this [houtos] blessedness [makarismos]
then [oun] upon [epi] the circumcision [peritome]
only, or [e] upon [epi] the uncircumcision [akrobustia] also [kai]? for [gar] we say [lego] that [hoti] faith [pistis] was reckoned
[logizomai] to Abraham [Abraam] for [eis] righteousness [dikaiosune]. KJV-Interlinear
9 Is this
blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we
say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. ESV
In making his point, in this discussion, Paul asks the obvious question. Does the blessing of salvation, belong to the circumcised only, or does it belong to the uncircumcised as well?
And in the next several verses, Paul will support his position by asking whether Abraham, the man to whom the entire Jewish race, looks, as the father of their race, and as the precedent of their faith. Then, which came first, the circumcision or the promise?
If the circumcision came first, then works could potentially have an argument as to its validity of producing salvation. But, if salvation came prior to circumcision, than faith is the object in view.
For the scriptures quote, that Abraham believed, and that resulted in righteousness being credited to him.
So, again, was that belief before or after circumcision, and if circumcision came second and therefore not an issue in salvation, then what was the purpose of circumcision. Surely it was done for a reason. But what?
God does not do anything without a reason. So, what would be the reason for circumcision?
And of course the answer will come up in just a couple of verses.