Appearances are everything—or so it seems to be the case in our day. A man might be absolutely broke but as long as he appears to be well-off, that’s what matters. A woman might be utterly miserable with herself or with her family but as long as she appears to be happy and contented, that’s what matters. We’ve all seen it; we’ve likely all participated in it, too! We’ve put on the front: a nice smile, a bit of a strut, flashing a few dollars here and there, loudly laughing at jokes. Meanwhile, reality is another story. The smile covers inward despair; the strut hides the haunting desperation; the money and laughs distract from the condition of the heart. So often, the proverbial “life of the party” conceals the inward ache of his soul.
One can live with covering up reality for so long that he finally begins to believe his own lie. He convinces himself that everything is fine as long as he can play the cover game. As long as others think he’s got it together, that’s what matters. But does it?
I remember sitting in an 8:00 A.M. Greek class and hearing the president of our college ministerial association admit that he had been playing a game. He had convinced all of us that he was a Christian when in reality, he had lived a lie; using the right words, smiling at the right point, offering the appropriate “Amen,” speaking up with a Bible verse here and there. Meanwhile, his soul grew darker and darker as he sought to convince himself that all was well because he was a minister, because he used Christian lingo, because he spoke in churches, because everyone thought he was a Christian. All the props that he relied on spiritually had been kicked out. Needless to say, verb conjugation was not the same that day; his confession of living a lie and finally coming to repentance and faith in Christ, stunned the Greek class and gave all of us pause to consider our souls before God.
Until the props are knocked out, we will persist in relying upon a faulty standing before God. So, that’s what Paul does in the opening chapters of Romans. He knocks out one prop after another, leaving us with nothing to cling to, no sufficient righteousness of our own, and no excuse before God. Painful? Yes! Necessary? Absolutely! Until we rely upon the righteousness of Christ alone we live with false hope toward eternity. But you might ask, “What other prop could possibly be left?” Paul’s already knocked down so many. There’s still one remaining, what Martyn Lloyd-Jones calls, “the last bastion of the Jew’s defence” [Romans: the Righteous Judgment of God, Romans 2:1-3:20, 152]. Do some among us have a similar last bastion that needs to be shattered so that we might know the indescribable wonder of peace with God through Christ alone?
The Apostle continues with his imaginary debater. They’ve jousted over Jewish superiority, Jewish heritage, possessing the Law, and even election as God’s people. Now Paul goes after the last weapon in the Jew’s spiritual arsenal: circumcision. Surely, circumcision counted for more than anything else. Surely, God would not overlook one circumcised like Abraham and Moses. Well, we shall see!
The hardest person to reach with the gospel is the one that clings to something faulty as his assurance of right standing with God. He will hear your gospel talk, nod his head as though all is well and good with what you say, and yet he tenaciously clings to a faulty assurance that he is right with God.
He’s like the Pharisee in the temple that patted himself on the back and told God how excellent he himself had been through tithing and fasting and superior morality. Or like the rich young ruler, who upon hearing Jesus recount the moral law as necessary righteousness toward eternal life, replied, “All these I have kept from my youth.” In other words, what more can I do than I have already done? Even though he sensed something deficient in his life he would not admit his own sinful condition before God. He still clings to a form of righteousness that satisfies his view of God but can never satisfy God.
That’s what Paul had been chipping away in his argument with the religious sinner. His inadequate foundation upon which he relied for standing with God might suffice to impress others or to make him feel good about himself but it would not hold up before God. So Paul demolishes the claim of relying on election and heritage—“if you bear the name ‘Jew’.” He demolishes the claim of reliance on works of the Law—“if you…rely on the Law”—in spite of the fact that “it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be just.” There’s a big difference between possession and practice. He demolishes the perception of God—“you…boast in God”—as though one has God worked out satisfactorily in his own understanding (he’s got God in his nice, neat little box so that He won’t trouble him). He demolishes the perception of understanding the things of God that matter—“and [you] know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law.” And he demolishes the perception that he possessed such enlightenment that he can teach and correct others—“you…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” (2:17-20).
Is there anything left to stand on? The Jew retreats to his “last bastion” or what Robert Haldane called “his last retreat” [quoted by J.M. Boice, Romans: Justification by Faith, vol. 1, 258]. The reliance, in a word, is circumcision, that cutting away of the male foreskin as an outward sign that one was truly a Jew. And in a broader concept with circumcision embodying its essence, is reliance upon the ceremonial law. Paul had already disemboweled any confidence in relying upon the moral law, not due to the Law’s deficiency but to the deficiency of the human heart and will. But the ceremonial law, especially circumcision and its particular signal that one belonged to the Lord, added another layer of self-confidence before God. Though circumcision did not originate in the Mosaic ceremonial law but rather in the covenant made with Abraham, it evolved into a ceremonial regulation devoid of the inward reality that it was supposed to represent.
Paul explains, “For indeed [note that he’s drawing yet another conclusion in his chain of argumentation] circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” Circumcision signaled that one belonged to the Lord by covenant. But if the covenant stipulations in the Law were transgressed, then the circumcision became uncircumcision. Being a transgressor invalidated circumcision’s worth so that one became permanently uncircumcised. The use of the perfect tense in “has become” indicates a settled state. Transgression negates whatever effect circumcision might have had to position oneself before God.
Jesus told of the man building his house on the sand. The house looked good to him and to others that saw it. But the foundation was unreliable so that when the storms came and the winds blew and the waves crashed in on it, that house fell—“and great was its fall” (Matthew 7:24-27).
The foundation must be sound or everything built on it will eventually tumble. It’s not that a house built upon a faulty foundation might not stand for a while. It probably will. But the day will come when the foundation is tested and the fall will be great.
The Jews of Paul’s day counted on circumcision not only to distinguish them from the Gentiles but also as their “trump card” that would cover them in the end from God’s wrath. Listen to what their rabbis taught in that era.
Rabbi Menachem, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses…says, “Our Rabbins have said, that no circumcised man will see hell.”
In the Jalkut Rubeni…it is taught, “Circumcision saves from hell.”
In the Medrasch Tillim…it is said, “God swore to Abraham, that no one who was circumcised should be sent to hell.”
In the book Akedath Jizehak…it is taught that “Abraham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there” [quoted by Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 63, from Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes Judenthum, Part II. 285].
Do you follow that? I have it made! I’m circumcised and “circumcision saves from hell,” so what more do I need?
But Paul dismantles the confidence in circumcision: “but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” ‘Hmmm.’ ‘Seems that you’ve forgotten something,’ Paul indicates. ‘You’ve forgotten the holiness of God. You’ve forgotten the righteousness of God. You’ve come to think so little of God that a mere cutting in the flesh is all that is necessary for God to accept you and for His wrath against you as a transgressor to be laid aside.’ Is God so pathetic as to forego His righteousness? Is He an unethical Judge that lets the transgressor of His Law escape righteous judgment?
Yes, the Jew had circumcision in the flesh but he was still a transgressor or lawbreaker before God. His sin glared before a holy God. Circumcision does nothing to take away sin. It does nothing to impute righteousness. It’s a flimsy argument before God.
Yet that kind of flimsy argumentation doesn’t belong only to 1st century Jews. Multitudes cling to similar arguments in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox circles. Baptism, whether as an infant as a supposed “sign and seal of the covenant,” or as a youth or adult after a profession of faith, is unreliable for standing with God. It differs not one speck from the Jewish reliance on circumcision! Yet how many cling to their baptism? Some baptized as infants think that their baptism is a covering from wrath—but where is there any evidence of that in Scripture? It’s not there [for a thorough study on this, I recommend reading Fred Malone’s The Baptist of Disciples Alone]. Just as many, if not more, rely upon their baptism as a child or youth or adult as their claim to right standing with God. “But I’ve been baptized,” I’ve heard so many times from those I’ve questioned about their salvation. Where is baptism the standard of divine acceptance? That doesn’t minimize it; it is the God-given means to profess our faith in Christ and unite with the local church. But it is not the source of righteousness before God or else Jesus and His disciples would not have gone out and preached the gospel; they would have just gone and baptized.
Others hang onto church membership as the sacred “church letter” that keeps them out of hell, just as the early Jews looked at circumcision. My first pastorate was in southwest Mississippi deep in the woods at the end of a gravel road. We had forty there rain or shine, except during “decoration” season when half the church would be gone to decorate a local cemetery. I was stunned to find out that the church had 350 church members! Who knew where most of them were? Yet several hundred clung to their sacred letter in that church as their standing with God. But that cannot keep you from the wrath of God.
Others rely upon some outward act of penance such as walking an aisle or regular rededication in Protestant circles, and confessional booths, ‘Hail Mary’s,’ self-flagellations, or the rosary in Catholic circles.
Yet others rely upon celebrating the mass or observing the Lord’s Supper to commend them to God. Where do we find anything in Scripture to affirm any of these things as the ground of acceptance before a holy God? “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.” In other words, if you break God’s Law none of these things will help you before God. Only perfect righteousness will do for a perfectly righteous God. “But, I believe right doctrine,” someone says. “I’m very orthodox in my belief system.” But do you have perfect righteousness to present to God? My friend, in the gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” (1:17), not in circumcision or baptism or church membership or penance or mass or the Lord’s Supper or even in orthodoxy.
The Jews missed the point when it came to the Law and when it came to circumcision’s value.
Who’s better off: the Jew who is circumcised but transgresses the Law or the Gentile who is uncircumcised but fulfills the Law? “So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” Paul’s comparing the Gentile that keeps the requirements of the Law with the Jew that doesn’t. Which does God commend? It’s not one’s nationality or religious heritage or conformity to religious ceremony that puts a person in right standing before God. It’s righteousness that God accepts!
This problem existed long before Paul was born. As Moses, the lawgiver as he was called, reiterated the law to the second generation out of Egypt’s bondage, he reminded them of the inadequacy of mere physical circumcision. In Deuteronomy 10, he called upon Israel to fear the Lord, to walk in His ways, to love Him, and “to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the Lord’s commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today…” (10:12-13). Then, with gripping clarity, he declared, “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer” (10:16). It was not outward circumcision, as important as that was for identity of the Jew, that God desired. Rather, He called for inward circumcision of the heart—the cutting away of the sin and wickedness that had enslaved them. In Jeremiah 9:25-26, God rebukes the rebellious people, saying that they were “circumcised and yet uncircumcised,” explaining, “all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.”
That’s the point of the new covenant as well. Instead of the legalism of outward conformity to the Law but inward rebellion against God, the Lord will change the inward disposition and incline the heart to obedience. “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer. 31:33). There will be true righteousness coming from a regenerated heart. So the regenerate Gentile is better off than the circumcised Jew. This will be clearer when we get to verse 29.
Here’s the sticky point: a comparison is made once again between those physically uncircumcised and yet fulfilling the Law with those physically circumcised and yet transgressing the Law. “And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law [this time the word telousa is used and is better translated as “fulfills”], will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?” Paul had already questioned the right of even a religious person to judge the wickedness of the Gentiles, described in 1:18-32, when they did the same sins though perhaps more civilly (2:1-4). The one who “keeps the Law” or better, “fulfills the Law” through union with Christ, actually finds acceptance with God, not on the basis of outward ceremony but due to an inward transformation of heart and life.
What does the Law do? (1) It reveals God’s righteousness in a clear standard. It is stated categorically, so that there’s no question about what constitutes righteousness and no question about what God accepts as righteous. (2) Yet the Law also exposes our unrighteousness. Every time we open the Law and begin to read, “You shall have no other God before Me; you shall not make for yourselves any grave image; you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; honor the Sabbath to keep it holy; honor your father and mother; you shall not commit murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not covet”; every time we re smitten with the reality of our sin before God. The commands go to the heart and expose both the attitude and the act, the thought and the deed. They not only expose the violation of the prohibition but also the omission of the positive side of the command.
(3) This leaves us guilty as transgressors of the Law. Guilty before God, we stand helpless to defend ourselves or to make excuses. (4) The Law points to our need for true righteousness before God.
The difference between the two scenes that Paul paints is that one has all of the outward ceremonial trappings of religion but does not fulfill the Law; the other lacks the outward show but fulfills the Law. What the Apostle aims for is to show the necessity of righteousness not religious show, as the necessary ground of acceptance before God. “And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?”
How is the Law fulfilled? First, it is not done by mere “letter,” which can be viewed in two ways: (1) it’s not just because you have the Law in your possession nor (2) is it because you give outward show of conformity to the Law that counts. The Law reveals our sin. It shows us that we need a new heart inclined toward obedience if we are to please God. But apart from the regenerating work of God’s Spirit, we cannot produce such a heart inclined to obey God! The Law renders us helpless. It is only by God removing the transgressions that keep us guilty before Him and by Him putting righteousness where guilt has been, that we are counted righteous. But that leaves us in a precarious spot due to our sin! Ultimately, thank God, righteousness of the Law is fulfilled by Christ. It is only those in union with Him through faith that fulfill the Law.
I think that it’s important to recognize that Paul is not referring to a Gentile without revelation of God, and who just happens to fulfill the Law even without understanding it. Instead, he’s undermining the Jews who thought that they had a claim on God and the Gentiles did not. This is evident in 3:1ff when he does talk of the Jews’ advantage as being those who first received from God. But that was an advantage in God’s kindness shown in revelation by giving them the Law and circumcision; but even those things were no substitutes for righteousness. Paul brings the full thrust of his argument in this regard to a conclusion when he uses the same word translated as “keeps” in our text, better translated as “fulfilled,” in 10:4. “For Christ is the end [telos, the fulfillment] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” It is reliance upon Christ’s righteousness on our behalf that we fulfill the demands of the Law. Gentiles who trust Christ for righteousness are counted righteous while the Jew having the Law and circumcision but remain transgressors are not counted righteous.
The argument comes to a shocking declaration that an ethnic Jew might not be a true Jew.
In the context, Paul uses “Jew” as the people of God, those chosen by Him, those shown God’s favor, and those in covenant with God. But what the Apostle does in verse 28 is to show that there’s a difference between the ethnic Jew and the true Jew. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.” One is outwardly marked Jewish by circumcision in the flesh. But that’s where his religion stops. It’s external; he depends upon his own heritage and works to give him standing with God. The other does not rely on externals at all. He depends upon the work of the Spirit in regenerating him or circumcising his heart in the new covenant promise found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
That shattered the confidence of those relying on their Jewish heritage to commend them to God. Paul insists, ‘You’ve missed the point of being Jewish if you think that God is most concerned with your ethnicity and your ceremony.’ God is concerned about righteousness! Sufficient righteousness to stand before Him is only found through God’s provision in Christ Jesus. The true Jew is one circumcised in heart—regenerated by the Spirit with as a new creature inclined to love, serve, and obey the Lord.
Verse 29 answers the startling declaration of verse 28 by four contrasts in order to show that the point of boasting before God is never found in ethnicity or ceremony but only in Christ and His righteousness on our behalf. “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.” Consider the contrasts.
(1) He contrasts outward appearance with inward reality: “he is a Jew who is one inwardly.” The outward markings of circumcision without the Spirit’s work in the heart are of no value at judgment. God looks on the heart.
(2) He contrasts circumcision in the flesh with circumcision of the heart: “and circumcision is that which is of the heart.” True religion before God is not about outward appearance or a show of the flesh. It’s about a new life in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
(3) He contrasts the dependence upon the letter with the action taken by the Spirit: “by the Spirit, not by the letter.” It’s not the old covenant written in stone that only condemns that produces life; it’s instead, the work of the Spirit writing God’s Law upon the heart in the new birth, giving us a new disposition to follow after Christ.
(4) He contrasts the commendation by men with commendation that counts, that which comes from God: “his praise is not from men, but from God.” There’s a play on words since “Jew” is a derivative of “Judah” which means praise (Gen. 29:35; 49:8). Whether men approve of us or commend us, in eternal issues, is of no value. It’s the commendation of the Lord God that matters. It’s His opinion of us that counts for eternity. He doesn’t accept the show of outward ceremony as righteousness. It’s only the pure, perfect righteousness of His Son that is acceptable to God. And that’s what the gospel is all about! The gospel of Christ reveals God’s righteousness for sinners by faith in Christ.
What are you relying on before God? Your baptism? Your church membership? Your attending mass or partaking of the Lord’s Supper? Your religious heritage?
The righteous God only accepts perfect righteousness; and that is found in Christ alone. Is He your righteousness?
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by South Woods Baptist Church.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy:
Copyright South Woods Baptist Church. Website: www.southwoodsbc.org. Used by permission as granted on web site. Questions, comments, and suggestions about our site can be sent here.
Copyright 2008, South Woods Baptist Church, All Rights Reserved