Down an Unfamiliar Road

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

GREAT THOUGHTS FROM SIMPLE THINGS

A young woman went to her mother and told her about her situation and how things seemed to be getting out of control. She didn’t know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. As soon as one problem was solved, a new one developed.

Her mother kindly took her to the kitchen. She filled three small pots with water and placed each on a high heat. Soon the water in the pots came to a boil. She put fresh carrots in the first pot. She placed a couple of eggs in the second pot. She dropped a handful of coffee beans in the last pot. Then she let them sit and boil, without saying a word.

In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her daughter, she asked, “Tell me what you see.” “Carrots, eggs, and coffee,” she replied.

Her mother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The mother then asked the daughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg. Finally, the mother asked the daughter to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled as she tasted its rich aroma.

The daughter then asked, “What does it mean, mom?” Her mother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity – boiling water. Each reacted differently.

The carrots went in strong, hard, and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, they softened and became weak.

The eggs had been fragile. Their thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting through the boiling water, their inside became hardened.

The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they had been in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

“Which are you?” she asked her daughter. “When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?”

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity do I wilt and become soft and lose my strength?

Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, but becomes hardened with the heat? Did I have a fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and hardened heart?

Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, it releases the fragrance and flavor. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you.

When the hour is the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate yourself to another level? How do you handle adversity? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

May you have enough happiness to make you sweet, enough trials to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you humble, and enough hope to make you sure.

The happiest of people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the most of everything that comes along their way.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIII)

In response to Paul’s quoting of both Isaiah and Ezekiel on God’s name was being defamed by the Jew’s bad behavior, one of the earliest church fathers had this to say: “There is a blasphemy which we must avoid completely, that is, that any of us should give a pagan a reason to blaspheme [God’s name] because of our deceit or injury or insult or some other matter justifying their complaint. It is that blasphemy in which the Name [of God] is undeservedly blamed so that the Lord is deservedly angry. But the words ‘Because of you, my Name is blasphemed’ seem to cover every blasphemy. So then, are we all at risk since the whole Roman circus assails the Name for no fault of ours with its wicked outcries? Shall we stop being Christians in order for there to be less blasphemy? No! If the blasphemy continues, we will abide by our discipline, not abandon it, as long as we are being approved and not condemned. The blasphemy, which affirms our Christian faith by proving us, is in close proximity to martyrdom. To curse us for keeping our discipline is to bless our [Lord’s] Name.”¹ This message by Tertullian is just as critical for Christians to hear now as it was back then. We should never let those who assail the name of Christ and our holy way of living be a reason or excuse for believers to cut back or try to hide their dedication and commitment to Christ and His cause.

Adam Clarke offers a paraphrase of the previous four verses, from another Bible scholar in his day, that goes like this: “What signifies your pretensions to knowledge, and the office of teaching others, if you have no regard for your own doctrine? Why are you better for preaching against theft, if you are a thief yourself? Or for declaring adultery unlawful, if you practice it yourself? Or for representing idolatry as abominable if you are guilty of sacrilege? What honors or singular favors do you deserve, if, while you glory in the law and your religious privileges, you dishonor God, and discredit His religion, by transgressing His law, and living in open contradiction to your profession?”²

Clarke goes on to say: “And this is more than supposition; notorious instances might be produced of the aforementioned crimes, whereby the Jews of the present age have brought a reproach upon religion among the Gentiles; as well as those Jews of former times, of whom the Prophet Ezekiel speaks, ‘I will set apart my great Name to be regarded as holy, since it has been profaned in the nations — you profaned it among them.’³”⁴ I wonder what Clarke would say today when news is broadcast that churches continue to adopt practices and conduct among its members that once were considered an abomination to God?

Charles Spurgeon ends this section of verses 7-24 in a loquacious manner: He writes: “Professor, what will you think of yourself when your robes are taken from you, when your crown of profession is taken from your head, and you withstand the hiss of even vile men, the scoff of blasphemers, the jeer of those who whatever they were, were not hypocrites, as you are? They will yell at you, “Have you become like one of us? You professor, You high-flying man, have you become like one of us?” And you will hide your guilty heads in the dark pit of perdition, but all in vain, for you never will be able to avoid that hiss which will always greet you. “What! you!” the drunkard whom you told to drink no more will say “Have you become like one of us?” And the harlot whom you scorned, and the young degenerate man whom you warned, will stare you in the face, and say, “What! you! You who talked of religion. A pretty fellow you were! Are you now one of us?” Oh! I think I hear them saying in hell, “Here’s a parson, come here; here’s a deacon; here’s a church member; here’s a man who has had the sacramental wine on his lips; here’s a man that has had the baptismal water on his garments.”⁵

Charles Hodge explains how to understand what the prophets meant by God’s name being profaned by Jews living among heathens. He writes: “Both Isaiah and Ezekiel, indeed, refer to that blaspheming of God by the heathen, which arose from the misery of his people, whose God they were thus led to regard as unable to protect His worshipers. This, however, does not render the reference of the apostle less appropriate; for it is the mere fact that God’s name was blasphemed among the Gentiles, on account of the Jews, that the apostle means to confirm by this reference to the Scriptures. And besides, as their sins were the cause of their captivity, their sins were the cause also of the evil speaking of God, of which their sufferings were the immediate occasion.”⁶

Jewish scholar David Stern gives his view why blasphemy resulting from bad Jewish behavior: “The result of the behavior described in verses 17-23 is that, far from being a ‘light to the Gentiles’ (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6), as he is supposed to be, such a Jew plunges them further into darkness, causing them to harden their hearts: because of you… God’s name is blasphemed by the Goyim (Greek ethnê, 1:5b–6)⁷. One may add that, with the necessary changes, the same accusation can be made of some who ‘call themselves’ (v. 17) Christians: by leading lives that shame God they cause Jewish people to despise the Messiah and distance themselves even further. Fortunately, God’s truth does not depend on them, and there are others whose lives are a better testimony. In the thirteenth century the moralist, Rabbi Moses of Coucy, wrote, ‘Those who lie freely to non-Jews and steal from them, are worse than ordinary criminals. They are blasphemers; for it is due to their guilt, that some say, “Jews have no binding law, no moral standards.”’ ( From Semag, as quoted by Hertz in his Prayerbook, p. 723)”⁸

Verse 25: If you follow the law, then your circumcision as a Jew has meaning. But if you break the law, then it is as if you were never circumcised as a Jew.

Now Paul turns the corner and starts his exposition on what it means to be a genuine Jewish believer. It does not depend solely upon being conceived by Jewish parents or born in Israel. It has to do first of all with receiving the sign God gave to Abraham. But even that is not enough. The taking of that sign is a form of agreement to follow the Law that God gave to Moses. So the one does not have any meaning without the other. We could liken it today to the combination between being baptized and obeying the teachings of Christ. If a person says they are a Christian because they were baptized but do not carry out the teachings of Christ, their claim is invalid. Likewise, anyone who says they do all that Jesus said to do but they have never been baptized, then their efforts are also in vain. God is not impressed by what a person does to please Him. He is more interested in what a person is in order to please Him.

God’s word to His people concerning spiritual circumcision was sent through the prophet Jeremiah a long time ago and was very clear: “People of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, circumcise yourselves for Adonai, remove the foreskins of your heart!”⁹ Before Paul wrote this letter to the Romans, he mentioned the same thing to the congregations in Galatia: “It doesn’t matter if anyone is circumcised or not. The only thing that matters is this new life we have from God.”¹⁰ This too was similar to the message Jeremiah received from the LORD: “The time is coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. I am talking about the people of the nations of Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and all those who live in the desert. The circumcision they do is not the kind the Lord wants. But the people of Israel are not really circumcised either. They are not circumcised in their hearts.”¹¹

So we can see that as far back as Jeremiah there were those who practiced circumcision to copy the Jews. Also, there were Jews who were circumcised but did not have a change of heart. In God’s eyes, neither one was genuine. As Stephen, the first Christian martyr spoke to those who were about to kill him said: “You stubborn Jewish leaders! You refuse to give your hearts to God or even listen to Him. You are always against what the Holy Spirit wants you to do. That’s how your ancestors were, and you are just like them!”¹²

Both early church scholars Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster have similar thoughts on Paul’s thinking on the role of circumcision. First, Chrysostom says: “Paul accepts the value of circumcision in theory but abolishes it in practice. For circumcision is only useful if the person circumcised keeps the law.… But a circumcised person who breaks the law is really uncircumcised, and Paul condemns him without hesitation.”¹³ Then, Ambrosiaster notes: “An opponent might say: ‘If circumcision is of value, why was it stopped?’ It is only of value if you keep the law. Circumcision may be retained, therefore, but if it is to be of any value, the law must be observed. So why did Paul prohibit what he shows to be of value if the law is observed? Paul answers by saying that if the law is not kept, the Jew effectively becomes a Gentile.… But to keep the law is to believe in Christ, who was promised to Abraham. Those who are justified by faith have their own merit and are included in the honor shown to the patriarchs. For every mention of salvation in the law refers to Christ. Therefore, the man who believes in Christ is the man who keeps the law. But if he does not believe then he is a transgressor of the law because he has not accepted Christ … and it is no advantage for him to be called a son of Abraham.”¹⁴

Reformer John Calvin gives some thought to this aspect of circumcision. He says: “They [the Jews] thought that circumcision was of itself sufficient for the purpose of obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according to such an opinion, he gives this reply — That if this benefit [is to] be expected from circumcision, it is on this condition, that he who is circumcised, must serve God wholly and perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same may also be said of our baptism: when anyone confidently relies on the water of baptism alone and thinks that he is justified, as though he had obtained holiness by that ordinance itself, the end of baptism must be adduced as an objection; which is, that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life: the grace and promise, which baptism testifies and seals, need not, in this case, to be mentioned; for our business is with those who, being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not for nor consider what is material in it. And this very thing you may observe in Paul — that when he speaks to the faithful [believer] of signs, apart from controversy, he connects them with the efficacy and fulfillment of the promises which belong to them; but when he contends with the absurd and unskillful interpreters of signs, he omits all mention of the proper and true character of signs, and directs his whole discourse against their perverted interpretation.”¹⁵ How true, that some believers today have done to baptism what the Jews did to circumcision. That is, they point to the ritual as a sign of their special status in God’s sight rather than pointing to their obedience to the Word of God as the result of their being baptized.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXII)

Reformer John Calvin has an interesting comment on what Paul implies here related to idolatry. He says: “He (Paul) fitly compares irreverence to idolatry, as it is a thing of the same kind; for irreverence is simply disrespect of the Divine Majesty, a sin well-known to heathen poets. On this account Ovid¹ calls Lycurgus sacrilegious [irreverent] for despising the rites of Bacchus;² and in his ‘Fasti’³ he calls those sacrilegious hands which violated the majesty of Venus.⁴ But as the Gentiles ascribed the majesty of their gods to idols, they only thought it a sacrilege when anyone plundered what was dedicated to their temples, in which, as they believed, the whole of religion [was] centered. So at this day, where superstition reigns, and not the Word of God, they acknowledge no other kind of sacrilege than the stealing of what belongs to churches, as there is no God, except in idols, [and] no religion except in pomp and magnificence.”⁵

H. A. Ironside has an interesting exposition on this subject of plundering pagan temples. He writes: “Perhaps the keenest thrust is in the last question of all. ‘You who abhors idols, do you commit sacrilege?’ The word translated ‘commit sacrilege’ really means ‘to traffic in idols.’ This was an offense of which the Jew was peculiarly guilty. Abhorring images, he nevertheless was often known to act as a go-between in disposing of idols stolen from the temples of a conquered people and those ready to purchase them in other districts. He was even charged with systematically robbing temples and then selling the images. The town-clerk of Ephesus had this in mind when he said, ‘You have brought these men here who have neither robbed temples (not, churches), nor blasphemed your goddess” (Acts 19: 37). So this was indeed heart piercing, exposing at once the hypocritical character of the man who professed detestation of idolatry and all its works, and yet was not above profiting financially at the expense of idolaters in a manner so thoroughly dishonest.”⁶

Charles Hodge adds this to the subject of idolatry: “The insulting character of these several clauses requires that the thing here charged should be of the same name with idolatry, not its opposite. The Jew taught that men should not steal, yet he stole himself; he said, Commit not adultery, yet he was guilty of that crime; he abhorred idols, yet was guilty of idolatry. It is something analogous to idolatry that is here charged, not the despoiling of pagan temples, which would be the natural expression of the abhorrence of idols. The essence of idolatry was blasphemy of God; of this, the Jews were in a high degree guilty.”⁷

F. F. Bruce comments on the same topic with a different view: “What Paul has in mind is difficult to say: perhaps he refers to some scandalous incident like that of AD 19 recorded by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 18; Ch. 3:4), when four Jews of Rome, led by one who professed to teach the Jewish faith to interested Gentiles, persuaded a noble Roman lady, a convert to Judaism, to make a generous contribution to the temple at Jerusalem, but appropriated it for their own uses. When the matter came to light, the Emperor Tiberius expelled all resident Jews from Rome. An incident like this brought the honored name of ‘Jew’ into disrepute among the Gentiles. There, however, it was the temple of the God of Israel that was robbed; here the conjunction with idolatry suggests the robbing of pagan temples. Either way, temple robbery (hierosylia) was reckoned a most heinous crime; in Acts 19:37 Paul and his associates are declared to be guiltless of it in relation to the temple of Artemis at Ephesus.”⁸

All of this from both the Apostle Paul, early church scholars, and Reformation scholars should make us pause and look at our own lifestyles and forms of worship to see how much is directed solely toward God in order to obey Him, worship Him, praise Him, reverence Him, honor Him, adore Him, and magnify Him, and how much is designed to entertain the congregation and satisfy the performers as being successful in their quest to please God while making themselves look like dedicated servants. In a way, the robbing of pagan temples and transforming stolen idols into objects of Christian worship may be analogous today when worldly forms of entertainment from theaters, taverns, and television are brought into the House of God and used as modes and methods of worshiping God. This is what Paul would call: spiritual adultery, which helps us to better understand by committing adultery and robbing pagan temples are combined into one charge in this verse.

Verses 23-24: You are so proud that you have God’s law, but you bring shame to God by breaking His law. As the Scriptures say, “People in other nations insult God because of you.”⁹

Likewise today, the popularity and acceptance of Christianity by the world rises and falls with our conduct. Someday we will be judged according to our actions and the damage done to the cause of Christ through our carelessness. We must remember, not only are we as Christians open for ridicule and mocking when we profess less than we possess but because of our foolishness our heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus are often given a black-eye as well. Paul did not want this to happen in the worlds’ capital that time.

Again the apostle Paul seems to be drawing inspiration from the words found in Jeremiah: “You keep saying, ‘We have the Lord’s teachings. So we are wise!’ But this is not true because the scribes have lied with their pens.”¹⁰ Jesus pointed out such hypocrisy when the Pharisee prayed on one corner of the Temple court and a tax collector prayed on another. The Pharisee prayed: “O God, I thank you that I am not as bad as other people. I am not like men who steal, cheat, or commit adultery. I thank you that I am better than this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I give a tenth of everything I get!”¹¹ But the tax collector prayed: “O God, have mercy on me. I am a sinner!”¹² Jesus is quick to point out that the tax collector went home because his heart was right with God while the Pharisee had no such peace in his heart. The tax collector had exposed the things hidden in his heart through prayer while the Pharisee tried to cover the things in his heart with prayer.

Now Paul points at what could be the serious downside of all this pretension and bickering inside the community of believers in degrading the name of the very God they claimed to serve. Apparently, this was a problem in several places. Even the Apostle James had to address it in his letter: “You are proud and boast about yourself. All such boasting is wrong. If you fail to do what you know is right, you are sinning.”¹³ And Paul did not want what happened to Jerusalem become something that they would lament much as the prophet Jeremiah did: “Those who pass by on the road clap their hands and laugh at you. They make fun of Jerusalem, shaking their heads at the sight of her. They ask, ‘Is this the city that people called “The Most Beautiful City” and “The Joy of all the Earth”?‘”¹⁴

It reminds me of the famous 2,736 seat Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, Orange County, California. Built in 1981 by Dr. Robert H. Schuller of the Reformed Church in America it was shown on TV during weekly broadcasts and admired by everyone as a beautiful work of art built to the glory of God. But in 2010 it declared bankruptcy citing $43 million in debt, including a $36 million mortgage, and $7.5 million in miscellaneous debts. In November of 2011 the property and buildings were purchased by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County, and in June of 2012 the diocese announced that it would be known as “Christ Cathedral.” The former congregation held its last service there on June 30, 2013.

How did all this happen? In 2008 the founder Dr. Schuller removed his son Robert A. Schuller from his role in the ministry there. Said Dr. Schuller: “It is no secret to any of you that my son, Robert, and I have been struggling as we each have different ideas as to the direction and the vision for this ministry. For this lack of shared vision and the jeopardy in which this is placing this entire ministry, it has become necessary for Robert and me to part ways.” While some today may look at the unique building and still admire its use as a house of worship, others will look at it with heavy hearts and continue to think of what could have been, had only a father and son been able to practice what they preached.

Paul knew that he was writing to a group who could relate to what God said through the prophet Ezekiel: “I scattered them among the nations and spread them through all the lands. I gave them the punishment they deserved for the bad things they did. But even in those other nations, they ruined my good name.”¹⁵ But now they were on the verge of ruining the name of Christ, the Son of God who they had accepted as the Messiah. Then Paul paraphrases the sentiment expressed by God in Isaiah: “Their oppressors are howling, says Adonai, and my name is always being insulted, daily.”¹⁶ This is the same thing God lamented to Ezekiel: “I am concerned about my holy name, which the house of Isra’el is profaning among the nations where they have gone.”¹⁷

The concept of dishonoring God was a vital subject among early church scholars. For instance, Basil, the Bishop of Caesarea, had this to say: “If we prefer a life of pleasure to the life of obedience to the commandments, how can we expect a life of blessedness, fellowship with the saints and the delights of the angelic company in the presence of Christ? Truly these are the imaginations of a foolish mind.”¹⁸ And in the writings of Ambrosiaster, we find this: “The breaker of the law is the one who overlooks the meaning of the law, which speaks of the incarnation and divinity of Christ and dishonors God by not accepting the testimony which He gave concerning His Son. For the Father said: ‘This is my beloved Son.‘¹⁹”²⁰ Then Chrysostom offers this: “Here Paul makes two, or rather three, accusations. First, that they dishonor. Second, that they dishonor that by which they were honored. Third, that they dishonor the One who honored them, which was the depth of ingratitude.‘²¹”²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XXI)

Pelagius, an early church scholar and contemporary of Augustine has this to say: “Paul says to the Jew: If you rely on the Law, why do you not obey it? If you glory in God, why do you dishonor Him? If you know His will, why do you not do it? If you approve what is excellent, why do you go after what is harmful? Why do you not look for the right way, if you are a guide for the blind? Surely if you saw it, you would walk in it! If you are a light for others, why do you not cast off the works of darkness? As an instructor of the foolish, why have you abandoned the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom?¹ We could ask Christians the same thing today in a similar manner: If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, why do you not obey it? All the questions Pelagius has Paul asking the Romans apply to us who claim to be God’s children, the salt, and light of the world.

Pelagius continues: “As a teacher of children, why are you a child in understanding? If you have the standard of knowledge and truth in the law, why do you not follow it yourself, nor by your evil example allow others to follow it? Why does your life not match your teaching, and why does your behavior make a mockery of your faith? Because you have not kept the law it will happen that not only will the law do you no good, it will condemn you for the greater crime of holding it in contempt.”² There was a time when Christians were easily identified because of the modest way they dress, the way they acted, the language they used, and their courteous manner. But today it is hard to spot a Christian in the crowd because they have adopted the styles, language, and customs of the world.

Reformist John Calvin saw the same problem in his day and has this to say about Paul’s admonition: “This reproof was suitable to the Jews in olden times, who, relying on the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way better than if they had no law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned against us in this day: and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting of some extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind of uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not then so heedlessly play around with the Lord, let us remember what sort of judgment is coming for such gibberish, who make a show of God’s word by mere talkativeness.”³ We can certainly agree that what Calvin applied to his era in the 1500’s can indeed be reapplied today as a warning to all who leave their Bibles to gather dust on bookshelves or use them for decoration.

John Bengel uses an appropriate word here to describe what Paul is exposing that is not part of most English-speaking people’s vocabulary, He calls it a “metonymy.” This specifies substituting the name of one thing for the name of something else with which it is figuratively associated. For instance, when a man says to his wife: “You are my sunshine.” She is not literally sunshine, but in his mind, he associates her with the light the sun brings to brighten a day. Another is: “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Pictures are not words, but they convey a meaning that is often described by words. So Bengel says that Paul is using a metonymy by telling certain Jews in the church at Rome that they teach others but do not teach themselves.⁴ Let us hope and pray that the same cannot be said of us who call ourselves believers when we know not what we believe.

H. A. Ironside says that what Paul says here is the first of four statements designed to drive home the truth of the actual state of those who are pretenders trying to lead those who know little into something they do not know themselves. Ironside says: “[These are] four questions calculated to expose the inmost secrets of their hearts and to lay bare the hidden sins of their lives.” It is a punch against their self-confidence that allows them to feel confident enough try and teach others a subject on how to follow instructions of the Law that they do not follow. In this first statement, Paul strikes out by saying they try to teach others but fail to teach themselves, and in the second he accuses them of teaching against stealing while susceptible to stealing if given the opportunity.⁵

Charles Hodge offers his commentary on this conflict of teaching one thing while saying another. He writes: “To set ourselves up as instructors, and yet not to apply our principles to ourselves, is not only an inconsistency but offensive arrogance and hypocrisy. To steal and to commit adultery are great sins, but for those who preach against them and condemn them in others, to commit them, is to quadruple their guilt. The Jews, therefore, who committed the sins which they so loudly condemned in the heathen, were more guilty in the sight of God than the heathen themselves. While flattering themselves that they were secure from the divine wrath, in the enclosure of the theocracy, they were the special objects of God’s displeasure; so that publicans and harlots were nearer to the kingdom of God than they.”⁶

Verse 22: You say they must not commit adultery, but are you susceptible to committing the same sin? You say you hate idols, but do you ever hesitate before plundering their temples?

Paul continues this self-examination test for those of Jewish heritage who were leaders in the congregation in Rome. It sounds familiar to one of Asaph’s Psalms, where the composer hears God speaking to those who disregard His instructions, and so He tells them: “Who gave you the right to quote my laws or discuss my agreement, when you hate for Me to tell you what to do, and ignore what I say? You see a thief and run to join him. You jump into bed with those who commit adultery. You say evil things and tell lies. You sit around gossiping about people, finding fault with your own brothers.”⁷ This sounds very much like what Paul is saying here to some of the Roman believers who claim to be leaders and teachers.

What Paul states here echoes what is said to the leaders of Israel through the prophet Jeremiah: “Will you steal and murder? Will you commit adultery? Will you falsely accuse other people? Will you worship the false god Baal and follow other gods that you have not known?”⁸ And I would dare say that what bothered God about such disrespect and loose-living, also impacted Paul the same way. God said to them: “If you commit these sins, do you think that you can stand before me in this house that is called by my name? Do you think you can stand before me and say, ‘We are safe,’ just so you can keep doing all these terrible things?”⁹ It is interesting to note that these statements in Jeremiah come just before the portion Jesus quoted when He overturned the merchant’s tables in the Temple.¹⁰

It should also be pointed out that among the Jews, and certainly in their writings, adultery was often referred to when people turned to other gods and were not faithful to the One who redeemed and rescued them from Egyptian slavery. The Apostle James uses it in that sense when writing to the churches: “You people are not faithful to God! You should know that loving what the world has is the same as hating God. So anyone who wants to be friends with this evil world becomes God’s enemy. Do you think the Scriptures mean nothing? The Scriptures say, ‘The Spirit God made to live in us wants us only for Himself.”¹¹ It would not be too out of line to consider this in light of what Paul has to say next about pilfering items from idol temples.

According to historians, after being dispersed from the Holy Land, some Jews actually made a self-righteous business venture out of looting pagan temples and selling the idols, or the precious metals of which they were made, for profit. This was a direct violation of their law where it says: “You must throw the statues of their gods into the fire and burn them. You must not want to keep the silver or the gold that is on those statues for yourselves. It will be a trap to you—it will ruin your life. The Lord, your God, hates those idols.”¹²

Not only was this a violation of Old Testament law, but it was also a violation of Roman law. Paul uses the Greek word, “hierosuleo” here in this verse because robbing pagan temples was one of the more blatant contemporary examples of Jewish hypocrisy, and would be a cause of blasphemy of the name of Adonai among the Gentiles.¹³ Jewish historian Josephus¹⁴ and Jewish philosopher Philo¹⁵ both say that hierosuleo, robbery of temples, (also called “sacrilege”) was a crime on a par with treason and murder in the Roman world, punishable by death. There was also a Roman law against stealing sacred books and monies from the Jewish Temple, promulgated by Caesar Augustus. But since Paul refers to temples in the plural, and has “abhor idols” as the antithesis, it is highly doubtful that Paul is asking Jews if they rob their own Temple.

Various early church scholars see Paul’s vetting of these Jewish church leaders as still valid even for their day. Origen said: “These words could equally well be applied to the heretics who call themselves Christians.… Since they rob the Word of God of its true meaning and seduce the minds of their hearers by their perverse interpretation, joining an adulterated kind of faith to the bride of Christ which is the church, this [verse] fits them exactly.”¹⁶

Also, in the writings of Ambrosiaster, we find this: “The Jew adulterates the law by removing the truth of Christ from it and putting lies in its place. In another of his epistles, Paul writes: ‘They are adulterers of God’s Word.’¹⁷ A man is sacrilegious when he denies Christ, whom the law and the prophets call God.¹⁸ Did the Jews ever say, ‘You are God, and we did not know it’¹⁹ of God the Father when the entire law proclaims the authority of God the Father, by whom all things are made? But when the Son of God appeared, what He was was hidden and not revealed until after the resurrection. It was then that it was said of Him: ‘You are God and we did not know it.’”²⁰ Then Pelagius offers his view: “There is not just one kind of adultery, for you commit adultery if you give anyone other than God what the soul owes exclusively to Him.”²¹ And Chrysostom adds the following: “It was strictly forbidden for Jews to touch any of the treasures deposited in pagan temples because they would be defiled. But Paul claims here that the tyranny of greed has persuaded them to disregard the law at this point.”²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XX)

Verse 20: You think you can show clueless people what is right. And you think you are a teacher for those who are just beginning to learn. You have the law, and so you think you know everything and have all truth.

Paul was not happy with the attitude of some leaders in the community of believers in Rome who wanted to be guiding lights to those who were less educated in the Law, but who themselves were just as uninformed when it came to how the Law related to the gospel of Christ. Paul remembered what it was like when he first went to Corinth. He wrote them later, “Brothers and sisters, when I was there, I could not talk to you the way I talk to people who are led by the Spirit. I had to talk to you like ordinary people of the world. You were like babies in Christ. And the teaching I gave you was like milk, not solid food. I did this because you were not ready for solid food.”¹ Likewise, the ministers in the community at Rome were in the same situation, trying to lead and teach new converts to Christianity on the merits of the kingdom of God, but were themselves still struggling with loyalty to the Law as opposed to full loyalty to Christ and His teachings.

That’s why Paul was not confident that they really knew what was needed or how to do it. What he says to these leaders in Rome was very similar to what was said by the writer of 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. You are not ready for solid food. Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby and is not able to understand much about living right. But solid food is for people who have grown up.”² The apostle Peter experienced the same thing in writing to his constituents: “Like newborn babies hungry for milk, you should want the pure teaching that feeds your spirit. With it, you can grow up and be saved.”³

But Paul saw one big problem. Because these Messianic Jewish leaders were such experts on the Law of Moses, they thought that was enough for them to be able to explain the Gospel of Christ. Paul wanted to offer them the same model of teaching that he gave to young Timothy.⁴ The whole purpose of Paul’s teaching was to avoid what he warned Timothy would take place: “They will do foolish things without thinking and will be so proud of themselves. Instead of loving God, they will love pleasure. They will go on pretending to be devoted to God, but they will refuse to let that ‘devotion’ change the way they live.”⁵ Unfortunately, the same attitude can be found in some churches today. New believers feel that because God loved them the way they were, and saved them in spite of their sinful past, that they need not change their way of living. They were told that God is a loving, caring Father who will not be bothered by their shortcomings since his unconditional love will not allow them to be lost again.

With Paul being a converted Jew speaking to converted Jews, he knew that if he used the same language as the Rabbis, they would find it easier to understand the point he was trying to make. That’s why the idea of young believers being like babies was not new to them. In fact, in the Jewish Talmud, it is said that among those who are wise and shine like the stars in the sky “applies to the teachers of young children.”⁶ The emphasis on the youthfulness of Jewish students not only meant their biological age, but also their newness to the study of righteous living under the Law.

When it came to the obligation to teach children, the demand was so prominent and obligatory, that the great Jewish teacher Moses Maimonides wrote: “If a village has children who are not studying Torah, its populace is placed under a ban of ostracism until they employ teachers for the children. If they do not employ teachers, the village [deserves to be] destroyed, since the world exists only by virtue of the breath coming from the mouths of children who study Torah.”⁷ The emphasis was on those with knowledge to pass on that information. And the most efficient way of doing so was by example. How can a father expect his son to learn honesty when the son hears his father lie. Or, how can a daughter learn manners when she sees her mother disrespect others. This seemed to be the main issue among the leaders there in Rome.

Ambrosiaster had this point to make: “Here is the task of the law: to teach the ignorant, to make the wicked subject to God [His Laws], to provoke those who by the worship of idols are ungodly to trust in a better hope by the promise which is given through the Law. The teacher of the Law is right to glory in these things because he is teaching a form of the truth. But if the teacher does not accept the Expected One whom the Law has promised, he glories in vain in the Law [itself], to which he is doing harm as long as he rejects the Christ who is promised in the Law. In that case, he is no more learned than the fools, nor is he a teacher of children, nor is he a light to those who are in the darkness, but rather he is leading all of these into perdition [the place of punishment].”⁸

John Calvin sees things this way: “They professed to be the teachers of others because they seemed to carry in their hearts all the secrets of the Law. The word ‘form’ is used as a model (exemplar — pattern); I think, to point out the conspicuous elegance of their teaching, and what is commonly called display; and it certainly appears that they were destitute of that knowledge which they pretended. But Paul, by indirectly ridiculing the perverted use of the law, intimates, on the other hand, that right knowledge must be sought from the law, in order that the truth may have a solid basis.”⁹

John Bengel takes what Paul is saying here as evidence that the boasting Jew he was referring to had a lesson plan or an outline that he used to teach what he thought was right. Says Bengel: “‘What was right’ in this text signifies soundness in established doctrine, now called orthodoxy.”¹⁰ Henry Alford refers to it as a “model:” not the mere apparent likeness, but an authentic representation. Alford then adds: “The Law, as far as it went, was a reflection of the holiness and character of God.” However, says Alford, “Hardly is so much meant here that the Law contained a foreshadowing of Christ, – for the Apostle is speaking now more of moral truth and knowledge, by which a rule of judgment is set up, sufficient to condemn the Jew as well as the Gentile.”¹¹

Adam Clarke sees a similar factor: “You believe the Gentiles to be babes and fools when compared with yourselves; that you alone possess the only true knowledge; that you are the only favorites of Heaven; and that all nations must look up to you as possessing the only form of knowledge, the grand scheme, and drawing of all true science, of everything that is worthy to be learned: the system of eternal truth, derived from the law. If therefore, you act not as becomes those who have such eminent advantages, it must be to your endless disgrace and infamy.”¹²

Verse 21: You teach others, so why don’t you teach yourself? You tell them not to steal, but would you steal if given the chance?

The apostle Paul shows no fear in pointing out apparent inconsistencies to the example of those leading the congregation in Rome. One well-known Spanish Jewish philosopher Shem tob ben Joseph ibn Falaquera, once wrote: “He that teaches men, that which he himself does not practice, is like a blind man who has a lamp in his hand to enlighten others, while he, himself, walks in darkness.”¹³ In fact, the Jews had their own story of a blind man wanting to lead those who could see. They said, there once was a blind man who lived in a small town. He always carried a lighted lamp in his hand when he went out at night. On one dark night, he was walking along with his lite lamp in his hand. A group of men passed by him, and when they saw the blind man they made fun of him. They said, “O blind man why do you carry the lighted lamp. You are blind and cannot see anything?” The blind man politely said, “This lamp is not for me, but for you people who have eyes. You may not see a blind man coming and run into him.” They felt ashamed and begged his pardon. Therefore, the moral of this story is this: Think twice before you speak.

Even Jesus found leaders of the Jewish community attempting to propagate this old ruse: “Don’t do as I do, do what I say do.” On one occasion He spoke to the people and His disciples about the teachers of the Law and said: “The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees have the authority to tell you what the Law of Moses says. So you should obey them. Do everything they tell you to do. But their lives are not good examples for you to follow. They tell you to do things, but they don’t do those things themselves. They make strict rules that are hard for people to obey. They try to force others to obey all their rules. But they themselves will not try to follow any of those rules.”¹⁴ Paul did not want this to be the case of the leaders of the Christian community in Rome.

Paul also ran into a similar problem with the Galatians. Some Judaizers had followed him there and were preaching that grace must be joined with works because keeping the laws of Moses made them better Christians. When Paul wrote the Galatians, he cautioned them: “Those men who are trying to force you to be circumcised are only doing it so that their people will accept them. They are afraid they will be persecuted if they follow only the cross of Christ. They are circumcised, but they don’t obey the law themselves. They want you to be circumcised so that they can boast about what they did to you.”¹⁵

By whatever means the apostle Paul was receiving news from Rome, it caused him to pose some serious questions. The gist of what he says is this: Do you tell them to do something you refuse to do or forbid them to do something you feel free to do? He selects the subject of theft as an example. No doubt Paul was using it as part of sarcasm. By that I mean, they were claiming to be helping some person, but in reality, they were taking advantage of them.

The prophet Amos has a description of such a deceptive practice where the merchants closed the doors to their shops because of the Sabbath and Holy Days to appear pious and law-abiding. But in reality, they were forcing the poor to use up all the grain they had so that when the doors opened again, they would rush to their stores to buy more. So they conspired: “We can raise the price and make the measure smaller. We can fix the scales and cheat the people. The poor cannot pay their loans so we will buy them as slaves. We will buy those helpless people for the price of a pair of sandals.”¹⁶ Jesus found a similar scheme being perpetrated in the Temple that made Him very angry.¹⁷

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XIX)

To help us understand the dilemma that Paul describing, theologian Dr. F. F. Bruce lays out all of the hypocrisy, on the part of this imagined Jew, in an excellent manner: “Paul addresses the moralizer explicitly as a Jew. ‘You bear the honored name of Jew,’ he says, ‘your possession of the law gives you confidence, you glory in the fact that it is the true God whom you worship and whose will you know. You approve the more excellent way,’ Paul continues, ‘for you have learned it from the law. You regard yourself as better taught than those lesser breeds without the law; you consider yourself a guide to the blind and an instructor of the foolish.” Bruce then has Paul tell the Jews: “But why not take an honest look at yourself? Have you no defects? You know the law, but do you keep it? You say, ‘You shall not steal;’ but do you never steal? You say, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ but do you always keep that commandment? You detest idols, but do you never rob temples? You glory in the law, but in fact, your disobedience to the law brings you and the God whom you worship into disrepute among the pagans.”

Bruce then finishes: “To be a Jew will do one good in the sight of God only if he keeps the law of God. A Jew who breaks the law is no better than a Gentile. Conversely, a Gentile who keeps the law’s requirements is as good in the sight of God as any law-abiding Jew. Indeed, a Gentile who keeps the law of God will condemn a Jew who breaks it, no matter how well-versed that Jew may be in the sacred scriptures, no matter how canonically circumcised he is. You see, it is not a matter of natural descent and an external mark like circumcision. The word ‘Jew’ means ‘praise,’ and the true Jew is the man whose life is praiseworthy by God’s standards, whose heart is pure in God’s sight, whose circumcision is the inward circumcision of the heart. He is the true Jew, I say—the truly praiseworthy man—and his praise is not a matter of human applause, but of divine approval.”¹

On verse 18, Chrysostom has this to say: “What seems to be an advantage—being given the law—may turn out to be a disadvantage if one does not keep the law. Paul states this with great accuracy. He does not say ‘you do’ but ‘you know,’ nor does he say ‘you follow’ but only ‘you approve.’”² But Paul is not finished with the self-examination, he has many more queries to offer in an attempt to get these leaders to take a long, hard look in the mirror at themselves.

Verse 19: You think you are a guide for people who don’t know the right way, light for those who are in the dark.

The questions for self-examination continue. Apparently, Paul had been given information about the leadership in the congregation at Rome that bothered him. They may have had the talent and teaching, but they were going about it the wrong way. So this letter was meant to stop them in their tracks before things got out of hand. Confidence can easily become conceit if the motive is not proper. Paul certainly may have had in mind the words of the wise King Solomon who said: “Do you see someone who thinks himself wise? There is more hope for a fool than for him!”³ The key word in Solomon’s advice is, “thinks.” Years later, Isaiah encountered the same fallacy: “They think they are so smart. They think they are very intelligent.”⁴ What made the prophet come to this conclusion? He lays it out clearly: “They call bad good and good bad. They explain ignorance as enlightenment and enlightenment as ignorance. They try to make what is bitter to the taste sweet and what is sweet to the taste bitter.”⁵

Here Paul is pointing out the same mindset that Jesus also exposed: “…they are like blind men leading other blind men. And if a blind man leads another blind man, both of them will fall into a ditch.”⁶ That’s why he warned the Corinthians: “Don’t fool yourselves. Whoever thinks they are wise in this world should become a fool. That’s the only way they can be wise. I say this because the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.”⁷ Later, Paul tells them that he had become a fool for God. He did so as a comparison between himself and their self-appointed status as wise men for God.⁸ Paul appears to be doing a similar thing here with regard to some of the leaders in the congregation in Rome.

But the same emphasis concerning the day of salvation, in Isaiah, and who will led those in prison to freedom;⁹ those in darkness to the light; those who are hungry and thirsty to satisfaction and springs of living water, is intimated here in what Paul is saying to the Roman community of Christian believers. He wanted the words Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus: “You will make them able to understand the truth. They will turn away from darkness to the light. They will turn away from the power of Satan, and they will turn to God,”¹⁰ to come to fruition in Rome.

The metaphor used by Paul here of a person being a lamp to shine the truth on those living in the darkness of ignorance, was often used by Jewish writers as a reference to leading Rabbis who excelled in explaining the deeper things of God in His Word that most people did not have access to, or could not understand. For instance, we read about Rabbi Abbahu who traveled from his Academy in Caesarea to the court of the Roman proconsul in Tiberius. It is said: “Handmaidens from the Imperial house went out towards him and sang before him thus, ‘Prince of his people, leader of his nation, a lamp of light¹¹ blessed is your coming in peace!”¹² In another Jewish document called Zohar, there is a reference to Rabbi Shim’on, who had recently died, as a “holy lamp.”¹³ And again in the Talmud, we read that when revered Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai became ill, his disciples went to visit him. As soon as he saw them coming he began to weep. His disciples asked him: “Lamp of Israel, pillar of the right hand,¹⁴ mighty hammer! Why are you weeping?”¹⁵ It is clear from this that those Jewish leaders in the church at Rome rightly understood Paul’s reference here to their being a lamp to the congregation.

Chrysostom adds his thoughts: “Paul does not say that the Jews are really guides to the blind, only that they think they are.… Remember what they said in the Gospels to the blind man who had received his sight: “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?‘¹⁶”¹⁷ And Pelagius explains: “The blind are those who have been deprived of the light of knowledge.”¹⁸ Also, John Bengel touts this as a doubtless allusion to Matthew 15:14. He writes: “The Pharisees, most of all Jewish sects, magnified this outward calling of the Jews.”¹⁹ And while Henry Alford accepts Bengel’s premise about the Pharisees and the reference to Matthew 15:14, he goes on to say that both what we read in Matthew and what Paul says here, “were allusive to a title ‘leaders of the blind’ given to themselves by the Pharisees, with which St. Paul as a Pharisee would be familiar. Similarly, the following titles may have been well-known and formal expressions of Jewish pride with reference to those who were without the covenant [the Gentiles].”²⁰

Adam Clarke sees Paul’s self-examination process here not only one of posing questions, but also challenging their own assessment of their qualifications to lead. In Clarke’s mind, Paul is pointing out that these Jewish leaders really believe that as a consequence of all these religious advantages, they are convinced that they are able to teach others and to be guides and lights to the bewildered, darkened Gentiles, who may become proselytes to their religion.²¹ That would be like the child of a well-known Bible teacher assuming that just because they grew up in a theologian’s home and were used to seeing him study and write books, that they were automatically qualified as Bible experts.

Charles Hodge gives his impression of what Paul is driving at here: “The apostle, in these verses, states the effect which the peculiar advantages of the Jews produced upon them. They considered themselves to be greatly superior to all other nations; capable of instructing them; and of being the guides and light of the world. This idea is presented in different lights, in what follows (in the text) — a light of them which are in, darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. They looked upon themselves as qualified to act as the instructors of others, because they had the form, etc. Having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law.”²² In other words, they had the form but not the real power needed to make the form work.²³ That power could come only from Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

H. A. Ironside also has a good exposition on this subject: “In these masterly clauses he [Paul] sums up all their [the Jews] pretensions. And when I say pretensions, I do not mean pretenses. These were the things in which they gloried, and they were largely true. God had revealed Himself to this people as to no other, but they were wrong in supposing that this exempted them from judgment if they failed to keep His covenant. He had said long before, ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities.’²⁴”²⁵

So, does this open up the possibility for us to ask: If what Paul is saying here about the misconception of the Jews being leaders just because they were Jews, be applied to Christians today who style themselves as leaders of those in darkness just because they are Christians?