Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson I)

Verses 1-2: So, do Jews have anything that others don’t have? Do they get any benefit from being circumcised? Yes, the Jews have many benefits. The most important one is this: God trusted the Jews with His teachings.

Paul now summarizes his discussion on the difference between Jews and Gentiles in their need for salvation by faith. It is evident to him that since Moses had received the Ten Commandments before they were applied to any other nation, and in light of the fact that Christ came first to the Jews before His Gospel of salvation by faith was made available to all nations, that the Jews had a distinct advantage. In Paul’s mind, they certainly were privileged. This caused early church preacher Chrysostom to pose these questions: “If Paul means that there is no use in being a Jew or in circumcision, why was that nation called, and why was circumcision given? How does Paul solve this problem? By the same means as he did before: he speaks not of their praises but of the benefits of God.”¹

After all, didn’t Moses tell the Jews’ ancestors: “The Lord our God is near when we ask Him to help us. No other nation has a god like that! And no other nation is great enough to have laws and rules as good as the teachings I give you today.”² This exceptionalism is recalled during a feast of the exiles who had returned from Babylonian captivity. Ezra, the first scribe, read from the Torah and then many Levites stood up and called out to God in prayer, telling Him why they should praise Him. In their worship, with uplifted hands, they exclaimed: “You came down on the mountain in Sinai. You spoke to them from heaven. You gave them good laws. You gave them true teachings. You gave them laws and commands that were very good. You told them about Your special day of rest – the Sabbath. Through Your servant Moses, you gave them commands, laws, and teachings.”³ Today, we can liken this same benefit to those who grow up in a strong Christian home environment in a Christian nation. Just like the Jews, they have no excuse for not accepting God as their Father and Christ as their Redeemer and the Holy Spirit as their Comforter.

One member of Psalmist Asaph’s family mentioned this in one of their teaching Psalms: “He made an agreement with Jacob. He gave the law to Israel. He gave the commands to our ancestors. He told them to teach the law to their children. Then the next generation, even the children not yet born, would learn the law. And they would be able to teach it to their own children.”⁴ This is something that every Christian family should feel obligated to do for their children and their children’s children. The Apostle Paul certainly recognized how beneficial this was to his young protégé, Timothy. He wrote him saying; “You have known the Holy Scriptures since you were a child.⁵ These Scriptures are able to make you wise. And that wisdom leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”⁶

But having the Word was not enough. For it to be active in a person’s life, they must be as committed to following the Word as God was committed to giving it to them. Perhaps Paul had the words of the young Psalmist on his mind who said: “Your word is designed to refine until purity is attained, that’s why your servant loves it.”⁷ Yet, even though these Jewish leaders in the Messianic congregation in Rome had been infused with the Word of God since they were young, Paul found himself confronting the same problem we find addressed in the letter to the Hebrews: “You have had enough time that by now you should be teachers. But you need someone to teach you again the first lessons of God’s teaching. You still need the teaching that is like milk.”⁸

Another early church scholar sees things this way: “Although Paul says that there are many things which pertain to the honor and merit of the seed of Abraham, he records only one of them openly, because it is their greatest boast: They were judged worthy to receive the law, by which they learned to distinguish right from wrong. Only after that was it possible for the value of other things to be understood. But as far as the Jews, according to the flesh, are concerned (that is, the unbelievers among them), Paul shows that the witness of their race is of no advantage to them. But so as not to appear to be treating them all, including the believers among them, badly, he teaches that the law is very useful to Jewish believers, because they are children of Abraham. For it was to them that the oracles of God were entrusted. It is by the merits of their ancestors that they received the law and were called God’s people.… Egypt was hit by different plagues because of the wrongs which it did to them.⁹ They dined on heavenly manna;¹⁰ they were a terror to all nations, as Rahab the harlot bore witness.¹¹ Moreover, it was to them that Christ the Savior was promised for their sanctification. Therefore Paul says that in many ways it was useful to the Jews because they were the children of Abraham and came before the Gentiles.”¹²

Reformer John Calvin raises and then answers, this question: “What is the benefit of circumcision? For this separated the Jews from the common class of men; it was a partition-wall,¹³ as Paul calls ceremonies, which kept parties apart.”¹⁴ As Calvin explains: Paul proved beyond doubt that just being circumcised to fulfill a requirement of the law brought nothing to the Jews that had any bearing on their salvation. Yet, he did acknowledge that it served as a symbol that made a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. But what upset the Apostle was that the Jews gloried and bragged in the status given to them by circumcision. So he wanted to tear down this wall so that both Jewish and Gentile believers could see that they were united as one in Christ.

John Bengel believes that Paul attempts to address the supposed advantages the Jews had over the Gentiles because of their special status with God and the Law. Bengel writes: “There are innumerable exceptions taken by the contrariness of the Jews, and of mankind, against the doctrine set for in this epistle, and Paul removes them all.” Bengel continues: “To whom a treasure is entrusted, many manage it with fidelity and skill, or they may not; and the Jews treated the Old Testament Scriptures variously. But Paul says that the Oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews in such wise that the good to come described in them, should belong to the Jews if they would receive it by faith… By the Oracles of God Paul means especially the prophecies of Messiah’s glory and kingdom.” Out of this, says Bengel, there come several suggestive thoughts: God is true, faithful, entrusts His revelation to men, and is righteous; man is false, faithless, distrustful, and unrighteous.¹⁵

Revivalist theologian Adam Clarke has a similar view. He has the Jews asking: “What advantage does the Jew have? Or what profit is there in being circumcised?”¹⁶ Earlier Paul had said: “If you follow the law, then your circumcision has meaning.”¹⁷ Then the Jews say: “However, if by circumcision, or our being in covenant with God, raises us no higher in the Divine favor than the Gentiles; if the virtuous among them are as acceptable as any of us; pray tell me, wherein lies the superior honor of the Jew; and what benefit can arise to him from his circumcision, and being vested in the privileges of God‘s peculiar people?”¹⁸

Then, Clarke paraphrases Paul’s answer: “Much every way – The Jews, in reference to the means and motives of obedience, enjoy many advantages beyond the Gentiles; and, principally because to them were committed the oracles of God – that revelation of His will to Moses and the prophets, containing a treasure of excellencies, with which no other part of the world has been favored; though they have most grievously abused these privileges.”¹⁹ In other words, Paul was not putting down the value and endorsement circumcision brought to the Jews which identified them as God’s chosen people. But clearly, they had thrown all of that away by the fashion in which they kept the Law and their rejection of the Messiah who was the fulfillment of the Law.

H. A. Ironside offers his thoughts: “That the Jew has certain advantages over the Gentile is acknowledged as self-evident, and of these, the chief is the possession of the Holy Scriptures, the Oracles of God. But these very Scriptures only made his guilt the more evident. Even if they did not really have faith in these sacred writings yet their unfaithfulness cannot make void the faithfulness of God. He will fulfill His Word even if it is in the setting aside of the people He chose for Himself. He must be true though all others prove untrue. In judgment, He will maintain His righteousness, as David confesses in the 51:1-4.”²⁰

British theologian Charles Hodge sees two important questions in verse one: What is the advantage of circumcision to the Jew? And what is the benefit of circumcision to the Jew? The Jews didn’t like Paul’s conclusion at the end of the preceding chapter. In Paul’s mind, the Jews, no less than the Gentiles, are to be judged according to their works, and by their knowledge of the divine will; and that being judged in that manner they are exposed to condemnation, notwithstanding their circumcision and all their other advantages. Hodge then goes on to point out that Paul was actually referring to what a mess the Jews made out of circumcision and that is why they stand no taller before God than the Gentiles.²¹

Then, the great British preacher Spurgeon shares his thoughts: “The Jews were God’s chronicle-keepers. They had to guard the Holy Books, ‘the oracles of God.’ They also had to preserve the knowledge of the truth by those various rites and ceremonies by which God was pleased to reveal Himself in olden times. It is no small blessing to have a revelation from Yahweh, and to have the means of knowing what that revelation really is.”²² That’s why Paul saw how the Jews had assumed a special place in the kingdom but without paying the price of obedience and loyalty to God’s commandments.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWO

The Apostle Paul’s final words in Chapter 1 were: “They know God has said that all who do such things should die. But they keep on doing these things and are happy when others do them also.” He was speaking of those who followed the sinful desires of their heart without any conscious rebuke and ended up worshiping creation instead of the Creator.

So he opens this second Chapter by warning the believers in Rome that they too were in danger of God’s judgment if they criticized those in the world of such immoral conduct while they’re committing the same sins themselves. Thinking that just because they were Christians, somehow God would be more lenient with them as His children. But Paul states emphatically, that not only would they be punished, but punished more severely than those who committed their sins in ignorance while they are knowingly disobeying God’s Word and His will.

Paul more or less was saying, that when you judge someone for what they have done wrong, you are giving the impression that you have never done anything bad. First look at yourself before you examine others. No, there is nothing wrong with condemning what God condemns, but always with the humility of the saying, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Paul wants the Roman believers to realize that it’s one thing to claim that God had spoken to them, either through His Word or His servants, but it doesn’t count unless they act upon what they’ve read or heard. And this principle was true to both those who were part of God’s family [the Jews], and those who were not [the Gentiles]. It would be like two people caught for stealing food from a grocery store. One of them was a known crook, but the other was a relative of the owner. The relative, however, claimed that he should be treated with more respect and favor because he was carrying a book written by the owner at the time.

But on the other hand, Paul said that if two people were confronted with either doing what was right or what was wrong in a particular circumstance, and one of them who had never been to church and knew little about religion, followed his conscience and did what was right, that he would be looked upon with more joy by God than the other person who, while wearing a cross around his neck, chose to do what was wrong, even though he was one of God’s children.

Paul ends up by making the point that’s it’s not what a person is on the outside, but what they are on the inside that counts with God. That’s because God is not impressed with any outward appearance that is designed to please Him and others with moral or spiritual makeup. He looks on the heart to see if what He sees there is genuine or pretension.

William Newell summarizes Romans 2 with these “Seven Great Principles of God’s Judgment.”

             – God’s judgment is according to truth (Romans 2:2)

– God’s judgment is according to accumulated guilt (Romans 2:5)

– God’s judgment is according to works (Romans 2:6)

– God’s judgment is without partiality (Romans 2:11)

– God’s judgment is according to performance, not knowledge (Romans 2:13)

– God’s judgment reaches the secrets of the heart (Romans 2:16)

– God’s judgment is according to reality, not religious profession (Romans 2:17-29)

God bless you for your love of His Word. I’m excited about walking with you through Chapter 3. My prayer is that God will inspire you and open your mind and heart to the truths He has stored in His Word. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

Perhaps you’ve heard this quote from the noted French philosopher and Historian Voltaire (1694-1778): “Common sense is not so common.” The actual statement is: “We sometimes say that common-sense is very rare.”¹ Voltaire then asks the question: “What is the meaning of that phrase?” He goes on to say that so often our progress or exercise in reasoning is interrupted by preconceptions. In other words, we have trouble accepting new ideas.

We can take Voltaire’s statement as either negative or positive. One definition of common sense reads: The basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things in ways that are commonly understood by others. However, psychologist Dr. Jim Taylor gives us this to think about: “Common sense, defined as ‘sound judgment derived from experience rather than study,’ is one of the most revered qualities in America. It evokes images of early and simpler times in which industrious men and women built our country into what it is today. People with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, and practical. But here’s the catch. Common sense is neither common nor sense.”

Dr. Taylor is correct on one point, just because the crowd thinks it’s the right thing to do or say, does not mean there is wisdom in numbers. How many times have common sense ideas been blasted into pieces by one individual who saw the real truth by embracing “reasoned sense.” That’s how we got away from the “flat-earth” theory and the misconception that the sun revolves around the earth.

Also, therapist Sandra Cecconello raised the question: “What is ‘common sense’? because, she says: “I hear many irate people saying about co-workers, parents saying about children, colleagues saying about colleagues; authority figures saying about the people being judged; the words — ‘have you no common sense?;’ ‘why didn’t you use your common sense?’ and many other detrimental phrases relating to the lack of common sense.” Cecconello goes on to ask who should we look to as the expert on common sense? This would be challenging since what you might call common sense is not common sense to another person.

While common sense would certainly apply that when you go out on a rainy day to take your umbrella with you, there are other situations in life that are not such simple equations. So the next time you are provoked into shooting the arrow of “common sense” at someone, just remember that the person you are aiming at did not have your upbringing and was not raised in the same environment as you. So do as Dr. Taylor suggested, offer “reasoned sense” as a possible solution in understanding why they did what they did, even to your chagrin. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

Here is an interesting story I read recently, by an unknown author, about coffee. Hope it will give you something to think about while you drink yours.

God’s Coffee

A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university philosophy professor. The conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.

Offering his guests some coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of and an assortment of cups – porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite – telling them to help themselves to the coffee.

When all the alumni had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said: “If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that can be the source of your problems and stress.”

As they all looked around smiling, the professor when on: “Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In most cases, it is just more expensive and in some cases is a cover for what we are really drinking. What all of you actually wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups.”

The professor wasn’t finished. “Now consider this: Life is like coffee; the jobs, money, and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, and the type of cup we choose does not define, nor change the quality of life we live. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee God has provided us.”

You see, God brews the coffee, we choose the cups. Remember, the most contented people don’t always have the most expensive cups. They are thrilled about what God put in the cup. So live with peace of mind. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God……….. Enjoy your coffee!

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXVIII)

John Stott speaks on the same subject of those with an uncircumcised heart: “This concept is not new with Paul since it occurs regularly in the Old Testament. In the Pentateuch, God complains of His people’s ‘uncircumcised hearts;’ appeals to them to circumcise their hearts, and promises that He will do it for them Himself so that they may love Him with all their being.¹ Then the prophets use the same imagery. Foreigners are significantly described as ‘uncircumcised in heart and flesh’; those who are ‘circumcised only in the flesh’ and ‘uncircumcised in heart’ will be punished; Yahweh calls on His people to circumcise their hearts, and promises to give them a ‘new heart.’²”³ All of this occurred, of course, before Jesus explained it to a leading Jewish scholar as being born again.⁴

Stott goes on to write: “What Paul looks for is something more than this, however, namely ‘a circumcision of the heart that completely replaces the physical rite and does not merely complement it.’ It will also be by the Spirit, not by the written code (v. 29b). That is, it will be an inward work of the Holy Spirit which the law, as an external written code, could never effect. This contrast between gramma (letter or code) and pneuma (the Spirit) sums up for Paul the difference between the old covenant (an external law) and the new [covenant] (the gift of the Spirit). He anticipates here what he will elaborate on in 7:6 and 8:4, indeed throughout the whole first half of Chapter 8.⁵ Further, such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God (v. 29c). This probably alludes to a play on Hebrew words, since Jews were named from their ancestor Judah, and his name in Hebrew was associated with, and may have been derived from, the word for ‘praise.’⁶”

And finally, Stott makes this point: “Moreover, what Paul writes here about circumcision and being a Jew could also be said about baptism and being a Christian. The real Christian, like the real Jew, is one inwardly; and the true baptism, like the true circumcision, is in the heart and by the Spirit. It is not in this case that the inward and spiritual replace the outward and physical, but rather that the visible sign (baptism) derives its importance from the invisible reality (washing from sin and the gift of the Spirit), to which it bears witness. It is a grave mistake to exalt the sign at the expense of what it signifies.”⁷ In other words, if baptism is administered on the outside when the inside has not been cleansed of sin, then such baptism is not only in vain, but an insult to Christ’s death on the cross. The outward cleansing of the body by water can never replace the inward cleansing of the heart by the blood of Jesus.

Douglas Moo confirms what most commentators have already said and then goes on to write: “Paul has made clear that being circumcised and possessing the law (v. 27b) do not, by themselves, qualify a person to be part of God’s true, spiritual people. Such outward marks, to be sure, can show that a person belongs to the ‘physical’ Israel. But real Jewishness can never be determined by physical birth, by cuts on our skin, or by devotion to a particular book. To be a ‘real Jew’ is an inward matter. It is marked by the ‘circumcision of the heart,’ a circumcision that comes in the context of the Spirit, not the ‘written code.’”⁸

Jewish scholar David Stern gives quite a lengthy exposition of these two verses. Here is some of what he says: “This passage is significant for Messianic Judaism because it answers authoritatively the perennial question facing the Jewish community at large and the State of Israel in particular, ‘Who is a Jew?’ The English word ‘Jew’ and the Greek word ‘Ioudaios‘ transliterate Hebrew Y’hudi, which is related to the word ‘hodayah‘ (“praise”). Thus, by etymology a Jew is a God-praiser; and conversely, the praise he should seek and value comes not from other people but from God. This wordplay was surely present in the mind of a Hebrew-speaking religious Jew like Paul but not conveyed either in the English translation or in the Greek text [that] underlies this passage.”⁹

We are told that Moishe Rosen, a former Orthodox Jew and leader of the organization Jews for Jesus, was fond of saying: “Being born to Christian parents doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being born in a bagel factory makes you a bagel.” Stern comments: “This is true because being a Christian or a Messianic Jew requires faith, which is not transmitted biologically; trusting Yeshua makes anyone a child of God (8:14–15), but, as a Protestant cliché has it, ‘God has no grandchildren.’ However, this interpretation of our text contradicts the halakhic¹⁰ definition of a Jew as the child of a Jewish mother or a person converted to Judaism. While Paul does not necessarily bind himself to the rulings of the Pharisees or the rabbis, it does not appear that he questioned this particular point but that he agreed with it (Acts 16:1–3). Therefore, and also because nothing in the book of Romans questions the halakhic definition of a Jew, this cannot be the meaning.”¹¹

Another Jewish commentator writes: “Unfortunately, this verse is often used out of context by some people to show that believers are all ‘spiritual Jews’ and God no longer distinguishes between Jew and Gentile in any way. The context, however, is quite plain – Paul is ‘talking TO Jews’ here – not to Gentiles. The verse comes at the end of several, showing that being a Jew outwardly means nothing to God. He demanded circumcision of their hearts (being ‘born again’) since their beginnings with Abraham. This is the same lesson Yeshua taught in John, chapter 3. Recall that He chastised Nicodemus for not knowing that he had to be born again. As a ‘teacher of Israel,’ Nicodemus should have known that Moses himself taught this. This does not mean that one no longer has to follow the commandments of Torah. They are all still valid (Matthew 5:17-21, Romans 3:31). Following in the spirit means performing the commandments in faith as part of a proper relationship to the One true God. This means not only keeping the Torah’s minimal requirements but going beyond them, as Yeshua taught in Matthew, chapters 5-7.”¹²

With this, Paul concludes his self-examination test to see how sincere and authentic these leaders in Rome were in promoting their faith in the law as being equal to their faith in Christ. He wants them to know that it is not all talk and no action. Jesus made this clear when He told His disciples that although they may talk about love unless the world can see that love existing and practiced they will not be able to know if they are real disciples.¹³ And Paul himself declared to the Corinthians that no matter what outward signs they may exhibit to prove themselves as true followers of Christ unless it was done out of love it will all prove to be a worthless exercise.¹⁴ That message rang true back then, and it rings true today.

THE END OF CHAPTER TWO

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXVII)

Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria also had several comments on how to view the act of moral circumcision. In one place he says: “The rite of circumcision is an emblem of cutting out of all the pleasures and of all the passions, and of the destruction of that irreverent opinion, according to which the mind has imagined itself to be by itself competent to think on its own.”¹ And in another place, Philo talks about circumcision as being a symbol of two things of the most vital importance. First, the cutting off of the pleasures which deceive the mind. And second, the discarding of that terrible disease, the arrogance of the soul.² But Philo also warned against those who sought the novelty of being able to claim they experienced the “circumcision of circumcision” or the “purification of purification.”³ By that they mean, that the purified soul was itself able to purified, giving them the power to cleanse their life of all stains without the assistance of divine wisdom. This sounds very much like what Jesus accused the Pharisees of claiming in their claims of self-righteousness. I’m certain Paul was hoping and praying that the Jewish leaders in the church at Rome never reached that point of arrogance.

But to best understand these verses in context, go back and start reading from chapter 1:16. Paul is primarily speaking to Christian Jews who still depend faithfully on keeping every single law to justify their salvation. He wants them to know that salvation ceased to be based on external oblations after Christ the Lamb of God was slain for our sins. Furthermore, the physical sign of circumcision denoting someone as being part of God’s chosen people lost its divine significance and remains important for medicinal purposes only. The heart is now the object of this ritual. Displaying superficial signs as evidence of being children of God is no longer acceptable in God’s eyes. If the teachings of Christ are not written on the tablets of one’s heart, all physical expressions of dedication are in vain. We no longer work to acquire salvation, that work was done by Jesus Christ on the cross.

Early church father Origen has an interesting take on this subject: “We must realize that in some people these two things go together while in others they do not. For there are some things which have their beginning inside a man and which proceed from there to the outside, but there are other things which start on the outside and work their way inside. What I mean is this. If chastity begins inside a man, there is no doubt that it will manifest itself on the outside of him as well. For it is hardly possible if someone does not commit adultery in his heart that he should do so in his body. But it does not follow from this that if chastity starts as an outward observance that it will necessarily penetrate to the point of inner restraint so that if someone does not commit adultery in his body, it will follow immediately that he does not do so in his heart either. Therefore, the circumcision of the inner and the outer man must be understood allegorically as meaning that the inner man should not lust in his heart, nor should the outer man surrender to lust in his body, so that he whom the apostle says is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and who mortifies the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, may be said to be circumcised in the flesh as well.”⁴

Then Ambrosiaster has this to say: “It is clear why Paul denies that circumcision of the flesh has any merit with God. For Abraham was not justified because he was circumcised; rather, he was justified because he believed, and afterward he was circumcised. It is the circumcision of the heart which is praiseworthy before God. To circumcise the heart means to cut out error and recognize the Creator. And because the circumcision of the heart was to come in the future, first Moses said: ‘Circumcise the hardness of your heart,‘⁵ and Jeremiah also: ‘Circumcise the foreskin of your heart.’⁶ He said this to Jews who were following idols.”⁷

This brings up the same prospect of those today who are adherents of a particular Christian denomination because it was handed down to them from their grandparents through their parents. They did not join this church because of their own convictions but as a matter of their family’s religious tradition. So for instance, if someone says, “I’m Catholic,” or “I’m a Methodist,” or “I’m a Pentecostal, it may not be that they studied the doctrine and compared it to the Holy Scriptures, but merely because they were raised that way. So it was with many of the Jewish leaders in Rome.

This same thought led Reformist John Calvin to write: “The meaning is, that a real Jew is not to be ascertained, either by natural descent, or by profession, or by an external symbol; that the circumcision which constitutes a Jew, does not consist in an outward sign only, but that both are inward. And what he appends with regard to true circumcision, is taken from various passages of Scripture, and even from its general teaching; for the people are everywhere commanded to circumcise their hearts, and it is what the Lord promises to do. The foreskin was cut off, not indeed as the small corruption of one part, but as that of the whole nature. Circumcision then signified the mortification of the whole flesh.”⁸

Calvin goes on to say: “He (Paul) calls the outward rite, without piety, the letter (of the law), and the spiritual design of this rite, the spirit (of the law); for the whole importance of signs and rites depends on what is designed; when the end in view is not regarded, the letter (of the law) alone remains, which in itself is useless. And the reason for this mode of speaking is this, — where the voice of God sounds, all that He commands, except it, be received by men in sincerity of heart, will remain in the letter (of the law), that is, in the dead writing; but when it penetrates into the heart, it is in a manner transformed into spirit (of the law).”⁹

John Bengel joins Calvin in the understanding that a Jew who outwardly appears to be genuine because of his circumcision and ceremonial observance is not a real Jew. A genuine Jew is one who is inwardly circumcised of the heart, not just in the flesh. To bring this up-to-date and apply it to Christianity, we could also say that a Christian who outwardly appears to be genuine because of their baptism and ceremonial observance, is not a true Christian. A true Christian is one who is inwardly circumcised of the heart (through the new birth), not just in the flesh.

Albert Barnes follows this same line of thinking. He writes: “‘Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.’¹⁰ The praise of God can be bestowed only on those who really conform, and not externally only, to His requirements. The remarks which are made here respecting the Jews, are also strictly applicable to professing Christians, and we may learn: 1. That the external rites of religion are of much less importance than the state of the heart. 2. That the only value of those rites is to promote holiness of heart and life. 3. That the mere fact that we are born of pious ancestors will not save us. 4. That the fact that we were dedicated to God in baptism will not save us. 5. That a mere profession of religion, however orthodox may be our creed, will not save us. 6. That the estimate which people may put on our piety is not the proper measure of our true character and standing. 7. It is an inexpressible privilege to be in possession of the Word of God and to know our duty. It may, if improved, contribute to our elevation in holiness and happiness here, and to our eternal happiness hereafter. 8. It is also a fearful thing to neglect the privileges which we enjoy. We shall be judged according to the light which we have, and it will be an awful event to go to eternity from a Christian land unprepared. 9. Whatever may be the destiny of the pagan, it is our duty to make preparation to meet God. The most wicked of the pagans may meet a far milder doom than many who are externally moral, or who profess religion in Christian lands. Instead, therefore, of speculating on what may be their destiny, it is the duty of every individual to be at peace himself with God, and to flee from the wrath to come.”¹¹

Charles Hodge confirms what many Bible scholars are saying: To understand this better, says Hodge, take verse 28 as a negative statement and verse 29 as an affirmative statement of this general truth. From a doctrinal point of view, religion and religious services, to be acceptable to God, must begin in the heart. Mere external homage is of no account. This is what Jesus told the Samaritan woman when He said: “The time is coming when you will not have to be in Jerusalem or on this mountain to worship the Father… God is spirit. So the people who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”¹² Hodge goes on: “If the heart be right in the sight of God, it matters little what judgment men may form of us; and, on the other hand, the approbation of men is a poor substitute for the favor of God.”¹³

In other words, wearing crosses around our necks or on our lapels on the outside will not guarantee that we are true Christians inside. Neither will attending church and reading the Bible just for show, nor repeating prayers or participating in rites, rituals, or sacraments. One of the greatest compliments a believer can receive is when someone tells them: “I just knew you were a Christian by your demeanor, the way you act, and the way you talk.” That’s what Jesus meant when He told us to let our light shine so that people could see the good work that God has done in our lives.¹⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXVI)

Verse 27: And will not he who is physically uncircumcised if he keeps the Law, judge you who still break the Law although you have it in writing and are circumcised?

There is no way that the Roman believers could escape Paul’s repeated theme of obedience being better than obligation. Not only that but how those who are obedient, even though they have never experienced physical circumcision, are putting to shame those who do pride themselves in their circumcision but are not in harmony through obedience with the very law that requires it.

Jesus spotted the same quandary when he compared the Pharisees and teachers of the Law with the pagans of Nineveh. He warned them: “On judgment day, you people who live now will be compared with the people of Nineveh, and they will be witnesses who show how guilty you are. Why do I say this? Because when Jonah preached to those people, they changed the way they lived. And you are listening to someone greater than Jonah, but you refuse to change!”¹

Several early church scholars give their impressions of what Paul is saying here. Origen says: “The Jew according to the flesh may keep the law, but only the man who is spiritual… can fulfill it. Insofar as the former is a transgressor of the law, it is the latter who will be his judge.”² And Ambrosiaster adds this: “The Gentile who believes through the guidance of conscience condemns the Jew, to whom Christ was promised through the law and who refused to believe in Him when He came. For as much as the Gentile is being prepared for glory by having known the Creator of nature by conscience alone, so the Jew deserves to be punished all the more because he did not know Christ the Creator, either by conscience or by the law.”³

Then Chrysostom offers his view that there are two types of people who do not live in compliance to the Law, one who is uninformed and the other by choice. He speaks here of those who are not physically circumcision and goes on to say that if they keep the law, they will judge the judge the physically circumcised who breaks it. He writes: “For this kind of uncircumcision is offended when the law is broken and comes to its defense.… It is not the law which is dishonored but the one who disgraces the law.”⁴ And Pelagius says: “This either means that as long as the Jews continue their physical circumcision, they reject the spiritual circumcision, or that they will be judged because they have not followed what the law said, that is, that by believing in Christ they might receive the true circumcision.”⁵

Reformer John Calvin says that Paul does not imply that they violated the law. They had the physical circumcision; but because they continued, though they had the outward rite, to neglect the inward spiritual worship of God, even through devotion, justice, judgment, and truth, which are the chief matters of the law.⁶

John Bengel sees the same argument here by Paul concerning the Letter of the Law versus the Spirit of the Law as spoken of in chapter 7.⁷ And Albert Barnes makes this note on the standard translation of “Who by the letter of the Law.” He writes: “The translation here is certainly not happily expressed. It is difficult to ascertain its meaning… The word ‘letter’ properly means the mark or character from which syllables and words are formed. It is also used in the sense of writing of any kind Luke 16:6-7; Acts 28:21; Galatians 6:11, particularly the writings of Moses, denoting, by way of eminence, the letter, or the writing; Romans 7:6; 2 Timothy 3:15.”⁸

In other words, a Gentile was never given a written law, purity rites, or circumcision. However, once he hears the written law, he consciously tries to follow it without participating in all the commandments, rites and rituals the Jews practice. Yet, the Jews say the Gentile is still unrighteous because he had not been circumcised. Meanwhile, the Jew who has the written law but is not following it to the letter calls himself righteous because he has been circumcised and engages in all the rites and rituals of his religion. Paul says that in the end the Gentile will be considered more righteous than the Jew.

Then revivalist Adam Clarke makes this comment: “If the Gentile is found to act according to the spirit and design of the law, his acting thus uprightly, according to the light which God has afforded him, will be reckoned to him as if he were circumcised and walked agreeably to the law.”⁹ Then another scholar of that same period suggests this: “We might begin Romans 2:27 as an affirmative proposition: and so He will judge you. But perhaps it is more in keeping with the lively tone of the piece to continue in Romans 2:27 the interrogation of Romans 2:26. The thought is analogous to Luke 11:31-32, and Matthew 12:41-42, though the case is different. For there are Gentiles who condemn the Jews by the example of their repentance and their love of truth; here, it is the case of Christians of Gentile origin condemning the Jews by their fulfillment of the law.”¹⁰

Henry Alford says that he does not regard this verse as a continuation of the question in the previous verse but as a separate emphatic assertion, and as leading the way to the next verse. The assertion is this: If a Gentile remains in their natural state of being uncircumcised, yet they live up to the moral requirements of the law, they will be used as an example to judge (Greek “krinō”) the Jews who fail to live up to the moral requirements of the law? Alford then points to Matthew 12:41-42 where the word judgment (Greek “krisis”) is used in a similar manner.¹¹ Jewish scholar David Stern agrees: “Paul presses his case against sanctimoniousness in general and its Jewish form in particular. The Greek word ‘krinei’ may be rendered ‘will judge,’ ‘is judging,’ or, as here, ‘will, by his very existence and manifestly righteous behavior, stand as a continual judgment.’”¹² And another Jewish writer makes this point: “This does not mean Gentiles will sit with God in judgment of Jews one day. Rather, the obedience of righteous Gentiles will serve as witnesses (along with Torah) against Jews who violate Torah.”¹³

If we put this in perspective for today’s believer, it would make more sense to use water baptism rather than circumcision. In that light, we could illustrate this by saying that if a church member who is baptized but does not follow the teachings of Christ yet criticizes an unbaptized nonmember who is living up to the standards of Christ’s teachings, then the unbaptized nonmember is more in line with God’s will than the baptized member. This points out, that internal baptism of a person’s spirit by the blood of Jesus is more effective than the external baptism of a person’s body by water to identify them as part of the body of Christ.

Verses 28-29: You are not a true Jew if you are only a Jew in your physical body. True circumcision is not only on the outside of the body. A true Jew is one who is a Jew inside. True circumcision is done in the heart. It is done by the Spirit, not by the written law. And anyone who is circumcised in the heart by the Spirit gets praise from God, not from people.

There can be no doubt that about the fact that Paul was targeting those Jews who were in Rome and their discrimination against the Gentiles around them. While it is not said specifically, there can also be little doubt that some friction may have occurred between the Jewish leaders and non-Jews who were part of the congregation. It reminds me of the situation I found during my visit to the island of Fiji where they imported so many workers from India to harvest their crops, that after many decades the number of such immigrants began to exceed the number of indigenous Fijians. The church there was made up of both descendants of Indian immigrants and native Fijians. But to my surprise, they did not worship together. The Fijian leadership felt that they were best suited to lead the church. So this caused friction between them and was not the best representation of Christian brotherly love to the unconverted Fijians around them. So it was as more and more non-Jews became part of the Jewish Messianic congregation in Rome, they wanted more and more leadership positions as well. So Paul had a real job on his hands in bringing them together.

Paul handled a similar conflict among the believers in churches throughout Galatia. Some of those who came preaching after Paul left were promoting the benefit of circumcision. So Paul wrote: “I hope I will never boast about things like that. The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is my only reason for boasting… It doesn’t matter if anyone is circumcised or not. The only thing that matters is this new life we have from God. Peace and mercy to those who put this rule into effect among all God’s people.”¹⁴ Paul will have more to say about this later in this letter.

This extrapolation of virtues from members of one culture or religion to members of another was not foreign to Jewish thinkers. In their own writings, some Jewish Rabbis were discussing how some people who were not born Jews could be referred to as Jews. Rabbi Johanan said: “Anyone who repudiates idolatry is called ‘a Jew’.”¹⁵ In this same place, they speak of Bithyah the daughter of Pharaoh who married Mered who is also called a Jewess because she too repudiated idolatry.¹⁶ And in a medieval Jewish document written as a polemic against Christianity, it nevertheless says: “Faith does not depend upon circumcision, but upon the heart: he that believes not as he should, circumcision does not make him a Jew; and he that believes as he ought, he indeed is a Jew, though he is not circumcised.”¹⁷ At this point, it may be difficult to apply what Paul is saying here to our modern world. However, when we see how the churches are divided today along denominational lines, it tells the world that Christians have trouble loving one another, so how can they love the sinner. But we can counter that by speaking well of our fellow believers. After all, if it wasn’t for varied tastes and preferences, there wouldn’t be so many restaurants to choose from.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXV)

The Apostle Paul had written the Corinthians earlier about this matter of allowing ceremony to take precedent over covenant. Apparently, there were questions as to what role circumcision played in confirming a new believer’s status in the church. He told them: “If a man was already circumcised when God chose him, he should not negate his being circumcised. If a man was without circumcision when God chose him, he should not be circumcised. It is not important if anyone is circumcised or not. What is important is obeying God’s commands.”¹ In fact, Paul explained to the Philippians: “We are the ones who have the true circumcision – we who worship God through His Spirit. We don’t trust in ourselves or anything we can do. We take pride only in Christ Jesus.”² And to the Colossians Paul wrote: “In Christ, you had a different kind of circumcision, one that was not done by human hands. That is, you were made free from the power of your sinful self. That is the kind of circumcision Christ does.”³ Paul was not coming up with a new doctrine just for the believers in Rome. It applied to believers everywhere.

Chrysostom makes this observation: “Look how clever Paul is. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for that would have angered the Jews who read his letter) but that the uncircumcision has become circumcision. Next, he asks what circumcision really is, and he says that it is well-doing, whereas uncircumcision is evil-doing. Having moved the uncircumcised who does good deeds over to the circumcised and having pushed the circumcised man who leads a corrupt life into the ranks of the uncircumcised, Paul states his preference for the physically uncircumcised.”⁴

This may sound somewhat like a riddle, but Chrysostom was pointing out that Gentiles who became believers and obeyed the teachings of Christ should not be required to undergo circumcision to be accepted by the Jews as being qualified to claim eternal life. Likewise, the Jews could not count on their being circumcised as a guarantee of eternal life even though as believers they were not obeying the teachings of Christ. In other words, circumcision as a ceremony was being overrated by the Jews as being a substitute for keeping the covenant Jesus made with all those who believe in Him.

Another early church scholar of the same era offers this commentary: “The visible, needs the invisible but not the other way around, because the visible is an image of the invisible, while the invisible is the reality itself. Thus, the circumcision of the flesh needs the circumcision of the heart but not vice versa, because the reality does not need the image.… If circumcision has no value by itself, why was it instituted? First, in order to distinguish the people of God from among the Gentiles. This is why when they were alone in the desert they were not circumcised. Or perhaps so that their bodies might be identified in battle. The reason why they were marked in that part of the body was first so that they would not be disfigured in a part of the body which was open to public view, and second, because the promise of grace would make this part of the body honorable through chastity.”⁵

Reformer John Calvin offers his insight: “This is a very strong argument. Everything is below its purpose and subordinate to it. Circumcision looks to the law, and must therefore be inferior to it: it is then a greater thing to keep the law than circumcision, which was for its sake instituted. It hence follows, that the uncircumcised [Gentile], provided he keeps the law, far excels the Jew with his barren and unprofitable circumcision, if he be a transgressor of the law: and though he is by nature polluted, he shall yet be so sanctified by keeping the law, that circumcision shall be attributed to him though he is still uncircumcised… It must be added that if any Gentile could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value without circumcision than the circumcision of the Jew without righteousness.”⁶

Albert Barnes has this to say: “Shall his being uncircumcised be any barrier in the way of his acceptance with God? The word rendered ‘be counted,’ is what is commonly rendered ‘to reckon, to impute’; and its use here shows that the Scripture use of the word is not to transfer, or to charge with what is not deserved, or not true. It means simply that a man shall be treated as if it were so; that this lack of circumcision shall be no bar to acceptance. There is nothing set over to his account; nothing transferred; nothing reckoned different from what it is. God judges things as they are; and as the man, though uncircumcised, who keeps the Law, ought to be treated as if he had been circumcised, so he who believes in Christ agreeably to the divine promise, and trusts to His merits alone for salvation, ought to be treated as if he were himself righteous, God judges the thing as it is, and treats people as it is proper to treat them, as being pardoned and accepted through His Son.”⁷

Henry Alford states that it is plain to see that Paul is speaking here of the moral requirements because the very first demand of the ceremonial requirement was to be circumcised in order to be considered a genuine Jew. Of course, for the Jews to accept this would have been impossible, and no doubt Paul took that as a reality. All Paul was trying to do, says Alford, was to show that circumcision, the sign of the covenant of the Law, was subordinate to the keeping of the Law itself. In such cases then, if the Law was not kept it would exclude anyone from being seen as truly Jewish even if they were circumcised. So, following the Law was the key. Therefore, if a non-Jew kept the Law to perfection, should they not then be considered even more Jewish than the Jew, who was circumcised, but who was not keeping the Law?⁸

Later, Charles Hodge lays it out this way: “It was there taught that everything depends upon obedience to the law. God will judge every man according to his works. If a Jew, though circumcised, breaks the law, he shall be condemned; and if a Gentile, though uncircumcised, keeps the law, he shall be justified. The one proposition flows from the other; for if circumcision is in itself nothing, its presence cannot protect the guilty; its absence cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous.”⁹

Charles Spurgeon preached: “If this principle were fully recognized everywhere, it would certainly put an end to all that notion of sacramentarianism¹⁰ which some men hold. It is not the outward, not the external, not the form and ceremony; it is the inward work of the Spirit; it is holiness and change of heart. Let none of us ever fall into the gross error of those who imagine that there is attached to certain ceremonies a certain degree of grace. It is not so. He is not a Christian which is one outwardly, he is a Christian who is one inwardly.”¹¹

Another Reformation scholar sees it this way: “The comparison of Romans 8:4 shows the apostle’s meaning. He refers to those many Gentiles converted to the Gospel who, all uncircumcised as they are, nevertheless fulfill the law in virtue of the Spirit of Christ, and thus become the true Israel, the Israel of God.¹² Paul expresses himself in abstract terms, because here he has to do only with the principle, and not with the means by which it is realized. The future will be counted, transports us to the hour of judgment, when God, in order to declare a man righteous, will demand that he be so in reality.”¹³

In one well-known British Bible commentary we read this exposition: “The case here put is, we think, such as that of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), who, though outside the external pale of God’s covenant, yet having come to the knowledge of the truths contained in it, do manifest the grace of the covenant without the seal of it, and exemplify the character and walk of Abraham’s children, though not called by the name of Abraham. Thus, this is but another way of announcing that God was about to show the insufficiency of the mere badge of the Abrahamic covenant, by calling from among the Gentiles a seed of Abraham that had never received the seal of circumcision.”¹⁴

H. A. Ironside notes this: “To trust in circumcision, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, while walking in so carnal a manner, was but deceiving themselves. Ordinances do not profit if that of which the ordinance speaks is neglected. The uncircumcised Gentile, if he walk before God in righteousness, will be accounted as circumcised, whereas the covenant-mark on the flesh of a Jew will only add to his condemnation if he lives in opposition to the law. It is reality that counts with God. The true Jew (and ‘Jew’ is a contraction of ‘Judah,’ meaning, ‘Praise’) is not one who is such by natural birth alone, or by outward conformity to ritual, but one who is circumcised in heart, who has judged his sinfulness in the sight of the Lord, and who now seeks to walk in accordance with the revealed will of God. ‘Whose praise (note the play on the word Jew) is not of man but of God.’¹⁵”¹⁶

Jewish scholar David Stern has this to say: “On the one hand, circumcision, taken as symbolic of being Jewish but recalling the covenant with Abraham in particular, is indeed of value, as explained in 3:1–2, 9: 4–5, 11:11–32 — but only if you do what Torah says. But if you are a transgressor of Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision! You have thrown away everything your Jewishness stands for. By despising God and His Law you have cut yourself off from His promises and from His people, spiritually, even though biological and cultural attachments remain. The reality behind the symbol has departed. On the other hand, if an uncircumcised man, a Gentile, keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah,… his physical uncircumcision will be counted as spiritual circumcision, ‘circumcision of the heart’ (v. 29; the imagery comes from Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6; Jeremiah 9:24–25 (25–26); compare Acts 7:51). He will then become an heir to promises of the covenant with Abraham (this theme is resumed in Chapter 4; also in Gal. 3: 6–29).”¹⁷

What a loud message this is today for those who depend on ceremonial rites, rituals, ordinances, or sacraments provided by the church as a substitute for knowing Christ Jesus as their personal Savior, and accepting Him as their Lord by following His teachings.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIV)

Reformation leader John Calvin continues his comments on the misleading role of circumcision in Jewish thinking: “Now many, seeing that Paul brings forward circumcision rather than any other part of the law, suppose that he takes away justification only from ceremonies: but the matter is quite otherwise; for it always happens, that those who dare to set up their own merits against the righteousness of God, glory more in outward observances than in real goodness… As to the Pharisees, who were satisfied with imitating holiness by an outward disguise, it is no wonder that they so easily deluded themselves.”¹ Scholar John Bengel offers a similar view by pointing out that Paul not only turns his adversary’s own principles against them, but also speaks his own mind, and shows, that they who trust in circumcision, while they break the law, are deceiving themselves.²

Methodist scholar Adam Clarke adds it is a blessing to belong to God’s church and wear the sign of the covenant [baptism], provided the terms of the covenant are complied with. But, if you do not observe the conditions of the covenant, the outward sign is both without meaning and without effect. This was a maxim of the Rabbis themselves; for even they allowed that an apostate or ungodly Israelite must go to hell, notwithstanding his circumcision.³

Albert Barnes also points out the deception of believing that anything we do, can be substituted for what only God can do. He writes: “The mere sign can be of no value, The mere fact of being a Jew is not what God requires. It may be a favor to have His Law, but the mere possession of the Law cannot entitle [one] to the favor of God. So it is a privilege to be born in a Christian land; to have had pious parents; to be surrounded by the ordinances [sacraments] of religion; to be trained in Sunday school; and to be devoted to God in baptism: for all these are favorable circumstances for salvation. But none of them entitle [someone] to God’ favor.”⁴ Henry Alford says that when this happens the Jewish transgressor is no better off than the Gentile transgressor.⁵ And we can add, that the same kind of delusion leaves the church member no better off than the unconverted sinner.

And Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodges points out the way circumcision was viewed by the Jews as an example of how baptism can be considered by Christians. He writes: “If any Jew fulfilled his part of the national covenant, and in that sense kept the law, his circumcision profited him. It secured to him all the advantages of Judaism. But this rite was, in the second place, attached to the spiritual covenant formed with Abraham; that is, ‘it was a seal of the righteousness of faith;’ it was designed as an assurance that Abraham was, in virtue of his faith, regarded as righteous in the sight of God. To all those Jews who had the faith of Abraham, and thus kept the covenant established with him, circumcision was in like manner profitable. It was the visible sign and pledge that all who believed should be justified. On the other hand, if either the national or spiritual covenant was broken, circumcision was of no avail. The fact that an Israelite was circumcised, did not save him from excision from the people if he broke any of the fundamental laws of Moses; neither could circumcision save those who, being destitute of the faith of Abraham, appeared as sinners before the bar of God. Paul, therefore, teaches that circumcision had no inherent, magical efficacy; that it had no value beyond that of a sign and seal; that it secured the blessings of the covenant to those who kept the covenant, but to the transgressors of the law it was of no avail.”⁶ All we have to do is substitute “baptism” for circumcision, and “Bible” for the law, and we can see how this also applies to Christians.

Frederic Godet has this to say: “Paul knocks from under the Jew the support which he thought he had in his theocratic position, with its sign circumcision. We have seen it; the proverb of the Rabbis was: ‘All the circumcised have part in the world to come,’ as if it were really enough to be a Jew to be assured of salvation.⁷ Now, circumcision had been given to Israel as a consecration to circumcision of the heart, an engagement to holiness, and not as a shelter from judgment in favor of disobedience and defilement. Taken then in this sense, and according to the mind of God, it had its use; but employed in the Rabbinical sense, it formed only an external wall of separation requiring to be overturned. The prophets never ceased to work in this direction.⁸”⁹

F. F. Bruce points out: “This lesson had already been taught in part by Jeremiah: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will punish all those who are circumcised but yet uncircumcised—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab … for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.’¹⁰ Israel’s neighbors, for the most part, practiced circumcision (the Philistines were a notorious exception); but the circumcision of Israel’s neighbors was not a sign of God’s covenant, as Israelite circumcision was intended to be. Yet, if Israel and Judah departed in heart from God, their physical circumcision would be in God’s sight no better than that of their neighbors: so far as any religious value was concerned, it was no circumcision at all. What God desired was a purified and obedient heart.’¹¹”¹²

John Stott also examines this subject of circumcision being misunderstood by the Jews. He writes: “If the Jews’ possession and knowledge of the law did not exempt them from the judgment of God, neither did their circumcision. To be sure, circumcision was a God-given sign and seal of his covenant with them.¹³ But it was not a magical ceremony or a charm. It did not provide them with permanent insurance cover against the wrath of God. It was no substitute for obedience; it constituted rather a commitment to obedience. Yet the Jews had an almost superstitious confidence in the saving power of their circumcision. Rabbinic sayings expressed it. For example, ‘Circumcised men do not descend into Gehenna,’ and ‘Circumcision will deliver Israel from Gehenna.’¹⁴”¹⁵

In the Messianic Bible, we find this commentary: “Paul addresses the subject of ‘covenantal arrogance’ – the idea some Jews had that they were righteous before God simply because they were Jews. Paul makes it clear that possessing the Torah is only advantageous for Jews if they are following it. Paul uses the concept of ‘boasting’ in the Torah, and teaches that Jews have nothing to ‘boast’ about. This verse (as with any in Scripture) does not stand alone. Some might take this to mean that as the Jews violate Torah (including rejecting Messiah) that God is done with them as His chosen people. Paul makes it extremely clear in chapters 9-11 of this letter, that this is not the case. Such Jews remain God’s chosen, but now are not fulfilling the role they were given; ‘For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.’¹⁶”¹⁷

Verse 26: So, if those who are not circumcised as the Jews are, yet still do what the law says, even though they are not yet circumcised shouldn’t they be accepted as being such?

Again, the apostle Paul ties being circumcised with keeping the law for the circumcision to be valid. Therefore, he argues, if a non-Jew begins to earnestly obey the laws of Moses, should they not then be accepted as true believers even though they have yet to receive the sign of circumcision. Let’s put it another way. If a seminary student named Timothy Goy has completed all his coursework with passing grades, and defended his dissertation before the graduate board’s oral examination to receive a doctoral degree in his field of study, even though he still has not had the diploma actually placed in his hand, wouldn’t it be permissible for people to already call him, Dr. Goy?

This is the same argument we find in Isaiah where God tells the people of Israel: “Any non-Jew believing in Adonai should not say, ‘Adonai will keep me separate from His people’… Non-Jews who join themselves to Adonai to serve Him, to love the name of Adonai, and to be His workers, all who keep Shabbat and do not profane it, and hold fast to my covenant, I will bring them to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer.”¹⁸ We see this illustrated in Jesus’ ministry when the non-Jewish Phoenician woman came to Him on behalf of her ill daughter. Jesus told her: “Woman, you have great faith! You will get what you asked for.”¹⁹ Later on, the Apostle Peter would experience the same transition of a Roman officer named Cornelius. Luke’s description of Cornelius is very revealing: “He was a devout man. He and all the others who lived in his house were worshipers of the true God. He gave much of his money to help the poor people and always prayed to God.”²⁰ This led Peter to a greater understanding. Peter exclaimed: “I really understand now that God does not consider some people to be better than others. He accepts anyone who worships Him and does what is right. It is not important what nation they come from.”²¹

Believe it or not, such discrimination by the Jews against non-Jews has been practiced by Christians and continues up to this day. By that I mean, although a person may have a personal relationship with God through their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, if they are not members of that particular church or denomination, they are not accepted or allowed to participate in certain rites, rituals, or ceremonies. There is no question that they should be required to be members to hold office or participate in organizational matters. But when it comes to receiving communion, washing of feet, and water baptism, such restrictions are purely man-made and not inspired by the Holy Spirit or taught in the Holy Scriptures.

“I hold it true, whate’er befall; I feel it when I sorrow most, ‘Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.’”¹ Written by English poet laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson. Completed in 1849 and first published in 1850. It was a poem to his beloved friend Arthur Henry Hallam who died suddenly of a cerebral hemorrhage while visiting Vienna, Austria in 1833. They met while both were students at Trinity College, Cambridge, England.

Even though Tennyson was deeply moved and devastated by the loss of his good friend and the grief was sometimes almost too much to bear, he still considered having known and had such a good friend was better than to have never known him at all. Therein lies a lesson for all of us. Sometimes we get so burdened down with losses and the pain of grieving that we forget the good that was ours at the time we did have having and holding that which we treasured.

A term for this may best be expressed as “Precious Memories.” Such remembrances are like a soothing balm to the wounds of having lost something or someone so dear. So the next time your eyes fill with tears over the loss you suffered, just start covering the scars with your precious memories. As the chorus to that old song goes: “Precious memories how they linger, How they ever flood my soul. In the stillness, of the midnight. Precious sacred scenes unfold.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda