# Commentary on Romans 2:28-29



## Herald (Jul 14, 2007)

[bible]Romans 2:28-29[/bible]

what say you about the following commentary on this passage?



> Right standing with God is not on the basis of outward conformity to a set of rules, even the Ten Commandments. Right standing with God comes from God Himself, by the circumcision of the heart. This circumcision signifies the reality of the cutting away of the old life (which was subjected to rules and conditions that could only condemn) and replacing it with a new life that is built upon the finished work of Christ and accomplished by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## JM (Jul 15, 2007)

When in doubt, go to Gill.



> Rom 2:28 - For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly,.... The apostle removes the plea in favour of the Jews, taken from their name and privilege, by distinguishing between a Jew and a Jew, and between circumcision and circumcision: "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly"; by mere name, nature, nation, religion, and profession:
> 
> neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; which takes away the flesh of the foreskin, but not the carnality of the heart; leaves a mark upon the flesh, but no impression on the mind. This is nothing, is not the true, solid, substantial, spiritual circumcision, which only avails in the sight of God.
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 15, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> [bible]Romans 2:28-29[/bible]
> 
> what say you about the following commentary on this passage?
> 
> ...



I find it deficient Bill. There's a kernel of truth to it but it is sort of shallow and even a bit dispensational.

It seems to imply that the "old life" is the way things used to be in the Old Covenant (which was subjected to rules and conditions that could only condemn) as if that is what the nature of Old Covenant was.

In the context, the introduction of this concept is actually a bit troublesome to teach initially if you are tracing the argument when you're teaching it. One is tempted to jump ahead to a concept that Paul has not yet developed in Romans. He still hasn't really culminated the argument he begins in Romans 1:18 and ends in crescendo in Romans 3:20. He's building to Romans 3:20 and this is a piece to the condemnation of man and not a "sneak peak" at imputation. 

Thus, I find it improper for both your commentator (and Gill for that matter) to be introducing so many concepts early that Paul has not yet even covered. It would completely disrupt the force of Paul's argument. This is the immediate context of the passage:


> 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?


Paul's purpose here in the argument at large is to demonstrate Verse 25. He makes the same argument in Galatians. Here his point is to show that, like the Gentiles, the Jews stand condemned in God's sight (of course the Jews even more so because they're disobeying clear commands that have confirmed the law written on their heart). The uncircumcised man, within the argument, is introduced as a hypothetical to strip the Jew of his pride. He doesn't say that such men exist and he doesn't even come back to this thought after he's fully expressed the Gospel content.

Thus, a better understanding of the passage would not be to try to "read ahead" to a Gospel understanding of the verses but to see them in the flow of the argument, which in this portion is to show that Jews, like Gentiles, are not justified by the keeping of the Law.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 15, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> [bible]Romans 2:28-29[/bible]
> 
> what say you about the following commentary on this passage?



It's fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. What should be added is the stress that obedience, while not contributing to salvation in any way, follows salvation as the proof of it's genuineness. Whoever that is leaves the impression that obedience is not required at all, even post-conversion.


----------

