2. Objections answered (3:1–8)
C. The Jew (2:17–3:8)
1. Privilege brings responsibility (2:17–29)
In 2:17 Paul addresses the moralizer explicitly as a Jew. ‘You bear the honoured name of Jew,’ he says, ‘your possession of the law gives you confidence, you glory in the fact that it is the true God whom you worship and whose will you know.’ Here perhaps there is a further echo of Wisdom:
For even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy power;
but we will not sin, because we know that we are accounted thine.
For to know thee is complete righteousness,
and to know thy power is the root of immortality
(Wisdom 15:2–3).
‘You approve the more excellent way,’ Paul continues, ‘for you have learnt it from the law. You regard yourself as better taught than those lesser breeds without the law; you consider yourself a guide to the blind and an instructor of the foolish.
‘But why not take an honest look at yourself? Have you no defects? You know the law, but do you keep it? You say, “You shall not steal”; but do you never steal? You say, “You shall not commit adultery”; but do you always keep that commandment? You detest idols, but do you never rob temples? You glory in the law, but in fact your disobedience to the law brings you and the God whom you worship into disrepute among the pagans.
‘To be a Jew will do one good in the sight of God only if he keeps the law of God. A Jew who breaks the law is no better than a Gentile. Conversely, a Gentile who keeps the law’s requirements is as good in the sight of God as any law-abiding Jew. Indeed, a Gentile who keeps the law of God will condemn a Jew who breaks it, no matter how well-versed that Jew may be in the sacred scriptures, no matter how canonically circumcised he is. You see, it is not a matter of natural descent and an external mark like circumcision. The word “Jew” means “praise”, and the true Jew is the man whose life is praiseworthy by God’s standards, whose heart is pure in God’s sight, whose circumcision is the inward circumcision of the heart. He is the true Jew, I say—the truly praiseworthy man—and his praise is not a matter of human applause, but of divine approval.’
18. Know his will. Lit. ‘know the will’; God’s will is ‘the will’ par excellence. Cf. 1 Maccabees 3:60, RV: ‘as may be the will in heaven, so shall he do.’
Approve what is excellent. The word diapheronta means primarily ‘things that differ’ and then also ‘things that differ from others by surpassing them’, i.e. ‘things that excel’. While RSV accepts this latter sense here, NEB prefers the former sense (‘you are aware of moral distinctions’). The same phrase appears in Philippians 1:10 (‘so that you may approve what is excellent’; NEB ‘may thus bring you the gift of true discrimination’).
22. Do you rob temples? What Paul has in mind is difficult to say: perhaps he refers to some scandalous incident like that of AD 19 recorded by Josephus (Antiquities 18.81–84), when four Jews of Rome, led by one who professed to teach the Jewish faith to interested Gentiles, persuaded a noble Roman lady, a convert to Judaism, to make a munificent contribution to the temple at Jerusalem, but appropriated it for their own uses. When the matter came to light, the Emperor Tiberius expelled all resident Jews from Rome (see p. 22). An incident like this brought the honoured name of ‘Jew’ into disrepute among the Gentiles. There, however, it was the temple of the God of Israel that was robbed; here the conjunction with idolatry suggests the robbing of pagan temples. Either way, temple robbery (hierosylia) was reckoned a most heinous crime; in Acts 19:37 Paul and his associates are declared to be guiltless of it in relation to the temple of Artemis at Ephesus.
24. For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’ The reference is to Isaiah 52:5, ‘continually all the day my name is despised.’ The sad plight of the Jews in exile caused the Gentiles to speak lightly of their God, as though he were powerless to help his people. Now it is not his people’s misfortune, but their misconduct, that causes the Gentiles to conclude that the God of such people cannot be of much account. Members of the Qumran community were warned to be careful in their dealings with Gentiles, ‘lest they blaspheme’.10
25. Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law. Cf. Galatians 5:3, ‘every man who receives circumcision … is bound to keep the whole law.’ Circumcision, undergone as a legal requirement, carries with it the obligation to keep all the rest of the law, whether it be accepted in later life, as by proselytes (which is what Paul has in view in Galatians), or administered to Jewish infants (which is what he has in mind here). But as neither category of circumcised persons can keep the whole law but must inevitably default on their obligation, Paul adds: but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
This lesson had already been taught in part by Jeremiah: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised but yet uncircumcised—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab … for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart’ (Jer. 9:25–26). Israel’s neighbours for the most part practised circumcision (the Philistines were a notorious exception); but the circumcision of Israel’s neighbours was not a sign of God’s covenant, as Israelite circumcision was intended to be. Yet, if Israel and Judah departed in heart from God, their physical circumcision would be in God’s sight no better than that of their neighbours: so far as any religious value was concerned, it was no circumcision at all. What God desired was a purified and obedient heart. Cf. Deuteronomy 10:16, ‘Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn’ (also Jer. 4:4).
27. Those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you. That is, the shortcomings of an unworthy Jew will be shown up by the example of a Gentile who, with none of the distinctive Jewish privileges, nevertheless pleases God.
29. His praise is not from men but from God. The Jews derived their name from their ancestor Judah (Heb. Yĕhûdâ), whose name is associated in the Old Testament with the verb yādâ, ‘praise’; cf. his mother’s words at his birth, ‘This time I will praise the LORD’ (Gen. 29:35), and his father’s deathbed blessing, ‘Judah, your brothers shall praise you’ (Gen. 49:8).
2. Objections answered (3:1–8)
Here Paul imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, ‘Well then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, if it is the “circumcision” of the heart that matters, is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?’ We might have expected Paul to answer this supposed question quite categorically: ‘None at all!’ But, rather to our surprise, he replies, ‘Much in every way.’ Of course it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges11 granted by God to that nation—privileges in which other nations had no part. It would be asking too much of Paul to expect him to deny his true ancestral heritage, especially as now he had found, in the gospel to which his life was devoted, the fulfilment of the age-old hope of his people.
Among the ancestral privileges of Israel, Paul reckons as of first importance the fact that they were the custodians of ‘the oracles of God’. To have the revelation of God’s will and purpose committed to them was a high honour indeed. But if it was a high honour, it carried with it a great responsibility. If they proved unfaithful to their trust, their case was worse than that of the nations to which God had not revealed himself.
Now in fact Israel had not proved faithful to this trust. And this might have been put as an objection to Paul when he argued that it was a great advantage to belong to the nation which had received the divine oracles. But his reply is that men’s faithlessness never alters God’s faithfulness or frustrates his purpose. Their unfaithfulness simply sets his truth in relief: his righteousness is always vindicated over against their unrighteousness.
Then a further objection is dealt with. Someone may say: ‘If my faithlessness sets God’s faithfulness in bolder relief, if my unrighteousness establishes his righteousness, why should he find fault with me? He is really the gainer by my sin; why should he exact retribution for it?’ This objection seems so foolish to Paul that he apologizes for mentioning it. The answer is plain: God is the moral governor of the universe, the judge of all the earth; how could he exercise that function which is inseparable from his Godhead if he did not exact retribution for sin?
The supposed objector, however, is persistent, and repeats his argument in different words: ‘If my falsehood makes God’s truth shine more brightly by contrast, it redounds to his glory; why then does he insist on condemning me as a sinner? The end—God’s glory—is good; why is the means—my sin—counted wrong? Surely the end justifies the means?’
‘As a matter of fact’, says Paul, ‘that is precisely what some people say my gospel amounts to; but their charge is not only slanderous, it stands self-condemned because it is such a contradiction in terms.’ The gospel of justification by faith, apart from ‘works of righteousness’, has always called forth this criticism, but the criticism is amply refuted by the fact that the same gospel insists unequivocally on the ‘fruits of righteousness’ which must follow justification.12
4. Let God be true though every man be false. The second clause may echo the psalmist’s dismayed outcry: ‘Men are all a vain hope’ (Ps. 116:11). ‘Let every human being be convicted of falsehood’, says Paul, ‘rather than God’s veracity be impugned.’
‘That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged.’ Better: ‘That thou mayest be vindicated when thou speakest, and win the case when thou enterest into judgment’ (krinesthai should be taken as middle voice here, not passive). The quotation is from Psalm 51:4, where MT means simply ‘… when thou judgest’ (RSV ‘in thy judgment’; NEB ‘in passing sentence’).
8. Why not do evil that good may come? It is easy to see how Paul’s gospel could be misrepresented as though it taught this. Those, whether Jews or Christians, who regarded religion as essentially a matter of law (however liberally ‘law’ might be interpreted), could not but conclude that a doctrine of justification apart from ‘works of law’ undermined the place of law in mankind’s approach to God, and therefore undermined religion and morality.
Their condemnation is just. This may mean either ‘To condemn such men as these is surely no injustice’ (NEB) or ‘such an argument is quite properly condemned’ (J. B. Phillips). The pronoun translated ‘their’ may refer back either to the people who say such things (as RSV, NEB, NIV assume) or to the things they say (as Phillips and some others suppose). In the latter case ‘refutation’ would be a better rendering than ‘condemnation’. For a reasoned answer to the accusation see 6:2–23.