It is hard to think of anyone who has influenced my theological thinking as much as Don Carson. His clear reasoning, careful attention to the text, and understanding of the interconnections of themes across the canon have set an example to imitate for both me and many others. But what I have valued most is his ability to synthesize theological truths by carefully laying out all the data, being sensitive to the storyline of the Bible, and refusing to play one element off against another, resulting in a careful and precise articulation. His Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God is just one such example. It was the first of his books that I read, and his methodology set the direction for everything I have done since. I am sure I am not alone. I praise God for Don’s ministry.

1. Introduction

Circumcision is undeniably central to the unfolding story of the Bible. Yet it also presents a curious puzzle.¹Karl Deenick, Righteous by Promise: A Biblical Theology of Circumcision, NSBT 45 (London: Apollos, 2018), 2–14. In Romans 4:11, Paul remarks that Abraham’s circumcision was a seal of his “righteousness by faith while uncircumcised” (Rom 4:11, my translation). But a survey of OT passages about circumcision seems to say very little, at first glance, about either righteousness or faith. Moreover, the metaphorical uses of circumcision in the OT, such as circumcision of the heart and ears (Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4), are often understood in transformational terms, bound up with the fulfilment of the new covenant promise (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:24–28).²E.g., John D. Meade, “Circumcision of the Heart in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: Divine Means for Resolving Curse and Bringing Blessing,” SBJT 18.3 (2014): 59–85. In contrast, in the NT circumcision frequently occurs in the context of discussions about justification by faith (e.g., Rom 2–4; Gal 3–5; Phil 3:1–12). Historically, this has been understood within Protestantism as a judicial category—the declaration of righteousness.³E.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1975–1979), 1:236. Yet transformation and justification have traditionally been understood as quite distinct concepts, albeit related. More recently, other conceptions of justification have been proposed, such as Wright’s proposal that justification refers to “covenant status.”⁴N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 128, 195. But even still, that idea seems quite distinct from the ideas bound up with circumcision of the heart in the OT.

The question, therefore, is how these apparently disparate ideas might fit together. In particular, what does circumcision communicate about both righteousness and faith?⁵Another frequently discussed issue is the relationship between circumcision and baptism. For a consideration of that topic, see Karl Deenick, Washed by God: The Story of Baptism (Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2022). There is insufficient space to do justice to such a complex theme. But what follows is an attempt to outline the key points.

2. Walk Before Me and Be Blameless

Circumcision is first introduced in Genesis 17. God commands Abraham,⁶For the sake of simplicity, I will always refer to Abraham as such, even though before Genesis 17:5 his name was Abram. saying,

Walk before me and be blameless and I will give my covenant between me and you and I will multiply you greatly. (Gen 17:1–2, my translation)

It has frequently been debated what it means when Yahweh says he will “give” (נתן) Abraham his covenant.⁷E.g., Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 263–66. After all, he has already confirmed a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. But a close look at the term “give” (נתן) reveals that what is at play is God delivering Abraham the content of what he had already promised in the covenant.⁸E.g., Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:7; 17:5, 6, 16, 20. See Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 17–19.

There is, however, a condition to be fulfilled for the contents of the covenant to be given: Abraham must walk before Yahweh and be blameless. This is not merely a call to “integrity.”⁹E.g., Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “תָּמַם,” TDOT 15:707. It is the quality of being morally upright in character.¹⁰Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 21–29. Blamelessness is used, for example, to describe the perfection of Yahweh and his works (e.g., Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:26, 31; Job 37:16). Moreover, it is also connected with righteousness (e.g., Deut 32:4; Ps 15:2). Most significantly, blamelessness has already been paired with righteousness in the life of Noah (Gen 6:9). The implication is that the two ideas are roughly synonymous.¹¹Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 29–32. In other words, Abraham must walk perfectly, which is to say, righteously, in his relationship with Yahweh for all the promises to be fulfilled.

Several points help us to understand the nature of this demand. The first is the establishment of the covenant in Genesis 15. There Yahweh swore on oath that he would give Abraham the land he had promised (Gen 15:13–16). Moreover, the way that the covenant was established, with Yahweh alone passing between the pieces of the sacrifice, implies that the fulfilment of the covenant will depend only on Yahweh.¹²Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 2 vols., NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1995), 1:436–37. In other words, the condition of walking before Yahweh and being blameless will ultimately be met by Yahweh not Abraham.

Second, in Genesis 15, Abraham has already been reckoned as righteous/blameless solely on the basis of his faith (Gen 15:6). Although he is not morally upright and blameless in himself, Yahweh has reckoned him to be so. As noted, the covenant will ultimately be fulfilled by Yahweh, but Abraham will participate in the blessings on account of his faith through which he is reckoned to possess the very righteousness that fulfilment of the promise demands.¹³Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 30–32.

Third, a broader look at the language of blamelessness paints a picture of how the condition will be met. Fifty-one of the ninety-one references to תָּמִים in the OT occur in the context of the sacrificial system, referring to a “spotless” animal (e.g., Lev 1:3, 10).¹⁴Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 26. At the heart of this sacrificial concept is the idea of substitution: a “spotless” animal is offered in the place of a person who is not “blameless” in order to make atonement for them (e.g., 1:4).¹⁵The idea of substitution is particularly seen in the way the person lays their hands on the head of the animal (e.g., Lev 1:4). Although the sacrificial system is instigated later in history than the events of Genesis, it is clear that the practice of sacrifice existed in the time of Noah and Abraham (e.g., Gen 8:20; 22:2–8). Moreover, for the original readers of Genesis who would have been schooled in Levitical sacrificial practice, describing Abraham and Noah as blameless would have made perfect sense. They were reckoned as blameless before Yahweh through the provision of a blameless sacrificial substitute.¹⁶Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 26–29.

3. The Promised Seed

The structure of Genesis 17 also demonstrates that the ultimate fulfilment of the condition of walking before Yahweh blamelessly awaited someone other than Abraham. Throughout Genesis 17, Yahweh says that he will establish (הקים) his covenant not only with Abraham but with his “seed” (זֶ֫רַע). Most immediately, this is Isaac (17:19, 21), but it also includes the generations after him (17:7). In contrast to Ishmael, who is also Abraham’s son through Hagar, it will be through Isaac that the covenant promise will continue down the generations.¹⁷Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 39–44.

This must also be understood within the context of Genesis itself.¹⁸See Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 44–48. Following the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden, God tells the serpent that he will raise up a “seed” (זֶ֫רַע) who will crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15).¹⁹There are significant similarities between Genesis 3:15 and 17:7. See Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 46. While זֶ֫רַע can be understood as either a collective or singular noun, the singular pronoun suggests that an individual is in view.²⁰C. John Collins, “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?” TynBul 48 (1997): 139–48. Genesis, then, is framed as a search for this particular “seed.” The תּוֹלֵדוֹת formulas (“these are the generations of”) and genealogies that structure the book focus attention on a particular line of descent (e.g., 5:1–32; 11:10–26).²¹T. Desmond Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis,” TynBul 44 (1993): 258–59; also Jason S. DeRouchie, “The Blessing-Commission, the Promised Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis,” JETS 56 (2013): 219–47. In addition, the content is also focussed on particular individuals, often to the exclusion of others: Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac not Ishmael, Jacob not Esau, and Joseph not his brothers.

It is in this context that the establishment of the sign of circumcision takes place. All this suggests that the Abrahamic covenant and the related sign of circumcision are a means by which God identifies Abraham as the individual through whom the promised “seed” will come.²²This comports with the later description of the covenant as the covenant with “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The accent falls on the particular individuals and the line of descent. This line of descent then comes to further expression later in the OT in the Davidic covenant. Numerous times the Davidic covenant is expressed in terms that echo Genesis 17:1–2: if David’s sons “walk before [Yahweh] in faithfulness with all their heart,” then God will fulfill his promise to David to put a man on the throne (1 Kgs 2:2–4; cf. 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:23–25; 9:4–7). God’s promise to Eve will be fulfilled through a descendant of Abraham, but more particularly through a descendant of David.²³Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 34–39.

Here, then, we begin to see why the sign is circumcision in particular. It is because the promise is bound up with a male descendant of Abraham and David. Hence the sign is attached to the part of the body responsible for procreation.²⁴Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 48–50.

4. Believing the Promise

Yet circumcision also begins to be applied metaphorically in the OT. For example, in Deuteronomy 10:16, Yahweh commands the people to “circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.” Leviticus 26, however, gives us a particularly helpful window into what is meant.²⁵Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 53–60. There God speaks to the people using similar language to that in Genesis 17. If the people “walk in my statutes and observe my commandments,” then God will “give” (נתן) them rain and crops, he will multiply them and walk among them, they will be his people, and he will be their God (Lev 26:3–12). In other words, if they obey, God will give them what he promised Abraham.

However, if that does not happen, God will come against his people in increasing judgement, with the final step being exile from the land (Lev 26:14–39). Yet there remains hope despite all this,

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me … if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (Lev 26:40–42)

The remedy to the judgement for their disobedience is to humble their uncircumcised hearts. The use of “humble” (כָּנַע) here in the place of “circumcise” (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6) gives us a window into what it means to “circumcise” their hearts.²⁶“Since כנע, ‘humbling, self-abasement’ replaces מול as the action that solves the problem of the uncircumcised heart, it provides the exegetical key to our metonym.” (David A. Bernat, Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Priestly Tradition, AIL 3 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009], 104–5). It means to humble themselves, “confess their iniquity,” and return to Yahweh (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46–50). If the people humble themselves on account of their sin, then God will “remember” his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The judgement that is due to the people because of their sin is dealt with by the people turning from sin and appealing to God on the basis of his prior covenant with Abraham.²⁷These same ideas are repeated in various ways in the other circumcision passages in the OT. See Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 60–96.

While there is much more to say, we begin to see here a glimpse of what it means to have a “circumcised heart.” It is not to have a heart that is completely obedient, nor is it a fulfillment of the new covenant promise of the law being written on the heart. It is rather to have a heart that is humble and repentant and that takes hold by faith of God’s promise to Abraham (and Eve), to save a people for himself through a blameless seed.

5. The Promise Fulfilled

These diverse threads come together in the NT. For example, Matthew begins his Gospel with a genealogy that traces the line of promise, making clear that Jesus is the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham and David. In Stephen’s speech he castigates the religious leaders for their “uncircumcised hearts and ears” (Acts 7:51). They are “stiff-necked people.” The reason is that they have refused to accept the “Righteous One.” Their failure to humbly recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah is a rejection of all that circumcision pointed to.²⁸Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 209–10. In Romans 2, it is those with a “hard and impenitent heart” who do not repent, who are “storing up wrath” for the day of judgement (Rom 2:5). Whereas it is the humble and repentant, who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,” that will receive eternal life.²⁹This is not a description of those who are self-righteous, as is clear most immediately from the contrast with those who are heard-hearted and unrepentant. For this and other reasons, see Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 143–79. The latter are those whose hearts are truly “circumcised” (2:25–29).

Perhaps the clearest example, however, is in Philippians 3, where Paul counters the “mutilators of the flesh”—those who are insisting on circumcision. Paul says he and the Philippians are the true circumcision—those who “worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” ( 3:3). Paul lists his previous “privileges” before he came to know Christ. Not only was he circumcised on the eighth day and from the tribe of Benjamin, he was also “blameless” (ἄμεμπτος) in “righteousness under the law” (3:6).³⁰The nature of Paul’s blamelessness here is complex. As we have seen, the law provided for a kind of blamelessness through a blameless substitute. Nevertheless, as becomes clear, Paul’s blamelessness was problematic here in that it was “my own” not “from God” and also “from the law” rather than “from Christ” to whom the law and sacrifices pointed (Rom 3:21–22). See Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 114–15.

Yet Paul now considers all that rubbish. What matters is knowing Christ and sharing in all that he has achieved in his life, death, and resurrection (Phil 3:7–11). The chiastic structure of Paul’s desire is revealing. He wants to know Christ,

not having

my own

righteousness

from the law

but the through faith in Christ

from God

righteousness

on the basis of faith. (Phil 3:9, my translation)³¹Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 124.

The fundamental problem with Paul’s former “righteousness” is that it was self-generated (“my own”) but also “from the law”.³²Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 128–30. In contrast, the true “circumcision” are those who, in humble repentance and faith, look to God for righteousness as a gift in Christ. For those in the OT, that meant looking ahead in expectation to the coming of the Messiah. For those in Paul’s day and since, it means receiving Christ as the promised “seed” who has now come.³³Veronica Koperski, “The Meaning of Pistis Christou in Philippians 3:9,” LS 18 (1993): 211–13. In Christ, Paul has the promised righteousness.

Moreover, just as for Abraham, that righteousness is not only a present status; it also includes the hope of perfection as a moral reality to be fulfilled at the last day (Phil 3:21).³⁴Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 124–28. As Ziesler notes, “although the forensic or acceptability aspect is present in the passage, and although the man who has righteousness from God is by this acceptable to God, the context shows a need for more than this. It suggests the new being in Christ, dying and rising with him, knowing the power of his resurrection. One wonders why all this is needed if the basic point is simply the imputation of righteousness” (J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, SNTSMS 20 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972], 150; emphasis his). Paul desires to be conformed to Jesus’s death and attain to the resurrection of the dead, pressing on to take hold of “perfection” ( 3:10–12). Yet, that blamelessness/perfection is something that will not be fully realized until Christ presents him before the Father on the last day (Col 1:22; Eph 5:27).³⁵Deenick, Righteous by Promise, 97–104.

6. Conclusion

Circumcision was a sign of God’s promise to redeem a people for himself who would walk before him and be blameless/righteous. Ultimately, the fulfilment of that came through a promised “seed,” Jesus Christ, who would be sacrificed in their place. That promise was symbolized in circumcision—a sign pointing to a “seed.” For those, like Abraham, who took this promise into their heart (i.e., circumcised their heart), humbly and repentantly trusting in that promise, they became recipients of that promise. They received the status of righteous/blameless even while they awaited the full realization of what had been promised—that one day they, too, would walk before God in righteousness and holiness.

---