Romans 2.26-Perfect Gentile Obedience without the Ritual of Circumcision is Righteousness
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Wednesday September 19, 2007
Romans: Romans 2:26-Perfect Gentile Obedience without the Ritual of Circumcision is Righteousness
Lesson # 68
Please turn in your Bibles to Romans 2:17.
Last evening we studied Romans 2:25, in which Paul teaches his unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience that circumcision can not deliver them from eternal condemnation since disobedience to the Law negates the value of circumcision.
This passage taught the principle that Jewish disobedience with the ritual of circumcision is meaningless and unrighteousness in the eyes of God.
This evening we will study Romans 2:26, in which Paul poses a rhetorical question, which demands a positive response from his unsaved Jewish audience that believed that because they were circumcised that they could escape eternal condemnation and gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
This rhetorical question implies in a hypothetical sense that although the Gentile is uncircumcised his perfect obedience to the principles of the moral code of the Mosaic Law would make him circumcised in the eyes of God and is designed to destroy Jewish confidence in circumcision to be justified before God.
This passage teaches the principle that perfect Gentile obedience without the ritual of circumcision is righteousness in the eyes of God.
Let’s read Romans 2:17-29 and then concentrate on Romans 2:26.
Romans 2:17-29, “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 shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that 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 breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For ‘THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,’ just as it is written. 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 keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 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? 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.”
Now, let’s look at Romans 2:26 in detail.
Romans 2:26, “So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”
“So” is the “inferential” use of the post-positive conjunction oun (ou@n), which introduces an inference drawn from the principle that appears in Romans 2:25.
Romans 2:25, “Indeed, on the one hand circumcision is, as an eternal spiritual truth, beneficial if you should always practice the Law. On the other hand, if you should be at any time a transgressor of the Law, (then) your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”
The inferential conjunction oun introduces a rhetorical question that demands a positive response from Paul’s unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience and has its inference from Paul’s previous statement in Romans 2:25.
“If” is the conditional particle ean (e)avn) (eh-an), which introduces the protasis of a third class conditional statement.
The conditional particle ean is employed with the subjunctive mood of the verb phulasso, “keeps” to form the protasis, which states, “if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law.”
The apodasis is conveyed implicitly meaning without a structural marker and it contains the future indicative form of the verb logizomai, “will be regarded,” whose meaning is negated emphatically by the emphatic objective negative adverb ou, “not.”
The apodasis of Romans 2:26: “will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”
In Romans 2:26, Paul is using the third class condition to present a hypothetical case of the uncircumcised Gentiles always obeying the Law in order to demonstrate to his Jewish audience that being circumcised is of no value if they are not perfectly obedient to the Law since a holy God demands perfect obedience.
Now, in Romans 2, Paul is addressing a self-righteous, unsaved Jewish audience.
In Romans 2:25, Paul taught them that circumcision is only beneficial to them if they always practice the Law, which only Christ could do.
Also, he stated in this verse that if they should at any time, transgress the Law then, their circumcision is for all practical purposes, uncircumcision in the eyes of a holy God who demands perfect obedience.
Now, in Romans 2:26, Paul is drawing an inference from these things he taught them in Romans 2:25 as indicated by the inferential conjunction oun, “therefore.”
In Romans 2:26, Paul teaches his Jewish audience that if the uncircumcised Gentiles perfectly obey the requirements of the Law, then won’t their uncircumcision be regarded by God as circumcision?
In Romans 2:13-15, Paul taught that the uncircumcised Gentiles do at times obey the Law instinctively since Jesus Christ wrote in their souls the moral code of the Mosaic Law, and which code is manifested through the function of their conscience.
However, none of them has been perfectly obedient as manifested through their sinning and yet the uncircumcised Gentiles obedient conduct at times serves as evidence against the disobedient Jew.
Therefore, in Romans 2:26, the third class condition does “not” depict what is likely to occur in the future, or what could possibly occur but rather what is only hypothetical and will not occur since no Gentile has kept perfectly the Law of God but only Jesus Christ.
Paul presents this hypothetical case in order to demonstrate to his self-righteous Jewish countrymen that being circumcised is of no value if they are not perfectly obedient to the Law.
The relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is that of “evidence-inference” since the apodasis infers from the evidence Paul presented in the protasis in that he makes an induction about the implications that this piece of evidence suggests.
The evidence in the protasis: “If the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law.”
The inference in the apodasis: “Will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”
In Romans 2:26, Paul employs a rhetorical question in the place of a direct assertion, which is a debater’s technique designed to encourage his Jewish audience to respond and come to the conclusion of the apodosis that is implied in the rhetorical question.
Romans 2:26, “So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”
“The uncircumcised man” is the noun akrobustia (a)krobustia) (ak-rob-oos-tee-ah), which is a designation for the Gentiles.
“Keeps” is the verb phulasso (fulavssw) (foo-las-so), which is used in active sense meaning “to observe,” which in turn means, “to conform one’s action or practice to, to comply with.”
Therefore, the verb phulasso refers to the Gentiles observing the requirements of the Law in the sense of conforming their actions to the Law, or complying with the Law.
The present tense is “customary” or more accurately “stative” signifying an action that takes place “continually” or is an “unbroken process” since in context Paul is presenting to his unsaved Jewish audience a hypothetical case of the Gentiles perfectly keeping the Law.
This of course will not occur since no Gentile has kept perfectly the Law of God but only Jesus Christ.
Paul presents this hypothetical case in order to demonstrate to his self-righteous Jewish countrymen that being circumcised is of no value if they are not perfectly obedient to the Law.
Thus, the “stative” present signifies in a hypothetical sense the Gentiles “continually” or “always” obeying what the Law teaches.
This is something that no Jew or Gentile has been able to accomplish but only the God-Man Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:26, “So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”
“The requirements” is composed of the articular accusative (direct object) neuter plural form of the noun dikaioma (dikaivwma) (dik-ah-yo-mah), which refers to that which God has ordained by law regarding what is right and just.
Therefore, it refers to a requirement, regulation, or ordinance and can be translated “righteous requirement,” or “righteous regulation.”
In context, it specifically refers to the principles or Ten Commandments contained in written form in the moral code of the Mosaic Law.
This moral code is inherent in the soul of every human being according to Romans 2:12-15.
“Of the Law” is the articular genitive masculine singular form of the noun nomos (novmo$) (nom-os), which refers to the Mosaic Law.
Next, we have the apodasis of this third class condition, which is conveyed “implicitly” meaning without a formal structural marker.
Therefore, we will insert the English “then” into the translation to mark the introduction of the apodasis.
“Will…be regarded” is the verb logizomai (logivzomai) (lo-gidz-o-my), which means, “to consider, to treat accordingly, to a hold viewpoint concerning someone or something.”
The verb indicates that if the uncircumcised Gentile perfectly obeyed the Law, God would view their obedience as tantamount to or the equivalent of their being circumcised since circumcision implied that you were obedient to God’s will.
Therefore, the Gentiles’ obedience would be tantamount to or equivalent to being circumcised since circumcision implied that you were obedient to God’s will.
Again, Paul is speaking in hypothetical terms of the Gentile being always obedient to God, which is impossible because of the sin nature and human volition.
Only, the Lord Jesus Christ was impeccable and perfectly obedient to the Father’s will.
For Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience to think that circumcision would gain them entrance into the kingdom of heaven and protect them from eternal condemnation was in error since perfect obedience is required for circumcision to be of any value if they attempt to be justified before God without Christ.
“Not” is the emphatic objective negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo), which is used interrogatively since an affirmative answer is expected from Paul’s rhetorical question.
“His” is the intensive personal pronoun autos (au)tov$), which refers to the unsaved Gentiles.
“Uncircumcision” is the noun akrobustia (a)krobustia) (ak-rob-oos-tee-ah), which refers to the state of being uncircumcised.
“As circumcision” is composed of the preposition eis (ei)$) and the accusative feminine singular form of the noun peritome (peritomhv) (per-it-om-ay), which refers to the ritual act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis.
Circumcision was given as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological descendants that they were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or save them and again implied that you were obedient to God.
The preposition eis expresses “equivalence” meaning that perfect Gentile obedience to the moral code inherent in their souls, which is in written form in the Mosaic Law would be considered and treated accordingly by God “as equivalent to” being circumcised.
Completed corrected translation of Romans 2:26: “Therefore, if the uncircumcision always observes the righteous regulations originating from the Law, then, will not (God) consider and treat accordingly His uncircumcision as circumcision.”
Romans 2:25 teaches the principle that ritual without obedience to the Word of God is meaningless and unrighteousness whereas Romans 2:26 teaches that perfect obedience without the ritual is righteousness.