumcision of value if one keeps the law?

Explanation:

Paul says that circumcision is of value if one keeps the law. In other words, circumcision was a sign that the Israelites were part of the covenant, and therefore protected from God’s wrath. Paul is pointing out that being shielded from God’s wrath as a member of the covenant is only applicable if one obeys the law perfectly. Thus, circumcision has value as a sign that one belongs to God, but only if one obeys the law perfectly.

This is Paul’s meaning, since his teaching concerning circumcision and the law aligns with the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 10:16, Moses tells the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, and to no longer be stubborn. Moses is explaining that heartfelt devotion to God is what counts, not physical circumcision. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 30:6, Moses says that the Lord will circumcise their hearts so that they will love the Lord, which implies that God requires obedience. Finally, in Jeremiah 4:4, God tells Israel to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, or God’s wrath will be kindled against them.

Thus, we can detect that Paul aligns with Old Testament theology. Unless one keeps the law perfectly, circumcision is of no value.³

Counterargument:

Unfortunately for this argument, the Old Testament does not support the notion that according to Paul, one must keep the law perfectly in order for circumcision to be valuable. Rather, assuming there is a connection between physical circumcision, and the Old Testament passages presented, the Old Testament passages say nothing about keeping the law perfectly. Rather, they have to do with loving God with a willing heart. Thus, the passages seem to support the notion that if one loves God with a willing heart, one’s circumcision is valuable. Of course, one can love God with a willing heart and still fail to keep the whole law on occasion.⁴ Further, it is not clear which aspects of the law are even in play. Does this view hold that unless one partakes in animal sacrifice as outlined in the Mosaic law, one’s circumcision is of no value?

Response to counterargument:

 For Paul, there is an explicit difference between loving God with a willing heart and strict adherence to the law. Thus, loving God with a willing heart is more aligned with having faith in God, but Paul contrasts having faith with obeying the law. ⁵ Obeying the law has to do with the works one performs, while faith has to do with heartfelt trust and obedience. Since Paul here says that circumcision is of value if one does the law, and doing the law contrasts with faith and willing obedience to God, Paul is saying circumcision is of value if one strictly adheres to the law.

Explanation:

We know from Paul’s other letters that when he says circumcision is of value only if one keeps the law, he means strict adhere to the Mosaic law. Specifically, Paul declares in Galatians 5:3 that if anyone lets himself be circumcised, he is obliged to obey the whole law. ⁶ In other words, if one adheres strictly to every aspect of the Mosaic law, circumcision is of value. Of course, Paul will explain that everyone sins, which means that no one keeps the law perfectly (Romans 3:25).

Counterargument:

The problem is that it is not clear that keeping the law has to do with circumcision in the sense that keeping the law somehow gives value to circumcision. For circumcision is a physical act that has to do with the removal of the foreskin. Circumcision was practiced because it was commanded by God, and the purpose was to indicate that one was in the covenant. It seems that obeying God and marking oneself as being in the covenant is the value of circumcision, so how would keeping the law somehow add more value? Unfortunately, this argument does not explain the connection.

Response to counterargument:

 No one denies that circumcision was commanded by God as a sign of the covenant. Still, since the covenant with Israel was based on the Israelites’ adherence to the Mosaic law, the sign is only valuable, that is, significant, if the Israelites uphold their end of the bargain. For if the Israelites do not uphold their end of the bargain by keeping the entire Mosaic law, the sign that they belong to the covenant is empty. Thus, Paul is saying that if a Jew wants to highlight the importance of circumcision, he ought to obey the whole Mosaic law for the sign to have any significance.

The one weakness of this view is that we know that Paul does not think anyone can keep the law, so there is something strange in his saying that circumcision is of value if one can keep the law. There seems to be something ironic in his comment that this view fails to acknowledge.

Explanation:

Paul says that circumcision is of value if one keeps the entire law. Of course, there is nuance in this statement from Paul, because we know that for Jews, there is value in circumcision regardless of whether one keeps the law. That is because God is the one who commanded the Jews to be circumcised, so there is value in circumcision for the Jews, insofar as the Jews obey God when they get circumcised. ⁹

God’s command that Israelites be circumcised is found in Genesis 17:9–14, where he commands that each male descendant of Abraham be circumcised as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. So there is physical value in circumcision for the Jew.

Therefore, Paul must have the spiritual value of circumcision in mind.¹⁰ Thus, he is saying that unless one keeps the entire law, there is no spiritual value in circumcision.

Counterargument:

There is no indication from Paul that he distinguished between the physical and spiritual act of circumcision. Rather, he seems to teach that the physical act of circumcision simply has no value.¹¹ What is important to Paul is one’s willingness to obey God, not whether one is physically circumcised.¹² Of course, Paul’s theology aligns with the Old Testament, where we read that God desired a circumcised heart (see interpretation 1, argument 1).

The weakness of this view is that Paul indicates on several occasions that circumcision is of no value in the new covenant. That is, since the coming of Jesus Christ certain aspects of the Mosaic law, including circumcision and animal sacrifices, are no longer required.