Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:01]
A
Back to the Bible Let it be our plea God's word alone are authority Every word, every step in the name of Christ Back to the Bible for the way of life.
- [00:18]
B
Welcome to this period of Bible study. We are delighted to have the opportunity to share with you in a consideration of God's Word. And it is our desire to be faithful to God's Word and ultimately to glorify him in our efforts. Today we're going to jump right into our study of Romans chapter 2, beginning at about verse 17. And of course, if you have questions or comments about our study, we invite you to leave those comments and to reach out to us at our website backtothebiblepodcast.com in the book of Romans, we have made the case that Paul is writing to the churches in the city of Rome and that primarily his audience is made up of Gentile Christians in those congregations. We saw in verses 1 through 17 of chapter 1, Paul's introduction to the Romans. He doesn't seem to have ever been there, from what we can tell, and he has not met many of the Christians there, though he does know some. But he presents himself as an apostle specifically to the nations and wants to bring Rome under that apostolic authority. And he presents the theme of the letter, and perhaps we would say of his whole preaching mission in verses 16 and 17, where he says that he's not ashamed of the Gospel because it's God's power to salvation to everyone that believes gives faithfulness to the Jew first and also to the Greek. How? Because in it God's righteousness, his faithfulness to his promises is revealed just as it is written that the righteous shall live by faith. Now, how do we see God's righteousness? He uses the phrase from faith for faith. That is, as I understand it, in Jesus, faithfulness to the will of God all the way through the cross, leading to the resurrection and his ascension to the right hand of the throne on high. Jesus was faithful to God so that we can give our faithfulness to him and and find the salvation that is offered in the good news of the gospel. In verses 18 through 32 of chapter one, Paul explains that the Gentile world had fallen into deep depravity, and they had done so in the origins of that by rejecting the reality of God, failing to give thanks to him, failing to honor him as God, and ultimately turning to a worship of the creatures of rather than the Creator. And what that led to was them involving themselves in all kinds of ungodly and unrighteous activities because their focus was no longer on the Creator, but on the creation. In chapters 2, 1, 16, we made the case that Paul was writing to a Gentile conversation partner. That is, he speaks in the singular verbiage there. That is, he is not speaking to the group as a whole directly. He is speaking to a conversation partner that he is using as a teaching tool to talk to the Roman churches. Of course this is for their benefit, but he's using a teaching method called a diatribe in order to have this conversation. We made the case that the person he's having a conversation with here is a Gentile who looks at the nations and judges them for their activities, but really hasn't left them behind. In fact, he is living a hypocritical life. Now we come to verses 17 and following, and I take it to be that we're talking to the same conversation partner. Paul is using this same person in order to teach lessons to the Roman Christians. And so let's see what he has to say in verse 17. But if you bear the name Jew and rely upon the law, and boast in God, and know his will, and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth. You therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal? You who say one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law through your transgression of the law, do you dishonor God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, just as it is written. Now I want to make the case that this person who calls himself a Jew, who wears the name Jew, is a taken on identification, that is, he has taken on the Torah. He has taken on, as we'll see later in this passage, circumcision. And he claims to worship the one true God. He is Judaized. And he is, in my view, a Jew religiously at least in some ways, but he is a Gentile ethnically. Now one writer described this conversation partner as a Gentile who has taken to practicing certain elements of Jewish observance and thereby has come to claim that self definition. Now I think that this is the same person that Paul was talking about in verse one. That is, this is Paul's conversation partner who stands in judgment against the immorality of the Gentile world and then participates in it himself. Now, how does he feel justified in that? I think Paul tells us here he is bearing the name Jew he has Judaized and he believes that that he is in right standing, even though he is a hypocrite. Now, there are few reasons that I have taken this position and this will take up a good amount of our time for study. But I think it is very important that we understand who Paul's conversation partner is, because I think it is going to shape our consideration of the rest of the book of Romans. Some of the places that I think especially it has helped my consideration of the book is in chapter seven when we're talking about the one who wants to do right but feels enslaved by sin. Who is he talking about? I think it helps in chapters nine, 11 when he talks about the condition of Israel. To whom is he speaking? If we agree that Paul is talking to a Gentile congregation and he's using this conversation partner, especially in the first eight chapters, to identify one who is a Gentile but wants to identify as a Jew, thinking that is the way to be right with God, then it helps our reading of the rest of the letter. Now here are a few reasons I have for taking this position. First, consider the audience of the book. Paul does not seem to be approaching Jews. He is speaking to Gentiles. Throughout the letter he introduces his mission as trying to bring about the obedience of all the nations. Chapter one, verses five through seven, among whom he identifies the Romans. He says he's ready to come to Rome because he wants to preach among them. Because he's ready to preach to Greek and barbarian, to the wise and to the foolish. Because he believes that this is a message for the nations. Even as we see in his conversations in Romans 9:11 as he addresses the issue of Israel status, Romans 11:13, he says, but I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry. And then Even in chapter 15, verses 15 and 16, he says that he wrote boldly to them because of the grace that was given to him by God. What grace? Verse 16. For me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Paul says, the reason I wrote this letter in this bold way is because my message is for the Gentiles. Now in chapters nine through 11, when he's talking about the Israel situation, he references Israel, the Jewish people, as they and them. Now, I think that this is the primary reason to. To accept that the audience is Gentile and thus that the conversation partner would be Gentile. That is, this is a Gentile who is taking on this Jewish identity. Now, had the Christians in Rome done that? Maybe some of them had. I don't know. But we know that that is a concern all the way through the New Testament. Acts 15, the book of Galatians makes that very clear. Clear. Now, unless there is a specific change of audience, I think we should operate on the basis that he's talking to a Gentile all the way through. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't Jews in the audience, and that doesn't mean that there aren't lessons for Jews to learn. There are, but the audience he was writing to is not irrelevant for the interpretation of this passage and the letter. So it. If you're with me on that, then perhaps we can proceed further and it will make sense to you. If you're not with me there, we need to consider that more carefully, and I would be happy to take questions on that. But it also seems that as we read that in Romans 2, 17, 24, that Paul approaches this person with a pretty low perspective of the law and his relationship to it. I think if you'll look at verses 25 through 29, as we will look at in just a few moments, hopefully you will see that he also approaches the idea of circumcision with a very low view. Now, within just a few verses, Paul's reference to the law and circumcision is going to change quite a bit. Look at the beginning of chapter three. In the beginning of chapter three, Paul says, what advantage has the Jew? What value has circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, they were entrusted with the oracles of God. So is Paul saying that there's no value in circumcision or that there hasn't been? Is Paul saying there's no value in having received the law? Is he saying there's no value in being a Jew? No, he's saying there's a lot of value in that. But if you'll read from verses 17 through 29, he seems to have a pretty low view of those things. What's going on here? It makes sense. If we're dealing with a Gentile at the end of chapter two and then considering ethnic Jews at the beginning of chapter three, still writing to Gentiles and we'll get to that over time. But he's responding to a question at the beginning of chapter three that a Judaized Gentile might raise. I think we should consider that Paul would have, for example, a Jewish young man named Timothy circumcised while resisting it firmly for a Gentile young man named Titus. Now, Paul does not seem to be opposed to ethnic practice for Jews, but he is hostile towards imposing that on Gentiles or on Gentiles accepting those requirements as a condition for being right with God, for being in Christ. You can see the book of Galatians all about that. I think this fits very well with what Paul will say in Galatians chapter 5, that it sounds like the kind of circumcision that would make one fall from grace. We'll say more about that later. Notice also that Paul refers to this person as one who calls himself a Jew or bears the name Jew. Now could it be that this sinful Gentile that we read about in verses 1 through 16, that we've seen in verses 17 through 24, is turned to a so called Jew and he's doing that in judgment against the rest of the Gentiles? I think Paul is certainly saying that ethnic Jewishness and outward circumcision aren't the ultimately valuable thing that would undermine the idea that a Gentile needs to become a Jew and, and be circumcised. Now maybe we could connect this to First Corinthians 5, 11, where Paul says, talking about the one that they should withdraw from, he says if anyone calls himself a brother now, of course we would say, well, that person is a brother and they're just calling themselves that here in chapter two. Is he actually a Jew? And he's still calling himself that. But maybe Paul is granting that the one here, he is writing to Israel a Jew, that he is an actual proselyte to Judaism. But he's not acting like a real Jew, like a descendant of Abraham. How do we know? Look at what he said in the preceding paragraph. He may have gone through the rites of Jewish identification. He may have been circumcised, he may be keeping a Sabbath, but he was living a life of hypocrisy and immorality, judging the Gentile world for things he may not have expressed approval for, he may have even disapproved of, but he was still participating in. That was a thing. Even the New Testament points to proselytization as a legitimate thing. Acts 6:4 5. But this person, who might have just been a Jew was just calling himself that, even though he had the mark of the covenant. But their theft and their adultery and their other sins indicate that they were Jews by identification only. It was only skin deep. It had always needed to go deeper. And now, especially for the Gentile, their answer to their need for salvation was not circumcision. It was Christ who called them to repentance and faithfulness. And ultimately, as I said a few minutes ago, I think this makes for a better reading of the book. What is Paul arguing? We will see very shortly that he is arguing that God is faithful to his promise to Abraham, that he is faithful to that promise by saving the uncircumcised nations and the circumcised Jews. Abraham thus is fully the father of many nations. If it's required for Gentiles to become Jews, they seem to be missing the fullness of the promise to Abraham. And hopefully we will see how this helps our reading of the rest of the letter. And I think that this helps us have a better sense of the things that Paul says so positively about the law, while also seeming to be arguing against the law itself. It served a powerful purpose, still does. But it was never intended for the Gentiles to be under. And to be sure, it wasn't the ultimate end for Jews either. But Paul's going to address that specifically in chapters nine through 11, especially chapter 10, verses one through four, where he says that Christ was the end, the goal of the law. Now, we should take a moment to note that Paul does not hold a hostile attitude toward the law as it was meant to be read. And some people treat Paul that way. He knows Deuteronomy 30 because he quotes it in chapters 9 through 11. And in that section, God's saying through Moses that this is not an impossible standard. You can keep it. Zacharias and Elizabeth, Luke 1, verse 5, were both righteous according to the law. It wasn't an impossible standard that nobody could keep. We should also note that the law was never just a hoop for people to jump through. It was never intended to just see whether or not the people would listen. It was always for their good. Paul calls it holy and righteous and good in chapter seven. Now, while the law does end up being primarily just a spotlight on their sin, that's not what it was intended to be. Only that's not all it could have been, that's not all it should have been, and that's not all it was for those who were faithful to God. But we can see from the Book of Acts that not Even Paul was hostile to Jewish observance of the law. He wanted the brothers and sisters in Christ, who, who were Jews, to know that he himself was committed to faithful law keeping. We see that in chapter 21. In fact, in chapter 3, Paul still recognizes the value of the law for those people of Israel. But this is the key idea that we're going to come back to. Throughout the Book of Romans, the law of Moses was never intended for Gentiles to be under. Of course, it's still for our benefit, as Paul will show by constantly referencing it through the Book of Romans, building his whole case on it. Beyond that, for the Jews, the law was always intended to point them to Christ. So when a Gentile believed he needed to be brought under the law or a Jew failed to follow Jesus, both had missed the promise and the purpose of the law, as we will continue to see throughout the letter to the Romans. Back to the letter to the Romans. So he calls himself a Jew, and he says that he relies on the law, boasts in God, knows his will, approves not the things of the nations, but the things that are essential being taught from the law. And, and so much to the point that they are trying to teach even other Gentiles to convert. Now, he asks this set of questions. You say that you're a teacher, but do you teach yourself? You preach against stealing, adultery, idolatry, but do you steal, commit adultery, rob temples? I think that the implied answer to all of these questions, even though this person thinks he's a faithful Jew, is that he is actually a lawbreaker. The answer to the rhetorical, not questions, is yes, I do. That's what Paul's prodding at anyway. This conversation partner is a Jew in name only because he's still participating in thievery, adultery, idolatry in some way. In fact, this is the way that many of the Jewish teachers had made Gentile converts were. Remember what Jesus said in chapter 23 of Matthew in verse 15, that they went across the world trying to make a convert a proselyte, and then when they were finished with him, he was twice the son of Hell that they were. How was that the case? I think they were converting them to Jewish identity, but they weren't calling them to inner transformation. Now, what could Paul have against this guy? How does he not think that Gentiles, excuse me, he does not think that Gentiles should submit to the law of Moses, to the Torah, the instruction, because it was part of the covenant with Israel, because this man undergoes these Jewish rites, circumcision, and things like that. He had failed to hold up God's name before the nations. He cites verse 24. The name of God is blasphemed among the nations or among the Gentiles, because of you, just as it is written. Notice you can look back at Isaiah 52, 5, and that is a reference to the nations, not to Israel. By thinking he had to become a Jew first, this man shows that he does. He doesn't see God's promises being totally fulfilled. He fails to display a confidence in God's promises to Abraham. I hope that makes sense, because God had promised to Abraham that in him all nations would be blessed. And by this man thinking that he has to be circumcised and become a Jew first, he is blaspheming God's name because it's as if God had not kept his promises. Now, in verses 25 through 29, here's what Paul says. For indeed, circumcision is of value if you practice the law. But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man observes the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, will he not judge you, who, through the letter of the law and circumcised, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly. Nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly. And circumcision is that which is of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter. And his praise is not from men, but from God. I think Paul's point here is that circumcision was never supposed to be only skin deep. It was only always supposed to point to a circumcised, softened, touchable heart. Look at Jeremiah 4:4 and Jeremiah 9, 25, 26. And that was the point even for Israel. But they had failed. Now this Gentile who has been circumcised is basically uncircumcised because he missed the real way. A Gentile would find adoption into God's family and be grafted God's olive tree, which was not by becoming an ethnic Jew, but by being faithful to Jesus. We'll see that in Romans 8, 14, 17 and in chapter 11, verses 16 through 22. Now, Paul is not telling a Jew that his circumcision is nullified by a sin. There were lots of provisions for circumcised Jews sin. Think about Exodus 22:1 where provision is made for sin. Sin did not make a Jewish man's circumcision count for nothing because God had made provision for forgiveness for the Jewish people. Rather, it is that the Gentile has violated God's law on this matter. Actually, he points to verse 27 to some transgression of the law of the Torah. What's his transgression? He sins through circumcision. How could a Jew transgress through circumcision? He couldn't. But how was circumcision a transgression? How is the Gentiles circumcision in an effort to identify as a Jew a sin? Because they underwent it without being members of Abraham's family and not on the eighth day. A Gentile's adult circumcision in order to be a part of God's family amounted to a transgression. This is exactly the point that Paul is making in Galatians chapter 5 and verse 4. He says, if you want to be justified by the law, you are fallen from grace. If a Gentile believed that in order to be part of God's people, they need to take on the law of Moses or circumcision that caused one to fall away from the grace available in Jesus. If they were placing their hope in circumcision, they had missed Jesus. Can we also suggest that this Gentile's desire to become a Jew missed God's faithfulness to his promise? God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations and that all nations would be blessed through him, not just Jews. So to feel like one had to submit to circumcision to partake of God's promises, missed that the blessing would come through Abraham's family to all nations. Now this Gentile man should have remained uncircumcised if he really grasped God's promises and and God's faithfulness, which Paul will show us more as we go through the letter. One who was devoted to God from the inside would be a true Jew. Verses 28 and 29 tell us now. I think what happens here is I think he's telling the Gentiles that not even all ethnic descendants from Abraham are real Jews. Only those who were circumcised in the heart were real. Jews were really the people God had always wanted. In Deuteronomy chapter 10 and verse 16, God called upon them to circumcise their hearts and to stiffen their necks. No longer. God never intended his people's identity to be summed up in being Jewish and in being outwardly circumcised. Israel Jewishness was narrower than circumcision. It only includes those Jews who were circumcised on the outside and on the inside. And if circumcision fleshly is not enough for ethnic Jews, it's certainly not enough for Gentiles who want to do it, but still want to share in the sins of the nations. If that was true for Jewish people, that if they had to be circumcised by of the heart to whom circumcision was given, how much more so for Gentiles who had never been given circumcision as a sign of the covenant. Circumcision was never the fundamental thing before or after Christ. Heart transformation was the fundamental thing. Paul will show us Christ's faithfulness and our faithful response to him is the thing that makes us one of God's people. And we'll leave off there until next time. We bid you a pleasant good day.
- [29:31]
A
Back to the Bible. Let it be our plea. God's word alone, our authority, every word, every step in the name of Christ. Back to the Bible for the way of life.