Analysis of Romans 2:25-29, presented for Introduction to New Testament
Throughout Christianity’s history, The Apostle Paul has arguably been one of the most highly esteemed founding fathers of the Church. As currently divided in the New Testament, 13 books are generally attributed to him. Of these writings, the letter to the Romans, written about 57CE, has been one of the most important in many circles of Christianity, often used as an authoritative source for explaining foundational Christian doctrines. Christendom has frequently argued within itself concerning the relation between the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the “free grace” law of the New Testament, a heated debate to which the letter to the Romans speaks.
An important aspect of this conflict to the early Church was the matter of circumcision. According to the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis 17:10 and following), circumcision was the primary sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, promising Abraham would be the father of God’s own nation. In this covenant agreement was also included that every male of Abraham’s line would be circumcised, and the more formal law given later to the Israelites at the time of their exodus from Egypt even stipulated that any outsider who wished to join the Israeli nation, particularly in observance of the Passover celebration, must be circumcised (Exodus 12:48-49). With the new Christian belief system claiming such deep roots in Judaism, many Jewish believers undoubtedly felt the outsiders (Gentiles) coming in should have been required to fall in line with the law that distinguished Judaism from other religions.
While it is uncertain how many Jewish believers were in the church compared to the number of Gentile converts, the church in Rome was certainly not exempt from the conflict. According to F. F. Bruce, former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, the Christian belief of the church may have been influenced by Jews who were present to hear Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 (Acts 2:10), and a Jewish community had already been established in Rome by the second century BCE (Bruce, p15-16). On the other hand, Bruce notes, Marcion’s own canon, which Marcion compiled in the second century CE, included an introduction to the letter to Romans which claimed the church had been visited by “false apostles” who had convinced the Roman church to submit to “the authority of the law and prophets…” and that Paul’s letter “call[ed] them back to the true faith of the Gospel…” (Bruce, p22). In any case, it is generally believed the church in Rome was indeed in conflict regarding the matter and that Paul’s letter provided an authoritative opinion.
It is also possible, however, that the church may not have been in conflict and that Paul’s letter to the church was written more for an alliance-building purpose. In his commentary on Romans, Bruce speculates that Paul, although a born citizen of Rome, had never been there and longed to visit. Once Paul decided to further his missionary work by going into Spain, he knew his path would take him through Rome (Romans 15:23-24), and may have hoped to establish a base in Rome from which to conduct his venture into Spain (Bruce, p14). In this case, the detail in Paul’s letter may have been to establish his acceptance among the church there. Regardless of Paul’s reasons for writing, however, the Christian Church as a whole certainly would endure heated collisions of opinions in the matter of whether every believer should be required to undergo circumcision – a debate into which the following words of Paul in Romans 2:25-29 weigh heavily:
Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. (NRSV).
Though the letter to the Romans was probably not the first letter composed by Paul, it is found first in the New Testament, perhaps because it so formally sets forth a salvation based on faith through the righteousness of Christ. By the time Paul records his position on circumcision, he has already stated his assurance that the “gospel… is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith…” (1:16, NRSV). He then goes on to expound the need for God’s salvation of all people, as the Gentile has been condemned because of his willful ignorance of God’s desire (1:18-23), the moralist has been condemned because his sin is still judged regardless of his accusation of others (2:1-16), and the Jew has been condemned because of his inability keep the law of God (2:17-29) (Ryrie Study Bible, Introduction to Romans). It is in his case for the condemnation of the Jew Paul tackles the issue of circumcision before explaining how the “righteousness of God is revealed” (1:17, NRSV) and applied in the believer’s life.
The words of Paul regarding circumcision in chapter 2, verses 25-29, may be considered more of an example than a main point. In the preceding verses, Paul directs a number of questions toward the Jewish portion of his audience, causing them to look at their lives in relation to the law they are so proud of possessing. After pointed references to theft, adultery, and idolatry, Paul culminates his questioning by asking, “You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23, NRSV). Thus, Paul’s following use of the practice of circumcision gets to the heart of what may be the Jews’ objection to their own need for individual salvation along with the Gentiles.
In the first volume of his commentary The Book of Romans, Dr. Robert Picirilli states that Jews were not only proud of having been the recipients of the Mosaic Law, but were also proud of the practice of circumcision, which symbolized their place in the covenant between God and Abraham (Picirilli, p37). In verse 25, Paul concedes that circumcision may be a valuable practice, but only if the law is kept. According to Picirilli, “only if the law is kept”, in the original Greek, means a continual action of keeping – as if every second of every day carried an obligation for the circumcised Jew to continue in an unfailing observance of Torah practice (Picirilli, p37). The New American Standard Bible may convey this idea more evidently by translating “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law” (emphasis added). Bruce seems to maintain this view, writing “Circumcision… carries with it the obligation to keep all the rest of the law…” (Bruce, p89).
Negatively, however, if it is keeping the law that gives genuine value to circumcision, breaking the law would devalue circumcision, making it as if the circumcision had never taken place. In Paul’s words, “…if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” (2:25, NRSV). The Authorized King James Version (KJV) renders this part of the passage “…if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Commenting on this translation, Picirilli notes the negative action is put in the noun form “breaker”, which, according to Picirilli, is Paul’s method of identifying the circumcised Jew as a breaker of the law (Picirilli, p37). Similarly, the New American Standard Bible translates “if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Following Paul’s logic, if one is a breaker or transgressor of the law, he may as well be an uncircumcised person altogether. If the Jewish audience were offended by this logic of Paul, Bruce notes Paul’s conclusion is well founded in the Jewish Scriptures. “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab… For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” (Jeremiah 9:25-26, NRSV) (Bruce, p89). If other nations practiced circumcision but were rejected by God because of their persistent disobedience to the law, why should a disobedient Jew be considered differently based on his own circumcision?
If it has been established, then, that the ritual of circumcision is void of meaning apart from submission to the law, it follows that keeping of the whole law is the real necessity. This continual observance of the law is more a point of character – a state of being or continual action of the person – than a one time ritual that happens to a person. Deuteronomy 10:12-16 explains, “So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today… Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.” (NRSV, emphasis added. Since it is circumcision of the heart, so to speak, that is ultimately required by God, Paul argues those who keep the law, though not circumcised, will be considered as having been circumcised physically, and the right living of the uncircumcised will bring to light the failure of the circumcised (Romans 2:26-27). While the NRSV uses the word “condemn”, reading “those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you…” (verse 27, emphasis added), the NASB and the KJV both render the word “judge”, which seems to indicate more clearly that the testimony of the obedient uncircumcised would be used to show the delinquency of the disobedient circumcised. The stronger word used in the NRSV may be misconstrued to communicate that the actual uncircumcised people themselves would be issuing a negative judgment. In any case, Picirilli calls this “equal opportunity for the uncircumcised.” It is the “logical ‘other side of the coin’ to verse 25”, Picirilli writes, that “if circumcision for a (Jewish) law-breaker is counted as uncircumcision, then uncircumcision for a (Gentile) law-keeper is counted as circumcision.” (Picirilli, p38). In essence, Paul is putting all people on the same plain here. As he would write a little further in chapter 10, verse 12, “…there is no distinction between Jew and Greek…” While the words in chapter 10 are within Paul’s explanation of the solution to mankind’s need for redemption, he is making the same point in chapter 2, that God has no more respect for the disobedient Jew than for any other person.
In verse 28, Paul takes his argument a step further by claiming invalid one other point of Jewish confidence – lineage. By saying “a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly,” Paul implies that a racial Jew may not necessarily be considered a Jew in the sense of God’s intended meaning of the word (Picirilli, p39). If a Jew could not be proud of his circumcision or the law he has broken, surely he could still be proud of being a Jew. After all, his race was a matter of birth – something we now know as genetics – and no one could possibly take that away. However, Paul seems to be reminding his readers that God’s promise to Abraham was that the Jewish nation would be God’s own nation defined by the people’s adoration of and devotion to God, an expectation that seems evident in the first of the Ten Commandments, as well as other messages by the Prophets. Therefore, Paul reasons, a real Jew (God’s person) is one who chooses to belong to God, rather than one who is born into the classification without any choice. No, a true Jew is not such because of race, nor is true circumcision such because of a physical ritual. “Rather,” Paul states in verse 29, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal.” (NRSV). In the NASB rendering of verse 29, Paul is quoted as saying more than circumcision is spiritual rather than physical. By translating “circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter…” (emphasis added), the NASB indicates Paul is teaching that inward circumcision is performed specifically by God. If this is compared with Picirilli and Bruce’s agreeing observations of verse 25, that circumcision requires a continual keeping of the law, it may be concluded that Paul is saying, while the self-righteousness of outward circumcision is necessarily a continual, uninterrupted act, God’s inward circumcision is a one time change, facilitated by the Holy Spirit, making the person permanently righteous regardless of the potential imperfection of law-keeping. Though the King James Version does not make the same inference as the NASB, working with the KJV, famed commentator Matthew Henry draws a concurrent conclusion (Henry, p380). Also commenting on the KJV, however, Picirilli notes this part of the passage implies the difference between keeping the “spirit” (intended meaning) of the directive and the “letter” (literal definition) (Picirilli, p40).
Since real Jewish classification and circumcision are intended by God to be more internal than external, more a matter of character than appearance, Paul concludes that the internally circumcised Jew, regardless of outer circumcision or racial heritage, is the person who is not only accepted by God, but receives praise from God (verse 29). By distinctively claiming God’s “praise” of those who follow the law from the inside out, Bruce notes that Paul is again alluding to Jewish heritage. The Hebrew word for the verb “praise” is associated in its original language with the name Judah, the name of the ancestor of the Jewish people from which the word “Jew” was derived (Bruce, p89-90). It seems that Paul is, for one last emphatic time, using Jewish heritage to be sure his readers understand clearly that neither God’s judgment nor his approval is racially based, but is solely based on state of heart. God takes seriously those who take him seriously in all of the matter, not only in the matters of single event such as race or physical circumcision.
Summarily, Romans 2:25-29 is Paul’s attempt to direct the attention of his Jewish audience away from their own claims to righteousness and back toward what were perhaps conveniently forgotten revelations of God’s focused desire – the desire that his people’s national identification stem from the inward matters of cognition and volition, rather than from outer matters of race and circumcision. Paul wants his readers to recognize the equal importance of all of the law of God rather than only the easier-to-keep outer parts, ultimately (as his letter goes on) to lead them to realization of their own depravity and need for redemption, as keeping of the entire law is practically impossible. The important thing, Paul argues, is not what is done to a person, but what is done by a person – not what rituals a person performs, but what instruction one obeys. In fact, one might conclude, outward, ritualistic obedience without inward obedience is worse than inward, heart-felt obedience void of an outward appearance of obedience because the former is not only empty but deceptive, representing on the package something that is not contained within. False advertising it may be likened to – a deception even modern western laws view unfavorably. In what some may consider commentary, others translation of Scripture, Eugene Peterson’s The Message paraphrase of the Bible renders Paul’s arguments in the following:
Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God's law. But if you don't, it's worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God's ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God's law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don't you see: It's not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It's the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics.
While some differences may be found among the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the King James Version, those differences appear more by way of emphasis and, perhaps, allusion to further doctrine. None of the differences seem to alter in any way what specifically Paul wished to do with his comments on circumcision, which was to divert his Jewish readers’ attention away from their own “righteousness”, which Paul demonstrated as terribly delinquent of true righteousness, and direct their attention toward the apparent necessity for a redemption of their own disobedience, which must come from some source other than their selves. As Paul would continue in his letter to logically make evident permanent salvation through faith in Jesus (chapter 10 and following), it was necessary that his readers realized and admitted their own depravity and not fall into the grace-defying attitude of rejecting the message due to their own empty righteousness of race and ritualistic circumcision. This overall point appears quite similar to Jesus’ words to his Pharisee critics who complained over his association with “tax collectors and sinners.” Apparently alluding to the self-righteous pride of that religious group, Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matthew 9:12, NRSV). As is obvious from numerous confrontations between the Pharisees and Jesus, Jesus was not approving of the Pharisees’ self-perceived perfection, but was reminding them only those who admit an illness will seek and receive the help of a doctor. Thus, because of the importance of the message Paul was preaching, he sought to decimate every argument that would lend itself to a rejection of the message due to a reliance on inadequate human means of redemption. Matthew Henry summarized nicely, “…he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly… but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith.” Romans 2:25-29 is, therefore, only a small portion of a systematic argument to reveal the impossibility of human salvation apart from a substitutive grace that would meet all of the imperishable requirement of a perfect God on behalf of hopelessly deprived mankind.
An important aspect of this conflict to the early Church was the matter of circumcision. According to the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis 17:10 and following), circumcision was the primary sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, promising Abraham would be the father of God’s own nation. In this covenant agreement was also included that every male of Abraham’s line would be circumcised, and the more formal law given later to the Israelites at the time of their exodus from Egypt even stipulated that any outsider who wished to join the Israeli nation, particularly in observance of the Passover celebration, must be circumcised (Exodus 12:48-49). With the new Christian belief system claiming such deep roots in Judaism, many Jewish believers undoubtedly felt the outsiders (Gentiles) coming in should have been required to fall in line with the law that distinguished Judaism from other religions.
While it is uncertain how many Jewish believers were in the church compared to the number of Gentile converts, the church in Rome was certainly not exempt from the conflict. According to F. F. Bruce, former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, the Christian belief of the church may have been influenced by Jews who were present to hear Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 (Acts 2:10), and a Jewish community had already been established in Rome by the second century BCE (Bruce, p15-16). On the other hand, Bruce notes, Marcion’s own canon, which Marcion compiled in the second century CE, included an introduction to the letter to Romans which claimed the church had been visited by “false apostles” who had convinced the Roman church to submit to “the authority of the law and prophets…” and that Paul’s letter “call[ed] them back to the true faith of the Gospel…” (Bruce, p22). In any case, it is generally believed the church in Rome was indeed in conflict regarding the matter and that Paul’s letter provided an authoritative opinion.
It is also possible, however, that the church may not have been in conflict and that Paul’s letter to the church was written more for an alliance-building purpose. In his commentary on Romans, Bruce speculates that Paul, although a born citizen of Rome, had never been there and longed to visit. Once Paul decided to further his missionary work by going into Spain, he knew his path would take him through Rome (Romans 15:23-24), and may have hoped to establish a base in Rome from which to conduct his venture into Spain (Bruce, p14). In this case, the detail in Paul’s letter may have been to establish his acceptance among the church there. Regardless of Paul’s reasons for writing, however, the Christian Church as a whole certainly would endure heated collisions of opinions in the matter of whether every believer should be required to undergo circumcision – a debate into which the following words of Paul in Romans 2:25-29 weigh heavily:
Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. (NRSV).
Though the letter to the Romans was probably not the first letter composed by Paul, it is found first in the New Testament, perhaps because it so formally sets forth a salvation based on faith through the righteousness of Christ. By the time Paul records his position on circumcision, he has already stated his assurance that the “gospel… is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith…” (1:16, NRSV). He then goes on to expound the need for God’s salvation of all people, as the Gentile has been condemned because of his willful ignorance of God’s desire (1:18-23), the moralist has been condemned because his sin is still judged regardless of his accusation of others (2:1-16), and the Jew has been condemned because of his inability keep the law of God (2:17-29) (Ryrie Study Bible, Introduction to Romans). It is in his case for the condemnation of the Jew Paul tackles the issue of circumcision before explaining how the “righteousness of God is revealed” (1:17, NRSV) and applied in the believer’s life.
The words of Paul regarding circumcision in chapter 2, verses 25-29, may be considered more of an example than a main point. In the preceding verses, Paul directs a number of questions toward the Jewish portion of his audience, causing them to look at their lives in relation to the law they are so proud of possessing. After pointed references to theft, adultery, and idolatry, Paul culminates his questioning by asking, “You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23, NRSV). Thus, Paul’s following use of the practice of circumcision gets to the heart of what may be the Jews’ objection to their own need for individual salvation along with the Gentiles.
In the first volume of his commentary The Book of Romans, Dr. Robert Picirilli states that Jews were not only proud of having been the recipients of the Mosaic Law, but were also proud of the practice of circumcision, which symbolized their place in the covenant between God and Abraham (Picirilli, p37). In verse 25, Paul concedes that circumcision may be a valuable practice, but only if the law is kept. According to Picirilli, “only if the law is kept”, in the original Greek, means a continual action of keeping – as if every second of every day carried an obligation for the circumcised Jew to continue in an unfailing observance of Torah practice (Picirilli, p37). The New American Standard Bible may convey this idea more evidently by translating “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law” (emphasis added). Bruce seems to maintain this view, writing “Circumcision… carries with it the obligation to keep all the rest of the law…” (Bruce, p89).
Negatively, however, if it is keeping the law that gives genuine value to circumcision, breaking the law would devalue circumcision, making it as if the circumcision had never taken place. In Paul’s words, “…if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” (2:25, NRSV). The Authorized King James Version (KJV) renders this part of the passage “…if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Commenting on this translation, Picirilli notes the negative action is put in the noun form “breaker”, which, according to Picirilli, is Paul’s method of identifying the circumcised Jew as a breaker of the law (Picirilli, p37). Similarly, the New American Standard Bible translates “if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Following Paul’s logic, if one is a breaker or transgressor of the law, he may as well be an uncircumcised person altogether. If the Jewish audience were offended by this logic of Paul, Bruce notes Paul’s conclusion is well founded in the Jewish Scriptures. “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab… For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” (Jeremiah 9:25-26, NRSV) (Bruce, p89). If other nations practiced circumcision but were rejected by God because of their persistent disobedience to the law, why should a disobedient Jew be considered differently based on his own circumcision?
If it has been established, then, that the ritual of circumcision is void of meaning apart from submission to the law, it follows that keeping of the whole law is the real necessity. This continual observance of the law is more a point of character – a state of being or continual action of the person – than a one time ritual that happens to a person. Deuteronomy 10:12-16 explains, “So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today… Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.” (NRSV, emphasis added. Since it is circumcision of the heart, so to speak, that is ultimately required by God, Paul argues those who keep the law, though not circumcised, will be considered as having been circumcised physically, and the right living of the uncircumcised will bring to light the failure of the circumcised (Romans 2:26-27). While the NRSV uses the word “condemn”, reading “those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you…” (verse 27, emphasis added), the NASB and the KJV both render the word “judge”, which seems to indicate more clearly that the testimony of the obedient uncircumcised would be used to show the delinquency of the disobedient circumcised. The stronger word used in the NRSV may be misconstrued to communicate that the actual uncircumcised people themselves would be issuing a negative judgment. In any case, Picirilli calls this “equal opportunity for the uncircumcised.” It is the “logical ‘other side of the coin’ to verse 25”, Picirilli writes, that “if circumcision for a (Jewish) law-breaker is counted as uncircumcision, then uncircumcision for a (Gentile) law-keeper is counted as circumcision.” (Picirilli, p38). In essence, Paul is putting all people on the same plain here. As he would write a little further in chapter 10, verse 12, “…there is no distinction between Jew and Greek…” While the words in chapter 10 are within Paul’s explanation of the solution to mankind’s need for redemption, he is making the same point in chapter 2, that God has no more respect for the disobedient Jew than for any other person.
In verse 28, Paul takes his argument a step further by claiming invalid one other point of Jewish confidence – lineage. By saying “a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly,” Paul implies that a racial Jew may not necessarily be considered a Jew in the sense of God’s intended meaning of the word (Picirilli, p39). If a Jew could not be proud of his circumcision or the law he has broken, surely he could still be proud of being a Jew. After all, his race was a matter of birth – something we now know as genetics – and no one could possibly take that away. However, Paul seems to be reminding his readers that God’s promise to Abraham was that the Jewish nation would be God’s own nation defined by the people’s adoration of and devotion to God, an expectation that seems evident in the first of the Ten Commandments, as well as other messages by the Prophets. Therefore, Paul reasons, a real Jew (God’s person) is one who chooses to belong to God, rather than one who is born into the classification without any choice. No, a true Jew is not such because of race, nor is true circumcision such because of a physical ritual. “Rather,” Paul states in verse 29, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal.” (NRSV). In the NASB rendering of verse 29, Paul is quoted as saying more than circumcision is spiritual rather than physical. By translating “circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter…” (emphasis added), the NASB indicates Paul is teaching that inward circumcision is performed specifically by God. If this is compared with Picirilli and Bruce’s agreeing observations of verse 25, that circumcision requires a continual keeping of the law, it may be concluded that Paul is saying, while the self-righteousness of outward circumcision is necessarily a continual, uninterrupted act, God’s inward circumcision is a one time change, facilitated by the Holy Spirit, making the person permanently righteous regardless of the potential imperfection of law-keeping. Though the King James Version does not make the same inference as the NASB, working with the KJV, famed commentator Matthew Henry draws a concurrent conclusion (Henry, p380). Also commenting on the KJV, however, Picirilli notes this part of the passage implies the difference between keeping the “spirit” (intended meaning) of the directive and the “letter” (literal definition) (Picirilli, p40).
Since real Jewish classification and circumcision are intended by God to be more internal than external, more a matter of character than appearance, Paul concludes that the internally circumcised Jew, regardless of outer circumcision or racial heritage, is the person who is not only accepted by God, but receives praise from God (verse 29). By distinctively claiming God’s “praise” of those who follow the law from the inside out, Bruce notes that Paul is again alluding to Jewish heritage. The Hebrew word for the verb “praise” is associated in its original language with the name Judah, the name of the ancestor of the Jewish people from which the word “Jew” was derived (Bruce, p89-90). It seems that Paul is, for one last emphatic time, using Jewish heritage to be sure his readers understand clearly that neither God’s judgment nor his approval is racially based, but is solely based on state of heart. God takes seriously those who take him seriously in all of the matter, not only in the matters of single event such as race or physical circumcision.
Summarily, Romans 2:25-29 is Paul’s attempt to direct the attention of his Jewish audience away from their own claims to righteousness and back toward what were perhaps conveniently forgotten revelations of God’s focused desire – the desire that his people’s national identification stem from the inward matters of cognition and volition, rather than from outer matters of race and circumcision. Paul wants his readers to recognize the equal importance of all of the law of God rather than only the easier-to-keep outer parts, ultimately (as his letter goes on) to lead them to realization of their own depravity and need for redemption, as keeping of the entire law is practically impossible. The important thing, Paul argues, is not what is done to a person, but what is done by a person – not what rituals a person performs, but what instruction one obeys. In fact, one might conclude, outward, ritualistic obedience without inward obedience is worse than inward, heart-felt obedience void of an outward appearance of obedience because the former is not only empty but deceptive, representing on the package something that is not contained within. False advertising it may be likened to – a deception even modern western laws view unfavorably. In what some may consider commentary, others translation of Scripture, Eugene Peterson’s The Message paraphrase of the Bible renders Paul’s arguments in the following:
Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God's law. But if you don't, it's worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God's ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God's law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don't you see: It's not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It's the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics.
While some differences may be found among the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the King James Version, those differences appear more by way of emphasis and, perhaps, allusion to further doctrine. None of the differences seem to alter in any way what specifically Paul wished to do with his comments on circumcision, which was to divert his Jewish readers’ attention away from their own “righteousness”, which Paul demonstrated as terribly delinquent of true righteousness, and direct their attention toward the apparent necessity for a redemption of their own disobedience, which must come from some source other than their selves. As Paul would continue in his letter to logically make evident permanent salvation through faith in Jesus (chapter 10 and following), it was necessary that his readers realized and admitted their own depravity and not fall into the grace-defying attitude of rejecting the message due to their own empty righteousness of race and ritualistic circumcision. This overall point appears quite similar to Jesus’ words to his Pharisee critics who complained over his association with “tax collectors and sinners.” Apparently alluding to the self-righteous pride of that religious group, Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matthew 9:12, NRSV). As is obvious from numerous confrontations between the Pharisees and Jesus, Jesus was not approving of the Pharisees’ self-perceived perfection, but was reminding them only those who admit an illness will seek and receive the help of a doctor. Thus, because of the importance of the message Paul was preaching, he sought to decimate every argument that would lend itself to a rejection of the message due to a reliance on inadequate human means of redemption. Matthew Henry summarized nicely, “…he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly… but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith.” Romans 2:25-29 is, therefore, only a small portion of a systematic argument to reveal the impossibility of human salvation apart from a substitutive grace that would meet all of the imperishable requirement of a perfect God on behalf of hopelessly deprived mankind.
WORKS CITED / BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F. F. Romans, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. 2nd. Ed., Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1985.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.
Picirilli, Robert. The Book of Romans, volume 1, Tennessee: Randall House Publications, 1973.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Outline of Romans”, Ryrie Study Bible, Illinois: Moody Bible Institute, 1994.
Bruce, F. F. Romans, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. 2nd. Ed., Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1985.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.
Picirilli, Robert. The Book of Romans, volume 1, Tennessee: Randall House Publications, 1973.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Outline of Romans”, Ryrie Study Bible, Illinois: Moody Bible Institute, 1994.
(Report Submitted November 13, 2007)
posted by Jonathan Branch at 6:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home