If blessing is about forgiveness, then is this restricted to the circumcised, to the Jews? There is an argument for this. First, God had promised blessing to Abraham and then to his descendants. So it could be argued that David is giving us more information about what that blessing is. It is to be forgiven and made right with God. On that account, it would still be Abraham’s descendants, as marked out by circumcision who were blessed and made right with God. Some contemporary scholars have suggested that 2nd Temple Judaism held to a form of covenant nomism. In other words, you were in the covenant, blessed and right with God through Abraham and you stayed in by keeping the Law. Further, it might be argued that the faith Abraham exercised which was counted as righteousness was demonstrated or enacted by his circumcision. So, some have suggested that faith itself is a form of obedience (v9).
Paul argues that the important question was about how, or indeed, when the faith was reckoned or credited as righteousness. Was it before or after his circumcision (v10). Paul states that circumcision was the seal or sign of Abraham’s faith but the sign recognised faith that was already present. Therefore the intention of the sign was to mark out Abraham as the father of all who had faith in God’s promise whether circumcised or uncircumcised. This means that those who believe but are not circumcised are counted as righteous too (v11).
Moreover, if it is about faith, then Abraham is the father or ancestor not of those who are circumcised in general but those who are circumcised and who have faith. The uniting factor which identifies people as “in Abraham” is not circumcision, and by implication, not ethnicity, rather it is faith (v12).
Faithroots 