John Calvin Commentary Romans 4:11

"and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them;" — Romans 4:11 (ASV)

And he received the sign, etc. To anticipate an objection, he shows that circumcision was not unprofitable and superfluous, even though it could not justify. Instead, it had another very remarkable use: it had the function of sealing and, as it were, of ratifying the righteousness of faith. And yet, by stating what its purpose was, he indicates at the same time that it was not the cause of righteousness; indeed, it tended to confirm the righteousness of faith, a righteousness already obtained in uncircumcision. He then takes away nothing from it.

We have here indeed a remarkable passage regarding the general benefits of sacraments. According to the testimony of Paul, they are seals by which the promises of God are, in a way, imprinted on our hearts (Dei promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur), and the certainty of grace is confirmed (sancitur gratiæ certitudo). And though by themselves they profit nothing, yet God has designed them to be the instruments (instrumenta) of His grace; and He effects by the secret grace of His Spirit that they are not without benefit in the elect. And though they are dead and unprofitable symbols to the reprobate, they still always retain their importance and nature (vim suam et naturam:); for though our unbelief may deprive them of their effect, it cannot weaken or extinguish the truth of God. Hence it remains a fixed principle that sacred symbols are testimonies by which God seals His grace on our hearts.

Regarding the symbol of circumcision, this especially is to be said: a twofold grace was represented by it. God had promised to Abraham a blessed seed, from whom salvation was to be expected by the whole world. On this depended the promise—I will be to thee a God (Genesis 17:7). Then a gratuitous reconciliation with God was included in that symbol, and for this reason it was necessary that the faithful should look forward to the promised seed.

On the other hand, God requires integrity and holiness of life. He indicated by the symbol how this could be attained—that is, by cutting off in man whatever is born of the flesh, for his whole nature had become corrupt. He therefore reminded Abraham by the external sign that he was spiritually to cut off the corruption of the flesh; and to this Moses has also alluded in Deuteronomy 10:16.

And to show that it was not the work of man, but of God, He commanded tender infants to be circumcised, who, on account of their age, could not have performed such a command. Moses has indeed expressly mentioned spiritual circumcision as the work of divine power, as you will find in Deuteronomy 30:6, where he says, The Lord will circumcise thine heart: and the Prophets afterwards declared the same thing much more clearly.

Just as there are two points in baptism now, so there were formerly in circumcision, for it was a symbol of a new life and also of the remission of sins. But the fact regarding Abraham himself—that righteousness preceded circumcision—is not always the case in sacraments, as is evident from the case of Isaac and his posterity. However, God intended to give such an instance once at the beginning, so that no one might ascribe salvation to external signs.

That he might be the father, etc. Observe how the circumcision of Abraham confirms our faith with regard to gratuitous righteousness, for it was the sealing of the righteousness of faith, so that righteousness might also be imputed to us who believe. And thus Paul, by a remarkable dexterity, turns back upon his opponents what they might have brought forward as an objection. For since the truth and significance (veritas et vis) of circumcision were found in an uncircumcised state, there was no ground for the Jews to elevate themselves so much above the Gentiles.

But as a doubt might arise whether we also ought, after the example of Abraham, to confirm the same righteousness by the sign of circumcision, why did the Apostle make this omission? It is simply because he thought that the question was sufficiently settled by the direction of his argument. For as this truth had been admitted—that circumcision served only to seal the grace of God—it follows that it is now of no benefit to us, who have a sign instituted in its place by our Lord.

Since, then, there is no necessity now for circumcision where baptism is present, he was not inclined to contend unnecessarily about a matter on which there was no doubt: specifically, why the righteousness of faith was not sealed for the Gentiles in the same way it was for Abraham. To believe in uncircumcision means that the Gentiles, being satisfied with their own condition, did not introduce the seal of circumcision; and so the preposition δια, by, is used for εν, in.