Romans 2:25-29

[Dr. Walter]

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?


Bob, would you agree to the following foundational truths concerning this passage:

1. the terms "the law" in verses 25-29 have reference to the law of circumcision under the Mosaic law.

2. That verse 26 and the phrase "if circumcision keep the righteousness of the law" refers to justification by works under Mosaic law in regard to the specific work of circumcision.

3. That the law of circumcision is not part of the ten commandments but part of the ceremonial law of Moses?

4. That Paul is dealing with circumcision in the context of an "advantage" over the gentile in regard to the "righteousness of the law" and this is in keeping with the question posed immediately following in Romans 3:1.

5. That Paul is providing proof or evidence why there is no "advantage" for the Jew in circucmision in keeping with the question in Romans 3:1.

 

[BobRyan]

in Romans 2:25-29 Paul is most certainly contrasting literl Jews - literal circumcised Jews to Gentiles. Literal Gentiles. Literal uncircumcised gentiles.

And what he calls "outward" and "in the flesh" is the physical form.

And circumcision is indeed that very thing recorded in scripture - in the law of Moses.

But the "inward" and "of the heart" and "by the Holy Spirit" context has to do with the "NEW heart" of Heb 8 - that is part of the New Birth.

As Heb 8 points out - the New Heart - has the Law of God written on it.

So Paul's argument in Romans 2 includes the New Covenant saints (yes even among the Gentiles) and contrasts them to THOSE Jews that happen to be lost.

Rom 2
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.


9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

The New Birth promise of Heb 8 "The Law written on the heart" is being identified in that Romans 2 section above. Impossible to miss for the unbiased objective Bible student.


In Romans 2 Paul does NOT argue "all Jews are lost" rather he argues that every man among the Jews and the Gentiles (BOTH groups) will go to heaven if the fruits show the born-again New Covenant result of a good tree, and every man among BOTH Jews and gentiles that shows the result of bad fruit will be found to be a bad tree - and will in the end - to to hell based on an unbiased impartial law regarding the fruit of the good tree vs the bad tree.

A principle Christ himself identifies in Matt 7.

Paul says that this is IN the context of the Gospel call to repentance and the Gospel good news of the future judgment where as Daniel notes "Judgement is passed in favor of the saints".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Afraid to answer simple direct questions? Try again!

in Romans 2:25-29 Paul is most certainly contrasting literl Jews - literal circumcised Jews to Gentiles. Literal Gentiles. Literal uncircumcised gentiles.

And what he calls "outward" and "in the flesh" is the physical form.

And circumcision is indeed that very thing recorded in scripture - in the law of Moses.

But the "inward" and "of the heart" and "by the Holy Spirit" context has to do with the "NEW heart" of Heb 8 - that is part of the New Birth.

As Heb 8 points out - the New Heart - has the Law of God written on it.

So Paul's argument in Romans 2 includes the New Covenant saints (yes even among the Gentiles) and contrasts them to THOSE Jews that happen to be lost.

Rom 2
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.


9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

The New Birth promise of Heb 8 "The Law written on the heart" is being identified in that Romans 2 section above. Impossible to miss for the unbiased objective Bible student.


In Romans 2 Paul does NOT argue "all Jews are lost" rather he argues that every man among the Jews and the Gentiles (BOTH groups) will go to heaven if the fruits show the born-again New Covenant result of a good tree, and every man among BOTH Jews and gentiles that shows the result of bad fruit will be found to be a bad tree - and will in the end - to to hell based on an unbiased impartial law regarding the fruit of the good tree vs the bad tree.

A principle Christ himself identifies in Matt 7.

Paul says that this is IN the context of the Gospel call to repentance and the Gospel good news of the future judgment where as Daniel notes "Judgement is passed in favor of the saints".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>3. That the law of circumcision is not part of the ten commandments but part of the ceremonial law of Moses?

If this is true then neither are the laws concerning homosexual activity, exposing, and marriage a part of the ten commandments.

 

[Dr. Walter]

>3. That the law of circumcision is not part of the ten commandments but part of the ceremonial law of Moses?

If this is true then neither are the laws concerning homosexual activity, exposing, and marriage a part of the ten commandments.

The ten commandments is the MORAL basis for all ceremonial religious laws of God and civil laws of God. In other words, every ceremonial and civil law given to Moses has its moral basis in the ten commandments. Likewise, the law written upon the conscience of the Gentile has its moral basis in the Ten commandments. That is why in Romans 3:19-20 the whole world is condemned by "the law" and why "NO FLESH" (not just Jewish flesh) can be justified by "deeds" done in response to the Law of God whether it is found in Mosaic form or in conscience.

However, my point here in this specific context is to prove that Paul is dealing with the Law as given to Moses. The law of circumcision was never given to the Gentiles and it was not written upon their conscience and something that by nature they were morally conscious and aware of.

Circumcision was the BOAST of the Jew that he believed gave him an "advantage" over the gentile since God had not given the law of circumcision to Gentiles. However, Paul's point is that circumcision does not profit the Jew any more than a particular act of obedience by the Gentile would in keeping with his conscience UNLESS every point of the Jewish law was observed (the same for the Gentile) as the "righteousness of the law" to be "fulfilled" requires SINLESSNESS as GOOD ENOUGH to be justified "according to works."

 

[billwald]

>However, my point here in this specific context is to prove that Paul is dealing with the Law as given to Moses. The law of circumcision was never given to the Gentiles and it was not written upon their conscience and something that by nature they were morally conscious and aware of.

Agree, and neither were the 10 commandments "given" to gentiles. Dispensationalists in particular can't justify law keeping. Reformed believers have a better case e.g. the Heidelberg Catechism.

 

[BobRyan]

>3. That the law of circumcision is not part of the ten commandments but part of the ceremonial law of Moses?

If this is true then neither are the laws concerning homosexual activity, exposing, and marriage a part of the ten commandments.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul contrasts circumcision with the Commandments of God when he says "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

No wonder Jesus said "if you love Me" (if you are a born again saved saint) "KEEP My Commandments". John 14:15.

No wonder John says in 1John 2 that if anyone does not do that and yet is claiming to be one who Loves and knows Christ - they are lying.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ as our High Priest in the Heavenly sanctuary - provides the benefits of the New Covenant to the saints.

Heb 8

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8 for finding fault with them, he says, "" behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 "" for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "" and they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, "know the Lord,' for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.
12 "" for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.''

The same New Covenant benefits we find in Romans 2

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

 

[billwald]

>No wonder Jesus said "if you love Me" (if you are a born again saved saint) "KEEP My Commandments". John 14:15

BUT WHY will we keep his commandments? So we will get something or because we love Jesus?

 

[BobRyan]

The "if you Love Me" preface indicates that this is a command to born-again saved saints to persevere in keeping God's Commandments.

It is not a command to the lost - because the Lost do not Love Jesus.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

The "if you Love Me" preface indicates that this is a command to born-again saved saints to persevere in keeping God's Commandments.

It is not a command to the lost - because the Lost do not Love Jesus.

in Christ,

Bob

Still afraid to tackle these simple questions? BTW "if you love me" identifies the true motive that born again saved saints obey. You avoid those things that condemn your theories.

 

[billwald]

>>The "if you Love Me" preface indicates that this is a command to born-again saved saints to persevere in keeping God's Commandments.

>It is not a command to the lost - because the Lost do not Love Jesus.

God can only regenerate those who already love Jesus? Why would unregenerate people love Jesus?

 

[BobRyan]

Still afraid to tackle these simple questions? BTW "if you love me" identifies the true motive that born again saved saints obey. You avoid those things that condemn your theories.

On the contrary - I keep insisting that the "If you Love Me" preface that we find in John 14 - is speaking to saved saints who Love Christ.

So obviously "Keep my Commandments" is the command given to the saved saint who Loves Jesus.

This point could not be more obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

On the contrary - I keep insisting that the "If you Love Me" preface that we find in John 14 - is speaking to saved saints who Love Christ.

So obviously "Keep my Commandments" is the command given to the saved saint who Loves Jesus.

This point could not be more obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, it could not be more obvious that it is speaking to the "saved" and therefore it is not spoken IN ORDER TBTAIN SALVATION since they already by your own admission are "saved." Hence, the motive for obedience is not in order to get saved but in order to demonstrate love because they have been saved (Jn. 5:24).

 

[BobRyan]

Err ... umm... "We have agreed on that point a zillion times".

My only complaint is that we NOT keep circling back to this point of agreement.

In the doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" that we see in Rev 14:12 and Rom 2:7 -- I never claim that this is the "perseverance of the LOST who by persevering are seeking to one day BECOME saints".

If you were reading my posts instead of reading what your own posts imagine that I might say -- you would see that we both agree that the lost do not "persevere in doing good" in order to BECOME saved saints.

Less interest in ad hominem - more interest in the facts of the discussion would move this along faster.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Err ... umm... "We have agreed on that point a zillion times".

My only complaint is that we NOT keep circling back to this point of agreement.

In the doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" that we see in Rev 14:12 and Rom 2:7 -- I never claim that this is the "perseverance of the LOST who by persevering are seeking to one day BECOME saints".
Bob

You run around in circles Bob. You say: "We have agreed on that point a zillion times," and yet in reality you don't agree. Why? Because you deny the eternal security of the believer. Therefore you apply the same verses to the unsaved, that is those saved who have lost their salvation by not keeping 'the commandments.' Thus they are in facto unsaved. And around in circles we go. The saved become unsaved, and then saved, and then saved. Your theology is one must be born again and again and again and again. It is totally against the Scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

You run around in circles Bob. You say: "We have agreed on that point a zillion times," and yet in reality you don't agree. Why? Because you deny the eternal security of the believer.


Therefore you apply the same verses to the unsaved, that is those saved who have lost their salvation by not keeping 'the commandments.'

I never argue that the UNSAVED are justified by "persevering in not keeping the commandments".

NEITHER have I ever argued that a SAVED person who loses salvation can THEN return to being saved by "keeping the commandments as a lost person".

Permit me to "circle back" to the infant doctrine (Heb 5:13) that Heb 6:1 says we should not have to continually do --
The only way for a lost person to be saved is to repent and be born-again - HAVING BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God.

Christ makes the point in Matt 7 that BOTH the saved AND the unsaved are "Known by their fruits" -- is this the doctrine to which you object??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I never argue that the UNSAVED are justified by "persevering in not keeping the commandments".

Yet Romans 5:1 states quite clearly that we are justified by faith (faith plus nothing) meaning faith alone.

NEITHER have I ever argued that a SAVED person who loses salvation can THEN return to being saved by "keeping the commandments as a lost person".

Then what is his status? Lost or saved? What is the meaning of eternal life (or everlasting life according to which translation you use) in John 3:16? If you believe in Him you have eternal life. Either you have it or you don't. If you say you don't then you accuse Christ of being a liar, for eternal is not eternal but only temporal. Eternal can only have one meaning.

Permit me to "circle back" to the infant doctrine (Heb 5:13) that Heb 6:1 says we should not have to continually do --
The only way for a lost person to be saved is to repent and be born-again - HAVING BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God.

And having done that, he never has to do it again. Therefore he can never lose his salvation; thus eternal security.

Christ makes the point in Matt 7 that BOTH the saved AND the unsaved are "Known by their fruits" -- is this the doctrine to which you object??

Matthew 7, Christ speaks of false teachers and false prophets. That is the context. You shall know them (false teachers) by their fruit (wrong doctrine). Beware of false teachers. You shall know them by their false doctrine. We are commanded to study the Word for this very reason. The fruit is not good works. The fruit is doctrine. If one does not have a correct view of the doctrine of salvation where will he end up??

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never argue that the UNSAVED are justified by "persevering in not keeping the commandments".

NEITHER have I ever argued that a SAVED person who loses salvation can THEN return to being saved by "keeping the commandments as a lost person".

The simple fact of the matter is that the stated motive is "love" and the contextual identity of those in possession of that motive are already saved persons. Hence, they are not keeping commandments in order to be justified, saved or entrance into heaven.

You are the one taking the immature position here. Out of one side of your mouth you admit that works do not justify anyone but out of the other side of your mouth works do justify saved people. Hence, you BEGIN by repenting of dead works and then continue by repenting of denial of dead works. Works do not justify the lost nor sanctify the saved! Instead Paul teaches that saved person walk just as they received but Bob teaches we walk differently than how we received (Col. 2:6). Paul teaches that works cannot justify the lost (Rom. 7:7-11) nor sanctify the saved (Rom. 7:14-25) but Bob denies this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never argue that the UNSAVED are justified by "persevering in not keeping the commandments".

NEITHER have I ever argued that a SAVED person who loses salvation can THEN return to being saved by "keeping the commandments as a lost person".

Bob, what is "eternal" life? Prior to quickening the believer was spiritually "dead" (Eph. 2:1-3). Paul says that he was "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18).

So, what is being "quickened" if not made SPIRITUALLY alive and brought into union with what you were formerly "alienated" (separated) from - the life of God?

Jesus said that though a man die, as in the case of Lazerus - PHYSICAL DEATH, yet in the resurrection the PHYSICAL death will be reversed but even at the point of PHYSICAL DEATH the true believer NEVER dies:

Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Bob, do you beleive at the point of physical death the true beiever "SHALL NEVER DIE"?

Now, verse 23-25 have to do with PHYSICAL DEATH as it is expressly directed at "THY BROTHER" who was already in the tomb for four days. In verse 25 the phrase "though he were dead" has refernce to PHYSICAL DEATH as "yet shall he live" has reference to the future resurrection of the body from PHYSICAL DEATH.

However, verse 26 has to do with a person PHYSICALLY ALIVE "whosoever liveth and believeth in me"! It is this PHYSICALLY ALIVE BELIEVER that Jesus says "SHALL NEVER DIE." Bob, "BELIEVETH THOU THIS"???

Jesus says in John 5:24 that the believer has in possession ETERNAL LIFE presently, right now! What is that Bob? I believe our differences in soteriology have their root in the answer to this question. If you are wrong at the foundation of your theology then everything built upon that foundation is equally wrong. What is "eternal Life" Bob? How do believers already possess it right now? What does Jesus mean that living believers "shall never die" Bob???

Define "life" for us and then define "eternal" life for us?