Posts
Karl Deenick. Righteous by Promise: A Biblical Theology of Circumcision. IVP Academic, 2018. See here to purchase the book.
Karl Deenick looks at circumcision in the Bible. According to Deenick, the biblical requirement that Israelites be physically circumcised was a reminder that Abraham’s offspring would bless the nations. Circumcision marks the male genitalia, and it is from the male genitalia that offspring come. Within the New Testament, Abraham’s offspring finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. But circumcision of the heart also recurs in the Hebrew Bible, and that refers to people humbling their hearts.
Deenick examines biblical passages about circumcision, in both the Hebrew Bible and also the New Testament. Some of his treatments are rather terse. When Deenick argues that Isaiah 52:1 says that not merely the circumcised will enter the restored Jerusalem but those who pursue righteousness and receive righteousness by faith, I thought “huh?” The passage, after all, states that the uncircumcised shall not enter the restored Jerusalem. Deenick may treat that uncircumcision as spiritual rather than physical, but there is also Ezekiel 44:9, which affirms that foreigners uncircumcised in flesh or heart shall not enter God’s sanctuary. Physical circumcision, within the Hebrew Bible, is often regarded as crucial.
But several of Deenick’s treatments of biblical passages are exhaustive, such that other topics overshadow circumcision. This is not a negative feature of the book, for Deenick gets into interesting territory.
First, Deenick explores the topic of blamelessness, since God in Genesis 17, the chapter introducing circumcision, exhorts Abraham to walk before him and be blameless. Deenick argues, on the basis of Scripture and Second Temple literature, that blamelessness means just that: being morally blameless. Because humans are not that, Deenick argues, God required the Israelites to offer perfect sacrifices so that they might be accepted by God. Essentially, it was justification by grace through faith in the Old Testament. While scholars today debate whether Old Testament sacrifices were believed to perform that sort of substitutionary, vicarious function, Deenick points out that the Testament of Benjamin articulates that understanding. Where Deenick’s discussion falls short is that it fails to deal adequately with those who are actually said to be blameless in the Bible, such as Noah (Genesis 6:9). If blamelessness is impossible for all humans except Christ, how was Noah blameless?
Second, Deenick discusses Romans 2, which values interior over exterior circumcision. A common evangelical interpretation of Romans 2 is that it is saying that people are sinners because they do not keep the law perfectly, and thus they need Christ. Deenick adopts that sort of concept in his discussion of the Hebrew Bible, but he departs from it in his consideration of Romans 2. Deenick argues that Romans 2 is not about perfect obedience to the law, but rather faithful obedience, which may be imperfect yet still finds acceptance with God. Romans 2, in short, is not describing the problem (sin) to set the stage for the solution (Christ) but rather is articulating the goal of the Christian life: sincere obedience to the law, motivated by inward circumcision performed by the Holy Spirit. Deenick makes a fairly convincing case that Romans 2 is not describing perfect obedience to the law. I think evangelicals in their Gospel presentations are missing something when they act as if we need a Savior because we fall short of pristine perfection, as if we would be fine if we could master that one little blemish. At the same time, my impression is that Romans 2 is setting the stage for Romans 3, meaning its ultimate point is that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, and we thus need a Savior. Romans 3:9 appears to articulate the point of the preceding discussion, Romans 2 included, when it affirms that all, Jews and Gentiles, are under the power of sin.
Third, Deenick talks about the circumcision of the new generation of Israelites in Joshua 5. Why had they not been circumcised in the wilderness? Why does v. 9 say that circumcision removed the reproach of Egypt from them? Deenick examines different proposals. He seems to settle on the suggestion that the new generations of Israelites were still uncircumcised due to the unfaithfulness of their parents. He entertains the proposal that the reproach of Egypt was rolled off in that the Israelites would finally enter the Promised Land: the Exodus (including freedom from the reproach of Egypt) is not complete until the Israelites enter the Promised Land, and now, free from God’s wrath and reaffirming God’s covenant, they are about to do that.
Some questions in my mind were not answered. Why, for example, does David in I Samuel 17 make a big deal about Goliath being uncircumcised? Did he think that God required circumcision of the Philistines, and that they were thus wrong to be uncircumcised?
The book still deserves five stars, in my opinion, on account of its intriguing discussions and its careful examination of Scripture.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Karl Deenick looks at circumcision in the Bible. According to Deenick, the biblical requirement that Israelites be physically circumcised was a reminder that Abraham’s offspring would bless the nations. Circumcision marks the male genitalia, and it is from the male genitalia that offspring come. Within the New Testament, Abraham’s offspring finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. But circumcision of the heart also recurs in the Hebrew Bible, and that refers to people humbling their hearts.
Deenick examines biblical passages about circumcision, in both the Hebrew Bible and also the New Testament. Some of his treatments are rather terse. When Deenick argues that Isaiah 52:1 says that not merely the circumcised will enter the restored Jerusalem but those who pursue righteousness and receive righteousness by faith, I thought “huh?” The passage, after all, states that the uncircumcised shall not enter the restored Jerusalem. Deenick may treat that uncircumcision as spiritual rather than physical, but there is also Ezekiel 44:9, which affirms that foreigners uncircumcised in flesh or heart shall not enter God’s sanctuary. Physical circumcision, within the Hebrew Bible, is often regarded as crucial.
But several of Deenick’s treatments of biblical passages are exhaustive, such that other topics overshadow circumcision. This is not a negative feature of the book, for Deenick gets into interesting territory.
First, Deenick explores the topic of blamelessness, since God in Genesis 17, the chapter introducing circumcision, exhorts Abraham to walk before him and be blameless. Deenick argues, on the basis of Scripture and Second Temple literature, that blamelessness means just that: being morally blameless. Because humans are not that, Deenick argues, God required the Israelites to offer perfect sacrifices so that they might be accepted by God. Essentially, it was justification by grace through faith in the Old Testament. While scholars today debate whether Old Testament sacrifices were believed to perform that sort of substitutionary, vicarious function, Deenick points out that the Testament of Benjamin articulates that understanding. Where Deenick’s discussion falls short is that it fails to deal adequately with those who are actually said to be blameless in the Bible, such as Noah (Genesis 6:9). If blamelessness is impossible for all humans except Christ, how was Noah blameless?
Second, Deenick discusses Romans 2, which values interior over exterior circumcision. A common evangelical interpretation of Romans 2 is that it is saying that people are sinners because they do not keep the law perfectly, and thus they need Christ. Deenick adopts that sort of concept in his discussion of the Hebrew Bible, but he departs from it in his consideration of Romans 2. Deenick argues that Romans 2 is not about perfect obedience to the law, but rather faithful obedience, which may be imperfect yet still finds acceptance with God. Romans 2, in short, is not describing the problem (sin) to set the stage for the solution (Christ) but rather is articulating the goal of the Christian life: sincere obedience to the law, motivated by inward circumcision performed by the Holy Spirit. Deenick makes a fairly convincing case that Romans 2 is not describing perfect obedience to the law. I think evangelicals in their Gospel presentations are missing something when they act as if we need a Savior because we fall short of pristine perfection, as if we would be fine if we could master that one little blemish. At the same time, my impression is that Romans 2 is setting the stage for Romans 3, meaning its ultimate point is that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, and we thus need a Savior. Romans 3:9 appears to articulate the point of the preceding discussion, Romans 2 included, when it affirms that all, Jews and Gentiles, are under the power of sin.
Third, Deenick talks about the circumcision of the new generation of Israelites in Joshua 5. Why had they not been circumcised in the wilderness? Why does v. 9 say that circumcision removed the reproach of Egypt from them? Deenick examines different proposals. He seems to settle on the suggestion that the new generations of Israelites were still uncircumcised due to the unfaithfulness of their parents. He entertains the proposal that the reproach of Egypt was rolled off in that the Israelites would finally enter the Promised Land: the Exodus (including freedom from the reproach of Egypt) is not complete until the Israelites enter the Promised Land, and now, free from God’s wrath and reaffirming God’s covenant, they are about to do that.
Some questions in my mind were not answered. Why, for example, does David in I Samuel 17 make a big deal about Goliath being uncircumcised? Did he think that God required circumcision of the Philistines, and that they were thus wrong to be uncircumcised?
The book still deserves five stars, in my opinion, on account of its intriguing discussions and its careful examination of Scripture.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
