Intro
Last week we expounded Romans 4:9-12. There Paul used Abraham’s experience to prove circumcision is not a prerequisite for justification. In that study, we did not have time to talk about why God gave Abraham the rite of circumcision. If it is of no value for justification, then what is its value?
To answer that, let’s begin by reading Genesis 17:1-14 where God established this sacrament.
“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.’ 3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 ‘As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.’ 9 And God said to Abraham: ‘As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days oldi among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.’”ii
The passage goes on to include the name change for Sarah that paralleled Abraham’s name change. Then it narrates Abraham’s obedience to God’s directive. Reading that portion of Scripture, it is easy to understand why the Jewish people put such emphasis on the rite of circumcision.
INTERPRETATION OF CIRCUMCISION AS A SIGN AND SEAL
With Genesis 17:7 and verse 13 referencing an everlasting covenant, how can Paul say in Galatians 5:15, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation” (NIV). On the surface, he seems to be contradicting the significance of circumcision. The apostles who met in Acts 15 were certainly knowledgeable of this passage. Why would they decide that the rite of circumcision was not necessary for gentile believers? Consider these three reasons:
(1) Circumcision was never intended as a means of salvation. From the beginning it was only given as a sign of spiritual realities. It is not the covenant itself; it is the external sign of the covenant. In Genesis 17:11 God says to Abraham: “and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” Paul’s teaching is consistent with that revelation. Romans 4:11 begins: “And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised.”
The Greek word for sign is semeion. A sign is something less than the reality itself. It is only symbolic of the reality it depicts. It is often something visible that points to the invisible. The rainbow was not the covenant God made with Noah (Gen. 9:12). It was a visual reminder of that covenant. The animal blood smeared on the top and sides of the doorframes at the Passover was not the spiritual reality that saved those people from destruction. It signified that reality.
In Exodus 12:13 God said to Israel: “Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.” In the Septuagint, the word translated sign is semeion, the same word we find in Romans 4:11. In some contexts, that word is translated miracle because it is referencing an event that points to the supernatural activity of God. We must understand that physical circumcision was never intended to be a source of salvation. Abraham was declared righteous long before he was circumcised.
Abraham’s justification was a lasting spiritual reality. The sign of circumcision was a temporal reminder of that. In Joshua 4, God had Israel set up twelve stones at the Jordan River after he had supernaturally dried up the waters so they could cross into the Promised Land. The purpose of that memorial was described in Joshua 4:6: “that this may be a sign among you when your children ask in time to come, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?'” In the Septuagint, the word translated sign is semeion. It provoked a teaching opportunity. It served as a reminder of the greater reality it represented. But it is not the reality itself. Why did the apostles not require circumcision? Circumcision was only a sign of the spiritual relationship between God and Abraham. It was not the covenantal relationship itself.
(2) The circumcision God always wanted was the circumcision of the heart.iii This was declared back in Moses’s day.
Deuteronomy 30:6, we find this promise: “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” Even under that Mosaic Covenant, God said to his people in Deuteronomy 10:16: “Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.”
Israel broke the Mosaic Covenant, but in Jeremiah 31 God promised them a new and better covenant. Jeremiah 31:31-33: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — 32 not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”iv
Hebrews 8 explains this passage in Jeremiah 31 as the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant with a new and better Covenant of Grace. The chapter concludes in Hebrews 8:13: “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Many of the types and shadows of the Old Covenant were no longer necessary once a fuller revelation came in the New Covenant. Why did the apostles not require physical circumcision? God wants a deeper circumcision of the heart.
(3) In the New Covenant, the sign of water baptism fills the need for a visual representation of justification.
According to Romans 6:3-4, that ordinance symbolizes our co-death and resurrection with Christ. It gives a fuller picture of justification than circumcision because it points to the cross and resurrection of Jesus more clearly.
Colossians 2:11 begins, “In Him [Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” So, Paul is calling the believer to circumcision. But it is not physical in nature. It is “made without hands.”v The passage further describes New Testament circumcision as “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” The cutting away of the flesh in physical circumcision is symbolic of putting away the flesh with its inappropriate desires. New Testament circumcision is putting to death the sinful deeds of the flesh and living in newness of life (Rom. 8:13).vi Then in Colossians 2:12, Paul immediately references water baptism as it symbolizes our spiritual union with Christ. Colossians 2:12-13 says, “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” In the New covenant, it is “the circumcision made without hands” that is essential, not the physical rite.
While the New Testament does not require physical circumcision, neither does it forbid the procedure I can understand ethnic Jews continuing the practice as a reminder of their historical heritage.viii The important thing is to not give it a significance it never had. That was a mistake Paul is correcting in Romans 4. Circumcision was never a way to be saved. It was never a requirement for justification. From the beginning, it was given as a sign and only a sign of the covenant.
The great danger we face with any sacrament, is to make it something it cannot be. Karl Barth wrote, “The wealth of religion has, however, its own peculiar danger, for its proper function may be misunderstood. Instead of pointing beyond itself, it may be erected, like some great pyramid, as an immense sepulcher within which the truth lies mummified in wood and stone.”ix When sacraments are taken out of their proper function, the result is death, not life—mummified religion. Life comes with a spiritual relationship with God, not by a ritual performed by man.
In Romans 4:11, Paul further describes circumcision as a seal. The Greek word is sphragis. We are familiar with the affixing of a seal on legal documents by a Notary Public to authenticate a transaction.x The charter of this church has the state of Missouri seal to verify its authenticity. The seal is not the transaction itself; it simply confirms the validity of the transaction. Karl Barth wrote, “The signing of a contract must not be confused with the decision which preceded it or with the execution which will follow it.”xi God’s forensic decision in Genesis 15:6 preceded the visible sealing of that declaration in Genesis 17. The purpose of a seal is to certify, confirm, or authenticate.xii Paul used the word in 1 Corinthians 9:2 when he said to his Corinthian converts, “You are the seal (sphragis) of my apostleship in the Lord.” Their existence in the Lord was a visible confirmation of his apostleship.xiii In John 6:27 Jesus testifies of himself saying, “God the Father has set His seal on Him [Christ]. “All commentators are agreed that that statement refers to our Lord’s baptism, and it means that at His baptism He was publicly sealed with the sign of the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove upon Him.”xiv
So, in Romans 4:11 Paul uses two words to describe the value of Abraham’s circumcision. It was a sign, a seal of the spiritual reality he experienced by faith. Romans 4:11 says, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.”xv
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE TO TODAY’S SACRAMENTS
We have spent significant time understanding the interpretation of Romans 4:11a. We should always exegete the historical interpretation of a passage before making applications. But we are now ready to apply the principles taught in our text to sacraments in general. The two most important ones are water baptism and the Lord’s Supper.xvi These are the only two ordinances commanded by the Lord.xvii So, they are immensely important. Both serves as a “sign” and a “seal” in the way Paul used those terms in Romans 4:11.
The Lord’s Supper is a tangible reminder/memorial of the Lord’s sacrifice in our behalf (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-26). The bread symbolizes his body broken for us, and the wine symbolizes his blood poured out for our salvation. Given the propensity of the church to lose sight of that which is central and vital to our Christianity, it is imperative for believers to practice this sacrament.xviii
Water baptism serves as a sign and seal of justification by faith. It is a public declaration of the internal spiritual work of entry into the kingdom. Just as Abraham’s circumcision followed and confirmed his justification, so water baptism follows and confirms the New Testament believer’s justification. It also provides a powerful reminder/memorial for the Christian of his entry into God’s kingdom. We disobey the Lord if we do not practice these two ordinances, and there are vital benefits in practicing them.
But just as many in Israel replaced justifying faith with the rite of circumcision, many Christians have replaced the spiritual reality of justification with the physical ritual of water baptism or with the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper).xix Circumcision was only meaningful as a sign and seal of the spiritual reality. Likewise, the ordinances of water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are only meaningful as symbolic confirmations of spiritual realities. Without that deeper reality, they are meaningless.xx
With the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Catholic Church has elevated the Eucharist above the significance of sign and seal. Transubstantiation is the erroneous teaching that when the priest blesses the bread and wine, those elements actually become the body and blood of Christ with saving power as a sacrifice. In his book, Christianity through the Centuries, Earle Cairns wrote, “Any acceptance of the idea of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice by the priest was a gain for the power of the papacy because the pope headed the hierarchy of clergymen who alone had the power to perform this miracle of the Mass.xxi The Lord’s Supper was designed to be a memorial of Christ’s death for his people, not a means of exercising power and control over people. This is one case of a religious entity investing more into a sacrament than was intended by the Lord.
The sacrament of water baptism has been sorely abused by religious groups. Baptismal regeneration is a case in point. Section 1215 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “This sacrament [baptism] is also called ‘the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,’ for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one ‘can enter the kingdom of God.’”xxii That statement elevates water baptism as not only signifying, not only a sign and seal, but “actually brings about” the spiritual birth that Jesus talked about in John 3.xxiii
Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church practice infant baptism which gives the person a false confidence of salvation.xxiv Some Protestant groups do so as well. How many souls will be in hell because they replaced the spiritual reality with the outward sign of water baptism?
This is why Paul’s teaching in Romans 4 is so vital for today. Multitudes and multitudes are on the broad path of eternal destruction because they were taught that a ritual could give them eternal life. But Paul has taught clearly in this chapter that the ritual by itself cannot save you. “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). No ritual was involved. He was justified by faith alone. And that is the only way anyone is declared righteous by God.
As Evangelicals, we must be careful to not make “the sinner’s prayer” a ritual that replaces saving faith. The sinner’s prayer can facilitate a response to the Holy Spirit. But without a heart that believes, it is just a meaningless ritual.xxv
We must diligently keep the sacraments in their proper place. You don’t have to be baptized in water to be saved. Someone might ask: What about Acts 2:38? In that passage, convicted sinners were asking what they must do. Peter’s response was: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” If water baptism is not necessary for salvation, why did Peter include it? Peter was not giving a doctrinal teaching like Paul was in Romans 4. They asked what they needed to do, and Peter told them how to respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit: “Repent . . . be baptized.” That was the actions they needed to take. Repentance is an expression of saving faith. A faith that refuses to repent is not saving faith. We will talk about that more when we expound Romans 4:17-22. They needed to be baptized. Jesus taught that in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). But it was not a requirement for salvation.xxvi The thief on the cross was not baptized. Yet Jesus said to him, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).
Conclusion
The principles Paul taught in Romans 4 about circumcision apply to all rituals. None of them are necessary for salvation. Justification is by faith alone. It was that way for Abraham. It was that way for David. It was that way for Paul. And it is that way for you and me. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul told the Philippian jailer, “and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Do you believe? Have you placed your faith in the one and only Savior, Jesus? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”
ENDNOTES:
i Consistent with this command, the Mosaic Law required males to be circumcised on the eighth day after their birth (Lev. 12:1-3). Since Jesus was born under the law, he was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21). Cf. Luke 1:57-60; Phil. 3:5.
ii All Scripture quotes are from the New King James Version unless indicated otherwise.
iii Rom 2:28-29: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” See our earlier exposition of those verses.
iv See also Ezek. 36:24-37.
v Cf. Rom. 2:28-29: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” See our earlier exposition of those verses.
vi Cf. Gal. 5:24.
vii Cf. 1 Cor. 7:18.
viii Sometimes, circumcision is performed for health reasons. See “Circumcision (male),” Mayo Clinic. Accessed at https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550.
ix Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Edwyn C. Hoskyns, trans., 1933 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 129.
x Believers are validated as God’s own possession by the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30).
xi Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Edwyn C. Hoskyns, trans., 1933 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 130.
xii The Friberg lexicon defines sphragis “figuratively, in the sense of an official mark showing authenticity certification, confirmation, proof (RO 4.11; 1C 9.2).” Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Greek Lexicon to the New Testament, Baker Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000). Accessed in electronic data base: Bibleworks, version 6.0, 2003.
xiii “Their existence ‘in the Lord’ stamps Paul’s ministry with the divine seal of authenticity. . . .” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary of the New Testament, Stone, Bruce, and Fee, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 397.
xiv D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20-4:25 Atonement and Justification, 1970 (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2015), 184.
xv In this verse, peritomes (of circumcision) is a genitive of apposition so that the meaning is “the sign which is circumcision.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 98-99. The ESV is less cumbersome in its translation of the second half of this verse than most translations: “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,” God arranged the circumstances of Abrahm’s justification so that he could serve as the father/protype for gentiles as well as Jews—so that uncircumcised gentiles could receive righteous (partake of the promises) as well. The infinitive logisthenai (imputed) is used “to express purpose (contemplated result) or actual result (RWP). Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 323.
xvi Neither water baptism or the Lord’s Supper are referenced in Romans 4, and neither one corresponds exactly with circumcision. However, the principle of justification by faith alone is taught in Romans 4, and the sacrament of circumcision is explicitly excluded as a requirement for justification. Since the New Testament does not explicitly require water baptism nor the Lord’s Supper for justification, it is appropriate to apply the principle of justification by faith alone to these sacraments.
xvii Based on John 13:15-17, some would argue for literal foot washing as a third ordinance. However, most scholars do not interpret it that way. Cf. Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John: Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One, vol. 3, 1945 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 317-320.
xviii In the early church, the Lord’s Supper was “celebrated every Sunday” as a central act of worship. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984), 128. Although Scripture does not command this frequency, we must not relegate it to an occasional quick addition to our Sunday services. Cf. Acts 2:42. The substance of our church services must not be based on what people demand. It should be based on what the Lord requires. In the name of seeker-sensitivity, Christ’s commands must never be neglected. Pleasing and keeping the crowd is not nearly as important as pleasing the Lord (2 Cor. 5:9).
xix Cf. Richard W. Tow, Beatitudes of Christ: Pathway of Blessing (Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2024), 175-182.
xx Cf. John 4:23-24.
xxi Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, rev. ed., 1954 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 200. At the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, “the dogma of transubstantiation, which all members of the Roman church had to accept as authentic doctrine from this time on” was affirmed. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 216. For additional history on transubstantiation, see Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984), 271-272.
xxii Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. Accessed at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm.
xxiii Some Protestant churches embrace baptismal regeneration, but their doctrine on the matter varies from the Catholic Church and differs from denomination to denomination. The troublesome aspect of the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine is their belief that baptism itself is the instrumental cause of regeneration when administered according to their guidelines.
xxiv “It seems clear that up until about the end of the fifth century, adult believer’s baptism was the normal practice of the church.” J. D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 100.
xxv Cf. Rom. 10:9. The sinner’s prayer comes in various forms, but it is essentially words in which the person asks forgiveness of sin and commits himself to Christ as his Lord and Savior.
xxvi For an analysis of this text as it relates to the necessity of water baptism, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 369-371; Acts an Exposition: Volume I Chapters 1-8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 95-97; Ajith Fernando, Acts, The NIV Application Commentary, Terry Muck, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1998), 106.
