what say you about the following commentary on this passage?
Quote:
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.
__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
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.
Rom 2:29 - But he is a Jew which is one inwardly,.... Who has an internal work of grace upon his soul: who has not only an outward name, but an inward nature; not the law of God in the hand, but in the heart; not an external righteousness only, but internal holiness; and who is not a mere outward court worshipper, but a worshipper of God in Spirit and in truth. The Jews have a (e) saying themselves,
"that whosoever denies idolatry, נקרא יהודי, "is called a Jew":''
so that, according to them, this is a name that is not confined to themselves, but belongs to all such who truly fear and worship God; and they say, in the same place, that Pharaoh's daughter was called יהודית, "a Jewess", because she denied idolatry, and went down to wash herself from the idols of her father's house. And elsewhere (f),
"that faith does not depend upon circumcision, but upon the heart: he that believes not as he should, circumcision does not make him a Jew; and he that believes as he ought, he indeed is a Jew, though he is not circumcised.''
And circumcision is that of the heart; which God requires, and he himself promises to give, Deu_10:16, upon which last passage, a very noted Jew (g) has this observation, זאת היא מלת הלב, "this is the circumcision of the heart"; the very phrase the apostle here uses: circumcision of the flesh was typical of this, which lies in a godly sorrow for sin, in a putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and in renouncing a man's own righteousness in the business of justification. The ancient Jews had some notion of this typical use of circumcision. So Philo the Jew says (h), that circumcision taught ηδονων και παθων παντων εκτομην, "the cutting off of all pleasures and affections": and elsewhere he says (i): it is a symbol of two things particularly; the one is the cutting off of pleasures, as before; and the other is the removal of arrogancy, that grievous disease of the soul: and in another place (k) he calls purity, or chastity, περιτομης περιτομην, "the circumcision of circumcision". Now this our apostle says is
in the spirit; meaning either the spirit or soul of man, which is the seat and subject of it; or the Spirit of God, who is the author of it: the Ethiopic version reads it, "by the Holy Ghost":
and not in the letter; or "by the letter" of the law; but the Holy Ghost produces this spiritual work instrumentally, by the preaching of the Gospel. To which the apostle adds,
whose praise is not of men, but of God; referring not to circumcision immediately spoken of before, but to the Jew who is one inwardly: and alludes to the name Judah, from whence the Jews are called, which comes from the word ידה, which signifies to "praise"; and intimates here, that such persons must not expect praise from men, who are only taken, with outward things, but from God, who searches and knows the heart.
(e) T. Bab. Megilia, fol. 13. 1. (f) Nizzachon ad Gen. xvii. Apud Maji Theolog. Jud. p. 252. (g) R. David Kimchi in Jer. iv. 4. (h) De Migrat. Abraham, p. 402. (i) De Circumcisione, p. 811. (k) De Somniis, p. 1111.
__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor
"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov
what say you about the following commentary on this passage?
Quote:
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.
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
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.
Linear Mode
