rom_rom2b
JEWISH LEGALISM
ROMANS 2:17-2:29
In the second half of this chapter two, Paul directs his attention to the Jew. In the rest of the chapter two and the first eight verses of chapter three, Paul addresses the Jew, applying the need for justification through faith to the Jews.
Paul shows that the Jews have no special privilege
- as possessors of the law (2:17-24) or
- as circumcised (2:25-29).
Then Paul
- discusses the advantage of Jews (3:1-2) and
- answers the Jewish objections to God’s treatment of them (3:3-8).
ROMANS 2:17-24
17. But if you call yourself a Jew, and rely on the law, and boast in God, 18. and know the will of God, and approve the things that excel, being instructed in the law, 19. and having persuaded yourself that you are a guide of the blind, a light to them that are in darkness, 20. an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law — 21. you therefore who teach another, will you not teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal? 22. You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? 23. You who boast in the law, through the transgression of the law, do you dishonor God? 24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, according as it is written.
2:17. But if you call yourself a Jew, and rely on the law, and boast in God,
Paul now turns his attention to the Jew. Paul’s style is personal. Instead of a third person style, talking about the Jews, he addresses them as if he is talking to one of them. In a long conditional sentence (verse 17 through 20), he addresses the Jews as if they are a single individual. Then in verses 21 through 24, he applies to the Jews the fourth principle of the judgment of God that he stated in 2:13: “It is not the hearers of law that are right with God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” They are hearers of the law but are not doers of the law.
Hearing the law presupposes having the law. The Jews had the law, and that law was the law of God. God had chosen the Jews to whom He gave His law. God had given His law to them, not to anybody else. They had the law and they relied upon and trusted in the law. And they gloried and boasted in the God who gave it to them. This is the basis of Jewish legalism: trust in the law and God the lawgiver.
2:18. and know the will of God, and approve the things that excel, being instructed in the law,
In this verse, Paul continues his long address to the Jews. The Jews believed that in the law, they knew the will of God. They believed that they knew what was right and what was wrong. Paul does not correct this pride in their boasted privileges. That was not their problem.
2:19. and having persuaded yourself that you are a guide of the blind, a light to them that are in darkness,
Paul continues his long address to the Jews in this verse. Having been instructed out of the law, they were persuaded that they were guides to the blind and a light in the darkness. Paul does not correct this confidence in their assumed superiority. That was not their problem.
2:20. an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law —
In this verse, Paul reaches the end of his long address to the Jews. Having been instructed out of the law, they were also persuaded that they were instructors of the foolish and teachers of children. In the law, they believed that they had the form of knowledge and truth. Paul does not deny this. Their problem was not that they did not have the form of knowledge and truth in the law, but that they did not do it.
2:21. you therefore who teach another, will you not teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal?
Now Paul applies the fourth principle of the judgment of God that he stated in 2:13 to the Jews. “It is not the hearers of law that are right with God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” (Psa. 50:16-18) They are hearers of the law but are not doers of the law. In this and the next two verses, by a series of five questions Paul exposes this failure of Jewish legalism. The first two questions are asked in this verse. “You therefore who teach another, will you not teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal?” The first question exposes in general terms the failure of Jewish legalism; they do not practice what they teach and preach. They do not teach themselves because they see themselves as all right; they have the law and they trust in it. That makes them all right no matter what they do or practice. This is an outstanding characteristic of all legalisms, Jewish, Roman, or Christian. Legalism is hypocritical. In the next three questions, Paul presses home this point in three specific cases. The first case is stealing. “You who preach not to steal, do you steal?”
2:22. You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples?
Paul continues to press home his point that they do not practice what they preach. Paul presses home this point in three specific cases. The first case is the previous verse and the second case is in this verse. “You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery?”
Jesus exposes the true nature of adultery in Matt. 5:27-28. They were committing adultery in their hearts. Legalism externalize the transgressions of the law, and fails to recognize that the internal decision of the heart is the source of the act of transgression. Paul presses this point home in his third case. “You who detest idols, do you rob temples?” Moses warned against this very thing in Deut. 7:25.
“The graven images of their gods you are to burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it, for it is an abomination to the Lord your God.” (NAS)
The destruction of idolatry, must not be the occasion for coveting the silver and the gold in the temple of the idol. That is, if the robbing of the temples has its source in the heart coveting the silver and gold in the temple of the idol, they would by their covetousness be worshipping the silver and gold of the false gods, that is, wealth has become their god. That is, covetousness is the worship of a false god, as Paul says in Col. 3:5, “covetousness, which is idolatry.”
2:23. You who boast in the law, through the transgression of the law, do you dishonor God?
In this verse, Paul in his last question comes to the heart of the matter. “You who boast in the law, through your transgress of the law, do you dishonor God?” The inconsistency of their hypocrisy brought discredit on God. Elsewhere, Paul warns his Christians readers to avoid this very thing (I Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:5).
2:24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, according as it is written.
In this verse, Paul explains how God is dishonored by their hypocrisy. “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” This is not a quote from the O.T. as in the RSV, but the wording is taken from the prophets regarding the exile and dispersion of the Jews (Isa. 52:5; Ezek. 36:20-21).
ROMANS 2:25-29.
25. For circumcision indeed is profitable if you practice the law: but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26. If therefore the uncircumcised keep the righteous acts of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? 27. Then the uncircumcised which is by nature, who fulfills the law, shall judge you, who through the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law: 28. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29. but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart,
by the Spirit not by the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
2:25. For circumcision indeed is profitable if you practice the law: but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
In the last five verses of this chapter, Paul takes up the subject of circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14; Acts 7:8). The Jews regarded circumcision as given by Moses and as an absolutely essential obedience to the law (“that the Law of Moses may not be broken”, John 7:22-23). Paul, again applying the fourth principle of God’s judgement, asserts that circumcision is profitable if they practice the law. But if they do not practice the law, that is, become a transgressor of the law, then their circumcision has become uncircumcision. This must have shocked Paul’s Jewish readers. To be uncircumcised, was to be a Gentile, a heathen.
2:26. If therefore the uncircumcised keep the righteous acts of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
Paul presses his argument further in this verse. “If therefore the uncircumcised keep the righteous acts of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision?” This also must have shocked Paul’s Jewish readers. Uncircumcision was same as circumcision!
2:27. Then the uncircumcised which is by nature, who fulfills the law, shall judge you, who through the letter and circumcision
are a transgressor of the law:
Paul presses his argument even further in this verse. “Then those who are by nature (physically) uncircumcised, who fulfil the law, shall judge you who through the letter and circumcision are transgressors of the law.” Not only are the uncircumcisied, who fulfil the law, to be considered as circumcised, but they shall judge you who are circumcised but do not fulfil the law by your transgressions of the law.
2:28. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
In these last two verses, Paul reaches the conclusion of his argument. He states his conclusion in this verse negatively and in the next verse positively. Negatively, his conclusion has two parts to it:
(1) “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly” and
(2) “neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.”
For the Jew being a Jew and being circumcised went together; to be a Jew was to be circumcised and not to be circumcised was not to be a Jew. Thus, for the Jew being a Jew was outward and circumcision was outward in the flesh. Paul denies this Jewish assumption in this verse, and in the next verse asserts that to be a Jew is inward and that circumcision is that of the heart.
2:29. but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, by the Spirit not by the letter;
whose praise is not from men but from God.
In this last verse of the chapter, Paul states his conclusion positively. Again, it has two parts:
(1) “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly” and
(2) “circumcision is that which is of the heart.”
Here Paul echoes Moses’ statement (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; see also Acts 7:51; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11). Then he adds, “by the Spirit, not by the letter,” to show that this is an act of God (see Deut. 30:6) and not by man’s legalistic observance of the letter of the law (see Rom. 7:6; II Cor. 3:6). Finally, Paul adds “whose praise is not from man, but from God.” Paul is here making reference to the name “Jew”, which is derived from Judah, which means “praise” (Gen. 29:35). This inwardness excludes all praise from men, which Jewish legalism encouraged (Matt. 6:1-5; 23:5-7; Luke 20:45-47). But God who sees the heart, gives him praise, because the circumicison of the heart is by the Spirit of God, and not by the human observance of the letter of the law.
ROMANS 3:1-2
1. What advantage then has a Jew? Or what is the profit of circumcision? 2. Much in every way. For indeed firstly because they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
It would appear from the previous discussion that their is no advantage in being a Jew and being circumcised. So when Paul asks in verse one the two questions (“what advantage has the Jew? Or, what is the profit of circumcision?”), we naturally would expect him to answer in the negative. But surprisingly he answers positively; “Much in every way.” When Paul begins his answer with firstly (proton), we expect the first item of a list. But he gives us only one item. On the other hand, maybe the proton does not mean first item of a list but the first of importance (“chiefly” KJV). And the answer he gives is of first importance: “because they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” The oracles (logia, words or pronouncements) of God probably refers to what God said and did as recorded in the O.T. The Jews were entrusted with the safekeeping of those records. This gave them the advantage of knowing God and His purposes and ways.
ROMANS 3:3-8
Now there follows three objections and Paul’s answers to them.
3. For what if some disbelieved? Shall their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4. May it not be! but let God be true, but every man a liar; according as it is written: “That you may be justified in thy words, and prevail when you are judged.” 5. Now if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) 6. May it not be! Otherwise how shall God judge the world? 7. But if the truth of God by my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I still judged a sinner? 8. and why not (according as we are slandered and according as some affirm that we say) let us do evil in order that good may come? Whose condemnation is just.
3:3. For what if some disbelieved? Shall their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?
In this verse, Paul states the first objection in the form of two questions. “For what if some disbelieved? Shall their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?” These questions assume the implied premise: “Some of Jews have disbelieved the oracles of God.” “Some” here means a part of the whole; the contrast here is not some vs many but some vs all (see Heb. 3:16). As Paul points later ( 11:3-5, 17, 25), the unbelief was not universal.
3:4. May it not be! but let God be true, but every man a liar; according as it is written: “That you may be justified in thy words, and prevail when you are judged.”
Paul strongly rejects the thought: “May it not be.” In his answer to the first objection, Paul links God’s faithfulness to God’s truthfulness and man’s unbelief to man’s falseness. Just as God’s faithfulness stands over against man’s unbelief, so God’s truthfulness stands over against man’s falseness. Men, who will not believe the truth (the true God), will believe the lie (the false gods) that claims to be the truth ( Rom. 1:21-23, 25). The quotation is from Psa. 51:4: “that you [God] may be justified [be in the right] in thy words, and overcome when you are judged [put down].” By using this quotation, Paul links God’s truthfulness and faithfulness to God’s righteousness and man’s falseness and unbelief to man’s unrighteousness. Paul will develop the answer to this objection more fully in chapters 9 thru 11.
3:5. Now if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.)
In this verse, Paul raises the second objection in the form of two questions. “Now if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath?” Paul seems embarrassed for even stating this objection, as shown by the parenthetical aside: “(I speak after the manner of men).”
3:6. May it not be! Otherwise how shall God judge the world?
Again Paul strongly rejects the thought: “May it not be.” He answers this second objection by another question which shows the inconsistency of the objection: if it true that God is unrighteous who inflicts wrath, then how shall God judge the world? The answer is obvious that God cannot judge the world without inflicting wrath and that God will judge the world in righteousness is clearly revealed (Psa. 9:8; 96:13; 98:9; John 5:22,27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rev. 20:11-13).
3:7. But if the truth of God by my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I still judged a sinner?
In this verse, Paul raises the third and last objection, again in the form of two questions. The first question is asked in this verse: “But if by my lie the truth of God abounded unto his glory, why am I still judged a sinner?” The second question is asked in the next verse.
3:8. and why not (according as we are slandered and according as some affirm that we say) let us do evil in order that good may come? Whose condemnation is just.
In this verse, Paul asks the second question of third objection: “and why not let us do evil in order that good may come?” Paul does not attempt to answer this objection. He dismisses these questions with a verbal slap: “whose judgment is just.” The judgement that comes on those who pervert the truth in order to evade all judgment is just. The introduction of the parenthetical thought “(as some people slanderously affirm that we say)” indicates that Paul has had a similar objection raised to his preaching of the grace of God: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” He will deal with that objection later in chapter 6.