Romans 2:26 Komentář

The scope of the first two chapters of this epistle may be gathered from Rom 3:9, "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin." This we have proved upon the Gentiles (ch. 1), now in this chapter he proves it upon the Jews, as appears by Rom 2:17, "thou art called a Jew." I. He proves in general that Jews and Gentiles stand upon the same level before the justice of God, to Rom 2:11. II. He shows more particularly what sins the Jews were guilty of, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions (Rom 2:17 to the end).

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 2 This chapter contains, in general, a vindication of the justice and equity of the divine procedure against men, such as are described in the preceding chapter; and a refutation of the several pleas that might be made by the Gentiles, who had not the law, and by the Jews who had it; and concludes with exposing the wickedness of the latter, and with showing who they are that are properly Jews, and circumcised persons, in the account of God. It begins, in Rom 2:1, with an inference deduced from what had been said in the latter part of the foregoing chapter; concluding that such, be they who they will, Jews or Gentiles, are inexcusable, who do the things they condemn others for: but though the judgment of such persons is wrong, the apostle observes, Rom 2:2, that the judgment of God, in the condemnation of them, is right, of which he, and others, were fully assured; and which judgment is commended, by the rule of it, being according to truth; by the objects of it, criminals, who are left without excuse, and by the inevitableness of it, Rom 2:3, being such as cannot possibly be escaped: and though some men might hope to escape it, because not immediately punished, but loaded with the blessings of Providence, and peculiar benefits of divine goodness; yet this was to be ascribed to the forbearance of God for the present; and that if these favours were despised, and they had not a good effect upon them to bring to repentance, but instead thereof were more and more hardened under them, as their guilt would be increased, so wrath would be secretly laying up for them, which will be revealed in the day of judgment, Rom 2:4, at which time justice will be done to every man as his works will be found to be, Rom 2:6, then follows a description of the several sorts of persons that will be judged, and of the different things that will be their portion: as that eternal life will be given to good men, Rom 2:7, and the wrath of God poured down on bad men, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, Rom 2:8. The happiness of good men is repeated again, and explained, and promised to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile, Rom 2:10, and a reason given of this just and equal distribution, taken from the nature of God, who is no respecter of persons, Rom 2:11, an instance of which is produced in both Jews and Gentiles, that sin; the one perishing with, the other without the law, Rom 2:12, since it is not barely having and hearing the law, but acting up to it, which only can justify before God, Rom 2:13, upon which the apostle proceeds to refute the plea that might be made by the Gentiles, in favour of themselves, why they should not be condemned, taken from their not having the written law; for though they had not the law written on tables of stone, as the Jews had, yet they had, as he observes, the law of nature written on their hearts, against which they sinned: this he proves by the effects of it, discernible in many of them by their outward lives and conversations, in conformity to the law; and by the inward testimony of their consciences, approving of good deeds, and reproaching for bad ones, Rom 2:14, which two verses being put into a parenthesis, Rom 2:16, is connected with Rom 2:13, and points at the time when the doers of the law shall be justified, even at the day of judgment: which judgment is described by the author of it, God; by the subject of it, the secrets of men's hearts; by the person employed in the divine procedure, Jesus Christ; and by the evidence and certainty of it, the Gospel preached by the apostle, and then follow a description of the Jews, an account of their profession of religion, and an ironical concession of the several characters they assumed to themselves: they are described by their name, a Jew; by their religion, which lay in trusting in the law of Moses, and in boasting of their interest in God, as the God of Israel, Rom 2:17, by their knowledge of the will of God, and approbation of the excellent things of his law, Rom 2:18, and by the characters they took to themselves, Rom 2:19, from which the apostle takes an occasion to expose the wickedness of some of their principal men, even their teachers, Rom 2:21, by whose wicked lives and conversations God was dishonoured, and his name blasphemed among the Gentiles, Rom 2:23, hence it appears, that their name, profession, and character, would not justify them before God; wherefore the apostle goes on, to remove their plea taken from circumcision, showing that could be of no use to them, but became void through their breach of the law, Rom 2:25, and that, on the other hand, an uncircumcised Gentile, by keeping the law from right principles, and to a right end, appeared to be the true circumcision, Rom 2:26, wherefore the circumcised Jew that broke the law, stood condemned by the uncircumcised Gentile that fulfilled it; so far was circumcision from being any part of his justification, or a plea in favour of it, Rom 2:27. Then the apostle concludes the chapter, by giving a definition of a real Jew, and of true circumcision; which he does first negatively, that it is not anything external that makes him a Jew, or anything in the flesh that is right circumcision; but secondly, positively, that it is an inward work of grace that denominates a man a Jew, in a spiritual sense, or an Israelite indeed; and that it is the circumcision of the heart, which is wrought by the Spirit of God, that is true and genuine: and such a Jew, and such a circumcision, are approved of by God, and commended by him, when the other have only praise of men, Rom 2:28, and therefore, however such persons may be justified before men, they cannot be justified in the sight of God; which is the drift and design of the apostle in the whole.

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.

We can apply this lesson to our situation in the church as well. For example, let us say that catechumens are still uncircumcised, i.e., Gentiles, and that believers are circumcised by the grace of baptism. Therefore, if a catechumen who has not yet been circumcised by the grace of baptism keeps the law of Christ, he obeys the precepts and commandments. Will he not by analogy with what is written here judge the one who claims to be a believer but does not keep the precepts and despises the law of Christ and his commands?

"Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?" See how he acts. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for this was highly grating to those who then heard him), but that the uncircumcision hath become circumcision. And he next enquires what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision and he says that circumcision is well doing and uncircumcision is evil doing. And having first transferred into the circumcision the uncircumcised, who has good deeds, and having thrust out the circumcised man that lived a corrupt life into the uncircumcision, he so gives the preference to the uncircumcised. And he does not say, To the uncircumcised, but goes on to the thing itself, speaking as follows: "Shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?" And he does not say "reckoned," but "turned to," which was more expressive. As also above he does not say thy circumcision is reckoned uncircumcision, but has been made so.

Gentiles become members of the house of Israel when their uncircumcision is counted for circumcision, inasmuch as they do not display the righteousness of the law by the cutting of the flesh but keep it in charity of heart.

Faith in Christ is the righteousness of the law.… From this it is clear that if a Gentile believes in Christ he becomes a son of Abraham, who is the father of faith.

The visible needs the invisible but not the other way round, because the visible is an image of the invisible, while the invisible is the reality itself. Thus, the circumcision of the flesh needs the circumcision of the heart but not vice versa, because the reality does not need the image.… If circumcision has no value by itself, why was it instituted? First, in order to distinguish the people of God from among the Gentiles. This is why when they were by themselves in the desert they were not circumcised. Or perhaps so that their bodies might be identified in battle. The reason why they were marked in that part of the body was first so that they would not be disfigured in a part of the body which was open to public view, and second, because the promise of grace would make this part of the body honorable through chastity. Or perhaps it was because it signified that Christ would be born from its seed. He was destined to introduce spiritual circumcision, but until he was born, physical circumcision would continue.

He does not say that uncircumcision surpasses circumcision, for that would be too painful, but he says that it "shall be counted as circumcision." Therefore, true circumcision is good conduct, and likewise uncircumcision is bad conduct. Note, he did not say: if the uncircumcision keeps the law; for he probably anticipated such an objection from someone: is it possible for an uncircumcised man to keep the law, when the very state of being uncircumcised constitutes a violation of the law? How then did he express it? "The ordinances of the law," that is, the ordinances by the fulfillment of which they think to be justified. For circumcision was not a deed, but a suffering endured by the one being circumcised, and therefore it cannot be called a justification of the law. It was given as a sign, so that the Jews would not be confused with the Gentiles.

Then when he says, if then, the uncircumcised, he considers circumcision in relation to the gentiles in two ways. First, from the aspect that the gentiles obtain the benefits of circumcision by observing the law. Hence he says: since circumcision profits, if the law is observed, but not, if it is not; then, if then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, i.e., the moral precepts of the law: all your commandments are true (Ps 119:86), will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? As if to say: he will enjoy the fruit of true circumcision. For a man is circumcised outwardly in the flesh in order to circumcise himself in the heart: circumcise yourselves to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts (Jer 4:4).

Therefore if the uncircumcision, etc. - If the Gentile be found to act according to the spirit and design of the law, his acting thus uprightly, according to the light which God has afforded him, will be reckoned to him as if he were circumcised and walked agreeably to the law.

THE JEW UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE. (Rom. 2:1-29) the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance--that is, is designed and adapted to do so.

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the . . . law, &c.--Two mistaken interpretations, we think, are given of these words: First, that the case here supposed is an impossible one, and put merely for illustration [HALDANE, CHALMERS, HODGE]; second that it is the case of the heathen who may and do please God when they act, as has been and is done, up to the light of nature [GROTIUS, OLSHAUSEN, &c.]. The first interpretation is, in our judgment, unnatural; the second, opposed to the apostle's own teaching. But the case here put is, we think, such as that of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), who, though outside the external pale of God's covenant, yet having come to the knowledge of the truths contained in it, do manifest the grace of the covenant without the seal of it, and exemplify the character and walk of Abraham's children, though not called by the name of Abraham. Thus, this is but another way of announcing that God was about to show the insufficiency of the mere badge of the Abrahamic covenant, by calling from among the Gentiles a seed of Abraham that had never received the seal of circumcision (see on Gal 5:6); and this interpretation is confirmed by all that follows.