Cross-Cultural Welcoming in Romans II (Rom 15:4-13)

"For Christ became a servant of circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, in order to strengthen the promises to the fathers that the Gentiles, on account of the mercies (of God) might glorify God, as it is written...."

The phrase that would arrest the readers' attention is in the first line: Christ became a "servant of circumcision..." In early Christianity circumcision in general was seen as something passe, as something replaced by baptism as covenant sign, as something that was done for religious purposes then (i.e., long ago) and not now. Paul himself lays this out in Col. 2:

"In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism..."

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul takes pains to warn the congregation against the circumcision party.

"Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh," Phil. 3: 2-3.

Other examples from the NT could be given. They should convince you, however, that one of the most objectionable and despised groups of people running around in the early Christian world (from the perspective of Paul) were those Christians who insisted that one had to become circumcised in order to be a Christian. This was often a prelude to the need to take on all the duties of the Jewish law. Thus, the whole idea of circumcision became a kind of symbol to Paul and "Gentile-leaning Christians" of the objectionable and retrograde nature of some expressions of the early Christian movement. The "circumcision party" had to be opposed at every turn lest one become drawn back into the "yoke of slavery."

That, then, is the objection to circumcision. It is like waving the red flag before the bull. "Circumcision" was a word that Gentile-leaning Christians would spit out of their mouth. Once you know this, you see the radical nature of Paul's description of Christ in Rom. 15:8. Make no mistake about it. The words actually say that Christ became a "servant of circumcision." The word for "servant" is diakonos, from which we derive our word "deacon" today. Christ became a sort of "representative" of circumcision as he witnessed to the truth of God. It would be like saying to Fundamentalists (and not a few Liberal Christians) today that Christ was gay. I don't know if he was; I don't believe that anyone knows. But the shock value of the point is the same; take something that is objectionable to a lot of people and make that central to Christ's identity. That is what Paul is doing here. Christ became a servant of circumcision.

You can think of lots of other ways to describe Christ--the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah--to name a few. These all are accepted genially by all, and they are correct to use. But the shocking nature of our passage today is that Christ is called the "servant of circumcision." Not only does this mean that a rather strange savior may meet us, but that we might just need to expand our categories this Advent season.

What's The Point?

So, why would Paul so characterize Christ after he has spent the entire letter trying to "harmonize" the two groups in earliest Christianity (Jewish and Gentile Christians)? Isn't this like throwing oil on the fire that is gradually going out? Like sending more fires into Malibu just when they thought they were out of danger? Paul does this because of Rom. 15:7, the preceding verse. What is at stake for Paul in the letter is that people learn how truly to "welcome" each other. Welcoming is only of theological significance if it is of people whom you normally wouldn't welcome. It isn't too difficult to embrace your friends, but it is pretty hard to welcome into your midst and into your heart those who either have done you wrong or are so different from you culturally or personally that you simply have had nothing to do with them. Even though the older I get the more I realize that cultural difference is not something eradicated and is a significant factor in our self-definition, the hope of Paul and the Gospel is that this cultural difference would be an asset in the Church.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, Paul pins his hopes on our ability to welcome each other by referring to the example of Christ and the testimony of the Scriptures. Christ was the servant of circumcision so that the Gentiles might glorify God. And, the Scriptures, in four instances quoted by Paul, testify that the direction of the work of God is toward the Gentiles. From God, through Christ, to the Jews and the Gentiles. If the Scriptures say that a three-fold cord can't quickly be broken, what would it say about this "fourfold" cord?

As our world becomes "smaller" through technology and ease of travel, the need will grow for people of a "cross-cultural" bent, people who see that the future of the Church is in developing and supporting structures which build upon the theology which Paul lays out in Romans. For, in Christ, the ends of the earth are only around the corner. They are well within our vision. He gives us the "theology," then, of welcoming. Are we up to the task of implementing it?

3080