New Testament Tentative Response--Law and Circumcision

In “Romans”, Paul discusses the difference between physical circumcision and “circumcision of the heart”. Physical circumcision, Paul suggests, is merely an external representation of the faith of a man. A man who is circumcised is Jewish by title, in that he has followed technical Jewish law set in the Covenant of Abraham, but is not necessarily faithful to God or a true believer of the Jewish faith. A man who has circumcision of the heart has taken his faith to the next level. Instead of simply following Jewish law, he has taken it upon himself to dedicate his life to the faith and become a devote follower of God. In “Galatians”, Paul continues his argument by stating that men who follow Jewish law by the book, arguing over the various holidays and traditions, are misinterpreting God’s wishes. Instead of focusing on law, one should focus on Jesus’ words and devote oneself to him in order to be a true Christian.

To be honest, I did not find Paul’s words to be particularly radical. In our last class, we discussed how an “ideal” Israelite as illustrated in Exodus of the Old Testament is not a man who simply follows the Ten Commandments, but instead a man who uses the teachings of the Ten Commandments to encourage and contribute to the flourishing of the community as a whole. I also thought this idea was similar to the Greeks’ usage of the term Eudaimonia. Although a man may be an exemplary citizen if he relishes the job he was destined to complete, until he exercises his own contemplation to contribute to the greater good of society he has not reached his full capacity. Although Paul’s teachings are not completely comparable to these two ideas, I don’t think the overall comparison of physical circumcision to circumcision of the heart is, really, a new idea.