# Rom. 2:25-29



## timfost (Jun 4, 2015)

> 25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.



I'm needing some help on this one. Does the expression "if you keep the law" speak to perfect law keeping, or the imperfect obedience of the faithful? In other words, does this passage fall under a realistic scenario of imperfect obedience or a hypothetical scenario as Paul sets up Ch. 3's "none righteous" theme? Or something else?

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 4, 2015)

It's possible there is just a bit of foreshadowing of the principle expressed in 4:12-16 that faith alone is the saving instrument, for Gentiles and Jews alike.

But in Paul's overall scheme for this letter, we are dead in the middle of the "bad news" section, 1:18-3:20. It is much more to the point to recognize the proposal as hypothetical, IF you (Mr.Circumcision) keep the law, or IF an uncircumcised man could keep it. The supposition is contrary to fact, but holds true if indeed righteousness could come by law-fulfillment--universal moral law being in view. But the reality is ALL _have_ sinned...

The ceremonial law of circumcision stands in the example as a positive "house rule" for Jews. Circumcision was part of _Jewish_ law-keeping for as long as there was an old covenant, because God is free to charge any particular person or persons with a special duty whenever he likes. The OT church had generally turned this sign almost if not always into a passport to divine favor--even more important than stealing or adultery (vv21-22) etc.


----------



## timfost (Jun 4, 2015)

Thanks, Bruce! So if I could offer a dynamic equivalent: "You Jews think that you're saved because you are a descendent of Abraham and are circumcised. You are so far off track that an uncircumcised Gentile could be saved by keeping the law while you will be condemned because you broke the law."

The point seems to be taking away the carnal assurance from the Jews, not suggesting that anyone can be saved through law-keeping as the doctrine of justification by faith has not been expounded upon yet. Correct? 

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 4, 2015)

Indeed. In all honesty, when one grasps the purpose for this letter and gets a handle on its structure, so much confusion about Paul's precise meaning or intention in one place or other is at least put onto the right track for a resolution.

In simple terms: "wrath revealed" (1:18) and "righteousness revealed" (3:21) indicate the openings of the two initial divisions of the letter. Paul wants to discuss with the Roman church his gospel (good news) proclamation (note his thematic statement, 1:16-17); which must be preceded ordinarily by conviction of sin.

One may dissect the rest of chs.1&2 by examining various categories of unbelief: Gentiles, godless, idolatrous, and immoral; and the pagan moralist; finally, the Jew also, regardless of his legal pride. And in the end of the section, 3:10ff, after handling a few common queries and objections (e.g. what advantage does the Jew have, then?), the apostle produces the divine verdict against all mankind, scoured mainly from the Psalter (the Hebrew _poets,_ cf. Act.17:28).

More could be said, obviously. But in process of expositing and defending of the gospel of free grace, Paul deals further with questions, and objections to the doctrine of justification by faith.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 4, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> One may dissect the rest of chs.1&2 by examining various categories of unbelief: Gentiles, godless, idolatrous, and immoral; and the pagan moralist; finally, the Jew also, regardless of his legal pride. And in the end of the section, 3:10ff, after handling a few common queries and objections (e.g. what advantage does the Jew have, then?), the apostle produces the divine verdict against all mankind, scoured mainly from the Psalter (the Hebrew _poets,_ cf. Act.17:28).



That strikes me as quite reminiscent of how Amos (chapters 1 and 2) circles around condemning the various nations before getting to his main target, Israel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 4, 2015)

py3ak said:


> That strikes me as quite reminiscent of how Amos (chapters 1 and 2) circles around condemning the various nations before getting to his main target, Israel.


I enjoyed preaching through Amos not so long ago (and Joel before that). 

In 2001, as a licentiate (well..., almost!) I preached through Hosea, which still pains me to think of it. I learned a lot; but I don't know if the folks receiving the messages took that much away.

Preaching the prophets is preaching another man's sermon notes, basically.


----------



## timfost (Jun 4, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Indeed. In all honesty, when one grasps the purpose for this letter and gets a handle on its structure, so much confusion about Paul's precise meaning or intention in one place or other is at least put onto the right track for a resolution.



Yes! Sometimes I read through Romans slowly, sometimes fast. The continuity, flow of thought, systematic construction and Paul's enthusiasm are remarkable! It can be admired from afar and from close up.

Thanks again for your help.


----------

