Down an Unfamiliar Road

The “W” in Christmas

I found this article written by a mother who did not leave her name. I think you will enjoy it as much as I did. She writes:

Last December, I vowed to make Christmas a calm and peaceful experience. I had cut back on nonessential obligations – extensive card writing, endless baking, decorating, and even overspending. Yet still, I found myself exhausted, unable to appreciate the precious family moments, and of course, the true meaning of Christmas.

My son, Nicholas, was in kindergarten that year. It was an exciting season for a six-year-old. For weeks, he’d been memorizing songs for his school’s ‘Winter Pageant.’ I didn’t have the heart to tell him I’d be working the night of the production. Unwilling to miss his shining moment, I spoke with his teacher. She assured me there’d be a dress rehearsal the morning of the presentation. All parents unable to attend that evening were welcome to come then. Fortunately, Nicholas seemed happy with the compromise.

So, the morning of the dress rehearsal, I filed in ten minutes early,  found a spot on the cafeteria floor and sat down. Around the room, I saw several other parents quietly scampering to their seats. As I waited, students were led into the room. Each class, accompanied by their teacher, sat cross-legged on the floor. Then, each group, one by one, rose to perform their song.

Because the public school system had long stopped referring to the holiday as “Christmas,” I didn’t expect anything other than fun, commercial entertainment – songs of reindeer, Santa Claus, snowflakes and good cheer.

So, when my son’s class rose to sing, “Christmas Love,” I was slightly taken aback by its bold title. Nicholas was aglow, as were all of his classmates, adorned in fuzzy mittens, red sweaters, and bright snowcaps on their heads. Those in the front row- center stage – held up large letters, one by one, to spell out the title of the song. As the class sang “C is for Christmas,” a child held up the letter C. Then, “H is for Happy,” and so on until each child holding up his or her portion would present the complete message, “”Christmas Love.”

The performance was going smoothly, until suddenly, we noticed her; a small, quiet, girl in the front row holding the letter “M” upside down – totally unaware her letter “M” appeared as a “W”. The audience of 1st through 6th graders snickered at this little one’s mistake. But she had no idea they were laughing at her, so she stood tall, proudly holding her “W”. Although many teachers tried to shush the children, the laughter continued until the last letter was raised, and we all saw the message together. That’s when a hush fell over the audience and eyes began to widen. In that instant, we understood the reason we were there, why we celebrated the holiday in the first place, why even in the chaos, there was a purpose for our festivities. For when the last letter was held high, the message read loud and clear:

CHRISTWAS LOVE

And, I believe, He will always be.

Author unknown

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson III)

Other early church scholars add their views concerning God’s faithfulness versus man’s unfaithfulness. For instance, Apollinaris writes: “Let it be agreed, Paul says, that God is faithful and true in every case, whereas men have been judged as unfaithful and untrue, so that God by His goodness may conquer the self-righteousness of men by bestowing His own righteousness upon them.”¹ And Theodoret says: “God knew in advance who would obey the law and who would break it. Therefore, those who did not believe were unable to stand in the way of His blessings.”² In other words, God did not set up living under the Law of Moses for it to fail. However, even if those to whom it was given failed, God would still use it to prepare them for living more freely under the Law of Grace.

Reformer John Calvin believes that Paul was holding back some of the harsh criticism he could have unleashed on the Jews for having trampled the covenant underfoot as they paraded around proudly boasting of having the sign of circumcision. Says Calvin: “As then he [Paul] seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.”³

However, Calvin adds this: “For Paul’s inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to mankind. The meaning then is: Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so ineffective by their unfaithfulness that it brings forth no fruit among them? To this, he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its stability through man’s wickedness. Though then the greater part had been nullified and trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet retained its efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to a few of that nation: and it is then effective when the grace or the blessing of the Lord assists in eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away from the privileges of the covenant.”⁴

Bible scholar John Bengel notes that God’s power in His promise to save will continue even if mankind loses all faith. He says: “They who deny universal grace, perceive but little of the faithfulness of God in respect to unbelievers. Even in the case of the lost, the preexistent will of God ought to be highly valued. For what they have not, they yet might have; and this very circumstance confers upon them a very great privilege; and even though they do not improve it, there still remains this advantage, that the glory of God, and the glory of the faith of God, are illustrated in them.”⁵ Is Bengel suggesting that all mankind will be redeemed and saved whether they want to or not? No! He is pointing out that nothing mankind can do will force God to cancel His plan to save all those who are willing, even if it comes down to just one.

Adam Clarke sees Paul again posing a question in this verse that is answered in the next: “If some in the Jewish nation have abused their privileges, and acted contrary to their obligations, will their wickedness annul the Promise which God made to Abraham, that he would, by an everlasting covenant, be a God to him and to his seed after him?⁶ Will God, therefore, by stripping the Jews of their peculiar honor… will He falsify His promise to the nation because some of the Jews are bad men?”⁷ In Clarke’s mind, Paul gives an emphatic answer, “God forbid!” In doing so, Paul is intimating that it should never even be considered. In fact, let every person who believes so be a liar. God alone is telling the truth.

Albert Barnes sees Paul raising a question that might come from a skeptical reader. He writes: “This is to be regarded as another objection of a Jew. ‘What then? or what follows? if it is admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not follow that the faithfulness of God in His promises will fail?’ The points of the objection are these: The Apostle had maintained that [in spite of their being chosen and have circumcision as a seal of approval] the nation was sinful.”⁸ The meaning of the objection is that the Jews who proved unfaithful would be lost, [and this] would imply that God had failed to keep His promises to the nation; or that He had made promises which the result showed He was not able to perform.⁹ But this type of thinking would come only from a doubter who thinks that while he can’t trust himself, he is given the right to question God’s faithfulness

Charles Hodge sees this comparison: “It cannot escape notice how completely the doctrine of the Jews has been transferred by ritualists [from Judaism] to Christianity. They [the Jews] held that if a man was circumcised and remained within the Theocracy, he might be punished for his sins, but he would ultimately be saved. So [Christian] ritualists hold that all who are baptized and remain within the pale of the true Church, though they may suffer for their sins here or hereafter (in purgatory) are certain to be finally saved.”¹⁰

And Charles Ellicott remarks: “The Apostle considers an objection that might be brought against his argument that the divine revelation granted them was a special privilege of the Jewish people. It might be said that they had forfeited and canceled this privilege by their unbelief. He first reduces the objection to its proper limits; it was not all, but some, who were unbelievers. But granting that there were some who did not believe this fact would have no power to shake the eternal promises of God.”¹¹

F. F. Bruce gives us his commentary: “Now, in fact, Israel had not proved faithful to this trust. And this might have been put as an objection to Paul when he argued that it was a great advantage to belong to the nation which had received the divine oracles. But his reply is that men’s faithlessness never alters God’s faithfulness or frustrates His purpose. Their unfaithfulness simply makes His truth clearly visible: His righteousness is always vindicated over against their unrighteousness. Then a further objection is dealt with. Someone may say: ‘If my faithlessness makes God’s faithfulness more visible if my unrighteousness establishes His righteousness, why should He find fault with me? He is really the gainer by my sin; why should He exact retribution for it?’ This objection seems so foolish to Paul that he apologizes for mentioning it. The answer is plain: God is the moral governor of the universe, the judge of all the earth; how could He exercise that function which is inseparable from His Godhead if He did not exact retribution for sin?”¹²

Jewish scholar David Stern asks an important question: “If the New Testament is true, why doesn’t my Rabbi believe it?” He then goes on to say: “Paul, the Rabbi from Tarsus, gives the correct answer to this common Jewish question: the veracity of God’s Word (v. 2) does not depend on who believes it; truth stands by itself. If some of them were unfaithful to God’s words (or ‘did not believe’ them), so what? Does their faithlessness (or ‘unbelief, lack of trust’) cancel God’s faithfulness? Heaven forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a liar! Even the socially and religiously sanctioned unbelief of the Jewish community as a whole from Paul’s day to the present does not take one iota away from the truth of God’s Word. Over against Jewish communal rejection of God’s Word as expressed in the books of the New Covenant, the individual may discover for himself its truth and stability; the outcome of his search is not in doubt: God would be true even if everyone were a liar.”¹³

Verse 4: No, even if everyone else is a liar, God will always do what He says. As the Scriptures say about Him, “You, O God, will be proven right in what You say, and You will win the verdict when You are put on trial.”

Paul now reveals why these questions were being asked based on an expression by King David: “In panic I declared, ‘All people are liars.‘”¹⁴ Early church bishop Eusebius commented: “Even if all men loved a lie before the coming of the truth, the true God nevertheless remained fair, holding fast to the things which were proper to God and fulfilling everything which was said that was fitting.”¹⁵

Paul is emphatic about the stability and steadfastness of God’s promises, even though man may waiver and even go back on his commitment, God will not use that as an excuse to renege on His own Word. The Apostle appeals to what David said after he had admitted his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Paul chooses to paraphrase what the convicted King said, which would go something like this today: “Does their faithlessness cancel God’s faithfulness? Heaven forbid! What God said would be true even if everyone were a liar! — as His Word says, “So that you, O God, may be proven right in what You said, and end up winning the verdict if You are put on trial.”¹⁶

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster has this to say: “Because God is truthful, He gives what He has promised. To fail is human, for the times and the foolishness of nature make man unstable in that he does not have foreknowledge. But God, for whom there is no future, remains unchanging, as He says: ‘I the Lord do not change.’¹⁷ Therefore Paul says that all men are liars, and this is true. For nature is fallible and is not unreasonably called a liar. It may be a liar intentionally or accidentally, but we must not expect God to be like that, for He is perfect and full of good will and will accomplish what He has promised. He even confirms this by the prophetic oracle: ‘You are justified in your sentence and blameless in your judgment.¹⁸”¹⁹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson II)

Albert Barnes has several points to make here about what makes a Jew better than a Gentile: “The design of the first part of this chapter is to answer some of the objections which might be offered by a Jew to the statements in the last chapter. The first objection is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask if the view which the apostle had given were correct, what special benefit could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise particularly from the position advanced in 2:25-26, that if a pagan should do the things required by the Law, he would be treated as ‘if’ he had been circumcised. Hence, the question, ‘what profit is there in circumcision?’”¹

Barnes then goes on to account for why not only was circumcision to be taken as a plus for the Jews, but also that God had entrusted them with His revelation and Word. Barnes focuses on the use of the term “oracles.” “The word ‘oracle’ among the pagans properly meant: The answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to an inquiry of importance, usually expressed in a brief pretentious way, and often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually obtained was also called an oracle, as the oracle at Delphi, etc. These oracles were frequent among the pagans, as affairs of great importance were usually submitted to them. The word rendered ‘oracles’ occurs in the New Testament but four other times, Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. It is evidently used here to denote the Scriptures, as being what was spoken by God, and particularly perhaps the divine promises. To possess these was, of course, an eminent privilege, and included all others, as they instructed them in their duty, and were their guide in everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come. They contained, besides, many precious promises respecting the future dignity of the nation in reference to the Messiah. No higher favor can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession of sacred Scriptures. And this fact should excite us to gratitude, and lead us to endeavor to extend them also to other nations.”² Makes you wonder if Christians today value and celebrate the Bible as a wonderful gift from God?

Swiss theologian Godet proposes two questions related to circumcision. The first question about circumcision relates to the spiritual symbol of Israel’s election, and the second question relates to the physical symbol of Israel’s election. Godet says: “Will the people whom God has elected and marked with the seal of this election be treated exactly like the rest of the world? This objection is of the same nature as that which would be made in our day by a nominal Christian, if, when put face to face with God’s sentence, he were to ask what advantage there accrues to him from his creed and baptism, if they are not [designed] to save him from condemnation?”³ These are good questions that every believer should ask themselves. Am I saved because I was baptized as an infant or even as an adult, or was I baptized because I am saved by God’s grace, love, and forgiveness?

Charles Ellicott gives us his commentary: “One real and solid advantage on the part of the Jew was that he was made the direct recipient of divine revelation. This privilege of his is not annulled by the defection of a part of the people. It rests not upon the precarious fidelity of men, but upon the infallible promise of God. Yet is not the ultimate triumph of that promise any excuse for those who have see it as nothing. They will be punished just the same, and rightly. Otherwise, there could be no judgment at all. The chance objection that sin loses its guilt if it reflects God’s glory, or, in other words, that the end justifies the means, carries with it its own condemnation.”⁴

Bible scholar F. F. Bruce sees the following in what Paul says here: “Here Paul imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, ‘Well then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, if it is the “circumcision” of the heart that matters, is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?’ We might have expected Paul to answer this supposed question quite categorically: ‘None at all!’ But, rather to our surprise, he replies, ‘Much in every way.’ Of course, it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges granted by God to that nation—privileges in which other nations had no part. It would be asking too much of Paul to expect him to deny his true ancestral heritage, especially as now he had found, in the gospel to which his life was devoted, the fulfillment of the age-old hope of his people. Among the ancestral privileges of Israel, Paul reckons as of first importance the fact that they were the custodians of ‘the oracles of God’. To have the revelation of God’s will and purpose committed to them was a high honor indeed. But if it was a high honor, it carried with it a great responsibility. If they proved unfaithful to their trust, their case was worse than that of the nations to which God had not revealed Himself.”⁵

Jewish theologian David Stern also speaks about the supposed advantage that Jews had, and what did being physically circumcised add to it? After what Paul said in 2:17-19, one might expect the answer to be “none.” But says Stern: “Paul’s answer is: Much in every way, not just in one way or some ways, but every way, of which in the first place is the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God, His logia, his divine communications (not limited to His promises or prophecies, as the word “oracles” in KJV implies). This is of first importance because any other advantage of being Jewish stems from God’s having chosen and spoken to the Jewish people. To imagine that the Jews are special because they have a finer ethical sense than others, or a land, or some sort of ‘racial genius’ is to put the cart before the horse. The Jews were ‘the fewest of all peoples’ (Deuteronomy 7:7), yet Adonai loved them, chose them and separated them for Himself. ‘He declares His Word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not done so with any other nation, and as for His judgments they have not known them” (Psalm 147:19–20). In sum, having the very words of God is no cause for Jewish pride, since the initiative was entirely God’s; yet it is ‘in every way’ a great advantage.”⁶

Verse 3: It is true that some Jews were not faithful to God. But will that stop God from doing what He promised?

Today, when meeting those who choose not to believe and follow Jesus, instead of showing them mercy and compassion, as one would offer to a blind person trying to find their way to the exit gate in a maze, we attempt to isolate their views with long discourses of theological reasoning. But the apostle Paul states very emphatically, their unbelief does not eternally exclude them from one day coming to Jesus in order to be saved, nor does it make void God’s plan of salvation offered to whosoever will may come. If we read John 3:3 to unbelievers, and they still do not see the need of being born-again, it does not mean they will never see it or that we should cancel the process of trying to win them to Christ. The constant and certain offer of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ does not depend on people’s personal acceptance or rejection, but on His faithfulness in keeping the door open for their entry at the moment the Holy Spirit brings them and He invites them to enter.

I think we can all vouch for the fact that in many cases believers have given up much sooner than God has on those who have been misled or fallen way behind due to disobedience. After all, it took forty years for the children of Israel to get out of the desert into the promised land. Yet, God led them all the way with His cloud by day and fire by night. The writer of Hebrews puts it bluntly: “The message they heard did not help them. They heard it but did not accept it with faith.”⁷ How often have we seen someone suffer setbacks and disappointments because they did not take instructions seriously? But it does not mean they will forever deny what is wrong and not seek help to get it fixed. Paul no doubt knew from experience that no matter how long it may take, once a person accepts the truth and begins to walk in that truth, the same joy and excitement is still there had they done it, to begin with. In fact, the joy may be even greater.

The key factor for Paul here is this: A person’s unbelief in God will not make God’s belief in them any less effective when they do believe. The reason for this is the fact that although mankind’s commitment to God may change, God’s commitment to mankind remains constant. We find this clearly stated in Scripture where it says: “God is not a man; He will not lie. God is not a human being; His decisions will not change. If He says He will do something, then He will do it. If He makes a promise, then He will do what He promised.”⁸ This led God to tell Israel the following: “The mountains may disappear, and the hills may become dust, but my faithful love will never leave you. I will make peace with you, and it will never end.”⁹ So the question now for the Jews was this: Do I trust myself to get through or should I trust God to get me through?

But beyond that, Paul was speaking on the authority of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus Himself made this declaration: “The whole world, earth, and sky, may be destroyed, but my words will last forever.”¹⁰ This gave Paul the courage to tell young Timothy: “If we are not faithful, He will remain faithful because He cannot be untrue to who He is.”¹¹ To put this another way, we could say that no matter which way you are going or regardless of which direction you are facing, the morning sun will always appear first on the eastern horizon. By the same token, no matter which direction you may turn the compass, the needle will always be pointing north. In the same way, no matter what path we take or what destiny we are attempting to reach without God’s help, when we need Him most urgently He is always available when we look for Him, and He is always close by when we call out His name.¹²

After examining this verse, early church scholar Origen makes this comment: “The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews, but some of them did not believe either God or His oracles. Those who did not believe were carnal, as Paul says elsewhere: ‘The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him.’¹³ But their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. By God’s faithfulness, we understand either the faith which God had when He entrusted His oracles to them or the faith by which those who received the oracles from God believed in Him. We are therefore reminded that their faithlessness has not nullified the faithfulness of God, which He has shown to us.”¹⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson II)

Albert Barnes has several points to make here about what makes a Jew better than a Gentile: “The design of the first part of this chapter is to answer some of the objections which might be offered by a Jew to the statements in the last chapter. The first objection is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask if the view which the apostle had given were correct, what special benefit could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise particularly from the position advanced in 2:25-26, that if a pagan should do the things required by the Law, he would be treated as ‘if’ he had been circumcised. Hence, the question, ‘what profit is there in circumcision?’”¹

Barnes then goes on to account for why not only was circumcision to be taken as a plus for the Jews, but also that God had entrusted them with His revelation and Word. Barnes focuses on the use of the term “oracles.” “The word ‘oracle’ among the pagans properly meant: The answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to an inquiry of importance, usually expressed in a brief pretentious way, and often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually obtained was also called an oracle, as the oracle at Delphi, etc. These oracles were frequent among the pagans, as affairs of great importance were usually submitted to them. The word rendered ‘oracles’ occurs in the New Testament but four other times, Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. It is evidently used here to denote the Scriptures, as being what was spoken by God, and particularly perhaps the divine promises. To possess these was, of course, an eminent privilege, and included all others, as they instructed them in their duty, and were their guide in everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come. They contained, besides, many precious promises respecting the future dignity of the nation in reference to the Messiah. No higher favor can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession of sacred Scriptures. And this fact should excite us to gratitude, and lead us to endeavor to extend them also to other nations.”² Makes you wonder if Christians today value and celebrate the Bible as a wonderful gift from God?

Swiss theologian Godet proposes two questions related to circumcision. The first question about circumcision relates to the spiritual symbol of Israel’s election, and the second question relates to the physical symbol of Israel’s election. Godet says: “Will the people whom God has elected and marked with the seal of this election be treated exactly like the rest of the world? This objection is of the same nature as that which would be made in our day by a nominal Christian, if, when put face to face with God’s sentence, he were to ask what advantage there accrues to him from his creed and baptism, if they are not [designed] to save him from condemnation?”³ These are good questions that every believer should ask themselves. Am I saved because I was baptized as an infant or even as an adult, or was I baptized because I am saved by God’s grace, love, and forgiveness?

Charles Ellicott gives us his commentary: “One real and solid advantage on the part of the Jew was that he was made the direct recipient of divine revelation. This privilege of his is not annulled by the defection of a part of the people. It rests not upon the precarious fidelity of men, but upon the infallible promise of God. Yet is not the ultimate triumph of that promise any excuse for those who have see it as nothing. They will be punished just the same, and rightly. Otherwise, there could be no judgment at all. The chance objection that sin loses its guilt if it reflects God’s glory, or, in other words, that the end justifies the means, carries with it its own condemnation.”⁴

Bible scholar F. F. Bruce sees the following in what Paul says here: “Here Paul imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, ‘Well then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, if it is the “circumcision” of the heart that matters, is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?’ We might have expected Paul to answer this supposed question quite categorically: ‘None at all!’ But, rather to our surprise, he replies, ‘Much in every way.’ Of course, it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges granted by God to that nation—privileges in which other nations had no part. It would be asking too much of Paul to expect him to deny his true ancestral heritage, especially as now he had found, in the gospel to which his life was devoted, the fulfillment of the age-old hope of his people. Among the ancestral privileges of Israel, Paul reckons as of first importance the fact that they were the custodians of ‘the oracles of God’. To have the revelation of God’s will and purpose committed to them was a high honor indeed. But if it was a high honor, it carried with it a great responsibility. If they proved unfaithful to their trust, their case was worse than that of the nations to which God had not revealed Himself.”⁵

Jewish theologian David Stern also speaks about the supposed advantage that Jews had, and what did being physically circumcised add to it? After what Paul said in 2:17-19, one might expect the answer to be “none.” But says Stern: “Paul’s answer is: Much in every way, not just in one way or some ways, but every way, of which in the first place is the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God, His logia, his divine communications (not limited to His promises or prophecies, as the word “oracles” in KJV implies). This is of first importance because any other advantage of being Jewish stems from God’s having chosen and spoken to the Jewish people. To imagine that the Jews are special because they have a finer ethical sense than others, or a land, or some sort of ‘racial genius’ is to put the cart before the horse. The Jews were ‘the fewest of all peoples’ (Deuteronomy 7:7), yet Adonai loved them, chose them and separated them for Himself. ‘He declares His Word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not done so with any other nation, and as for His judgments they have not known them” (Psalm 147:19–20). In sum, having the very words of God is no cause for Jewish pride, since the initiative was entirely God’s; yet it is ‘in every way’ a great advantage.”⁶

Verse 3: It is true that some Jews were not faithful to God. But will that stop God from doing what He promised?

Today, when meeting those who choose not to believe and follow Jesus, instead of showing them mercy and compassion, as one would offer to a blind person trying to find their way to the exit gate in a maze, we attempt to isolate their views with long discourses of theological reasoning. But the apostle Paul states very emphatically, their unbelief does not eternally exclude them from one day coming to Jesus in order to be saved, nor does it make void God’s plan of salvation offered to whosoever will may come. If we read John 3:3 to unbelievers, and they still do not see the need of being born-again, it does not mean they will never see it or that we should cancel the process of trying to win them to Christ. The constant and certain offer of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ does not depend on people’s personal acceptance or rejection, but on His faithfulness in keeping the door open for their entry at the moment the Holy Spirit brings them and He invites them to enter.

I think we can all vouch for the fact that in many cases believers have given up much sooner than God has on those who have been misled or fallen way behind due to disobedience. After all, it took forty years for the children of Israel to get out of the desert into the promised land. Yet, God led them all the way with His cloud by day and fire by night. The writer of Hebrews puts it bluntly: “The message they heard did not help them. They heard it but did not accept it with faith.”⁷ How often have we seen someone suffer setbacks and disappointments because they did not take instructions seriously? But it does not mean they will forever deny what is wrong and not seek help to get it fixed. Paul no doubt knew from experience that no matter how long it may take, once a person accepts the truth and begins to walk in that truth, the same joy and excitement is still there had they done it, to begin with. In fact, the joy may be even greater.

The key factor for Paul here is this: A person’s unbelief in God will not make God’s belief in them any less effective when they do believe. The reason for this is the fact that although mankind’s commitment to God may change, God’s commitment to mankind remains constant. We find this clearly stated in Scripture where it says: “God is not a man; He will not lie. God is not a human being; His decisions will not change. If He says He will do something, then He will do it. If He makes a promise, then He will do what He promised.”⁸ This led God to tell Israel the following: “The mountains may disappear, and the hills may become dust, but my faithful love will never leave you. I will make peace with you, and it will never end.”⁹ So the question now for the Jews was this: Do I trust myself to get through or should I trust God to get me through?

But beyond that, Paul was speaking on the authority of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus Himself made this declaration: “The whole world, earth, and sky, may be destroyed, but my words will last forever.”¹⁰ This gave Paul the courage to tell young Timothy: “If we are not faithful, He will remain faithful because He cannot be untrue to who He is.”¹¹ To put this another way, we could say that no matter which way you are going or regardless of which direction you are facing, the morning sun will always appear first on the eastern horizon. By the same token, no matter which direction you may turn the compass, the needle will always be pointing north. In the same way, no matter what path we take or what destiny we are attempting to reach without God’s help, when we need Him most urgently He is always available when we look for Him, and He is always close by when we call out His name.¹²

After examining this verse, early church scholar Origen makes this comment: “The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews, but some of them did not believe either God or His oracles. Those who did not believe were carnal, as Paul says elsewhere: ‘The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him.’¹³ But their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. By God’s faithfulness, we understand either the faith which God had when He entrusted His oracles to them or the faith by which those who received the oracles from God believed in Him. We are therefore reminded that their faithlessness has not nullified the faithfulness of God, which He has shown to us.”¹⁴

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