6. Self-confident Jews
Paul now moves on, in his wide-ranging critique of the human race, from critical moralizers in general (2:1–16), whether Jews or Gentiles, to Jewish people in particular in their self-confidence (2:17–29).
Paul anticipates and responds to Jewish objections to what he has written. He imagines Jews protesting as follows: ‘Surely, Paul, you can’t possibly treat us as if we were no different from Gentile outsiders? Have you forgotten that we have been given both the law (the revelation of God) and circumcision (the sign of the covenant of God)? Have you overlooked the fact that these three privileges (covenant, circumcision and law) are themselves signs of the greatest privilege of all, that God chose us to be his special people? Are you saying that we Jews (who have been uniquely favoured by God’s election) are no better off than the Gentiles? How can you disregard these particular blessings of ours, which distinguish us from the Gentiles and protect us from God’s judgment?’
In reply to such questions Paul writes about the law in verses 17–24 and about circumcision in verses 25–29, and insists that neither guarantees Jewish immunity from divine judgment. His words are ‘a pricking of the balloon of Jewish pride and presumption’.
1. The law (2:17–24)
Paul uses eight verbs to describe aspects of Jewish self-consciousness and self-confidence. First, you call yourself a Jew, being proud of the chosen people’s honourable name. Second, you rely on the law given you at Sinai, trusting in your possession of it as a shield against disaster. Third, you . . . boast in God (17). The Greek phrase here expresses the Jews’ pride in their monotheism and in their supposed monopoly of God. Fourth, you know his will, literally ‘the will’ absolutely, to which all other wills are relative. Fifth, you . . . approve of what is superior. Both here and in Philippians 1:10 this expression could mean either ‘you test things which differ’ or, having done so, ‘you approve those things which the test has shown to excel’. Sixth, the reason for your moral discernment is that you are instructed by the law (18). And a further consequence of your instruction and discernment is (seventh) that you are convinced that you are competent to teach others. So you are a guide for the blind and a light for those who are in the dark (19), that is, the Gentiles, since this is the stated calling of the servant of the Lord. You are also an instructor of the foolish and a teacher of little children, that is, proselytes or converts. And all this because (eighth) you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (20). In these eight statements Paul has given a straightforward account of Jewish people in their double relation to the law. Being instructed, they instruct. Being taught, they teach.
But now Paul turns the tables on them. They do not live up to their knowledge (cf. 13). They do not practise what they preach. Following his eight verbs which describe their identity, he asks five rhetorical questions, which draw attention to their inconsistency. The first is general: you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? (21a). It is followed by three questions about particular sins: You who preach against stealing, do you steal? (21b). You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? (22). The last-named might refer to the misappropriation of funds intended for the temple, since Josephus tells the story of just such a scandal, but Paul is more likely to have pagan temples in mind. You who abhor idols is an accurate portrayal of Jews. They recoiled from idolatry in horror. They would not dream of going anywhere near an idol temple, therefore – except for the purpose of robbery. Some commentators think all three sins so unlikely in Jewish leaders that they suggest a non-literal interpretation which reminds us of Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount about the thoughts of our hearts. But Paul seems to have actions rather than thoughts in mind, and Dodd quotes Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai, a contemporary of Paul’s, who bewailed in his day ‘the increase of murder, adultery, sexual vice, commercial and judicial corruption, bitter sectarian strife, and other evils’.
Paul’s fifth rhetorical question is again more general: You who boast in the law [which the Jews did; see verse 17], do you dishonour God by breaking the law? (23). As it is written, ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’ (24). This quotation seems to combine Isaiah 52:5 and Ezekiel 36:22. In both texts God’s name had been mocked because his people had been defeated and enslaved. Could the Lord not protect his own people? Just so, moral defeat, like military defeat, brings discredit on the name of God.
The argument of verses 17–24 is the same in principle as that of verses 1–3, and is just as applicable to us as to first-century critical moralizers and self-confident Jews. If we judge others, we should be able to judge ourselves (1–3). If we teach others, we should be able to teach ourselves (21–24). If we set ourselves up as either teachers or judges of others, we can have no excuse if we do not teach or judge ourselves. We cannot possibly plead ignorance of moral integrity. On the contrary, we invite God’s condemnation of our hypocrisy.
2. Circumcision (2:25–29)
If the Jews’ possession and knowledge of the law did not exempt them from the judgment of God, neither did their circumcision. To be sure, circumcision was a God-given sign and seal of his covenant with them. But it was not a magical ceremony or a charm. It did not provide them with permanent insurance cover against the wrath of God. It was no substitute for obedience; it was rather a commitment to obedience. Yet the Jews had an almost superstitious confidence in the saving power of their circumcision. For example, ‘Circumcised men do not descend into Gehenna,’ and ‘Circumcision will deliver Israel from Gehenna.’
How does Paul counter this false assurance? He begins with a saying of his own: Circumcision has value if you observe the law (25a). He does not deny the divine origin of circumcision, but he downplays its value on the ground that he who is circumcised ‘is required to obey the whole law’. For circumcision is the sign of covenant membership, and covenant membership demands obedience. On this basis, namely that circumcision and the law belong together in God’s covenant, Paul now makes two bold complementary statements. On the one hand, if you who are circumcised break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised (25b). On the other hand, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? (26). We may perhaps express Paul’s double assertion in terms of two simple equations. Circumcision minus obedience equals uncircumcision, while uncircumcision plus obedience equals circumcision.
The conclusion Paul draws from this will have been profoundly shocking to Jewish people. In contrast to their traditional picture of themselves sitting in judgment on the uncircumcised pagans (cf. 2:1–3), the roles will be reversed, and the one who is not circumcised physically who yet obeys the law will actually condemn you [a Jew] who, even though you have the written code [i.e. the law] and circumcision, are a law-breaker (27). The ultimate sign, the clear evidence, of membership of the covenant of God is neither circumcision nor possession of the law, but the obedience which both circumcision and the law demand. Their circumcision did not make them what their disobedience proved they were not. This is not salvation by obedience, but obedience as the evidence of salvation. The upshot is that Jews are just as much exposed to the judgment of God as Gentiles.
The extraordinary reversal of roles which Paul has described in verse 27, by which the Gentile condemns the Jew instead of the Jew condemning the Gentile, is due to a necessary redefinition of Jewish identity, which Paul proceeds to give, in contrast to the Jewish self-definition of 2:17ff. First he states negatively what a Jew is not (28), and then defines positively what a true Jew is (29). A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly [en tō phanerō, ‘in the open’ or ‘visibly’], nor is circumcision merely outward [en tō phanerō, repeated] and physical [en sarki, ‘in flesh’] (28). No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly [en tō kryptō, ‘in secret’]; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart (29a). This concept is not new with Paul, since it occurs regularly in the Old Testament. In the Pentateuch God complains of his people’s ‘uncircumcised hearts’, appeals to them to circumcise their hearts, and promises that he will do it to them himself so that they may love him with all their being. Then the prophets use the same imagery. Foreigners are significantly described as ‘uncircumcised in heart and flesh’; those who are ‘circumcised only in the flesh’ and ‘uncircumcised in heart’ will be punished; God calls on his people to circumcise their hearts, and promises to give them a ‘new heart’.
What Paul looks for is something more than this, however, namely ‘a circumcision of the heart that completely replaces the physical rite and does not merely complement it’. It will also be by the Spirit, not by the written code (29b). That is, it will be an inward work of the Holy Spirit, such as the law as an external written code could never bring about. This contrast between gramma (letter or code) and pneuma (the Spirit) sums up for Paul the difference between the old covenant (an external law) and the new (the gift of the Spirit). He anticipates here what he will elaborate in 7:6 and 8:4, indeed throughout the whole first half of chapter 8. Further, such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God (29c). This probably points to a play on Hebrew words, since Jews were named from their ancestor Judah, and his name in Hebrew was associated with, and may have been derived from, the word for ‘praise’.
In his redefinition of what it means to be a Jew, an authentic member of God’s covenant people, then, Paul draws a fourfold contrast. First, the essence of being a true Jew (who may indeed be ethnically a Gentile) is not something outward and visible, but inward and invisible. For the true circumcision is, second, in the heart, not the flesh. Third, it is brought about by the Spirit, not the law, and fourth, it wins the approval of God rather than human beings. Human beings are comfortable with what is outward, visible, material and superficial. What matters to God is a deep, inward, secret work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
In addition, what Paul writes here about circumcision and being a Jew could also be said about baptism and being a Christian. The real Christian, like the real Jew, is one inwardly; and the true baptism, like the true circumcision, is in the heart and by the Spirit. It is not in this case that the inward and spiritual replace the outward and physical, but rather that the visible sign (baptism) derives its importance from the invisible reality (washing from sin and the gift of the Spirit) to which it bears witness. It is a grave mistake to value the sign at the expense of what it signifies.
3. Some Jewish objections (3:1–8)
It is not difficult to imagine the reactions of at least some of Paul’s Jewish readers. They will have responded to him with a mixture of incredulity and indignation. What he is writing will have seemed to them an outrageous undermining of the very foundations of Judaism, namely God’s character and covenant.
Paul’s method of handling Jewish objections to his teaching takes the form of a ‘diatribe’, as we have seen – a literary convention well known to philosophers in the ancient world. In it a teacher would set up a dialogue with his critics or students, first posing and then answering their questions. Paul has already begun to do this when addressing both the critical moralizer (2:1ff.) and the Jew (2:17ff.); but now he develops it further. It is not necessary to suppose that his debating opponent is imaginary or his debate fictitious. It seems more probable that he is reconstructing the actual arguments which Jews have flung at him during his synagogue evangelism. We may go further than this. ‘Paul’s interlocutor was no straw man,’ Professor Dunn writes. ‘In fact we would probably not be far from the mark if we were to conclude that Paul’s interlocutor is Paul himself – Paul the unconverted Pharisee, expressing attitudes Paul remembered so well as having been his own!’ In this way Paul the Pharisee and Paul the Christian are in debate with each other, as in Philippians 3.
The details of the debate are a little hard to grasp, not because Paul’s position is ‘obscure and feeble’, but because he gives it to us in only the briefest outline. We shall have to wait for Romans 9 – 11 for further explanation. We do have before us in 2:25–29, however, the teaching of Paul which prompts the objections, namely that there was no fundamental difference between Jews and Gentiles, and that the law and circumcision guaranteed neither Jewish immunity from the judgment of God nor Jewish identity as the people of God. This seemed to call in question God’s covenant, promises and character. It prompted four distinct but related questions.
Objection 1: Paul’s teaching undermines God’s covenant (1–2). Paul and his critics agree that God chose Israel out of all the nations, made a covenant with them, and gave them circumcision as its sign and seal. But if the words ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision’ are now to be radically redefined, then What advantage . . . is there in being a Jew in the old sense of the term, and what value is there in circumcision in its traditional meaning (1)? For, according to Paul, these things do not protect Jews from judgment.
In his answer Paul does not go back on what he has written about the real Jew and the true circumcision. The fact that being an ethnic Jew has no value in protecting from God’s judgment, however, does not mean that it is worthless. It has much value in every way, but a different kind of value, that is, responsibility rather than security. First of all [Paul is evidently intending to list several privileges, but he does not get round to it until 9:4f.], the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God (2). It seems clear that these are not just God’s commandments or promises, but the whole Old Testament Scripture which contains them and which was committed to Israel’s care. Indeed, to be the custodians of God’s special revelation was an immensely privileged responsibility; it had been given to ‘no other nation’.
Objection 2: Paul’s teaching nullifies God’s faithfulness (3–4). Perhaps God’s ‘very words’ (2) allude in particular to his promises, notably to his promise of the Messiah. If so, the objector argues, what has become of God’s promise, and (more importantly) of his faithfulness to his promise? What if some were unfaithful, and so failed to inherit the promise? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? (3). Paul’s teaching seemed to imply this. The play on words relating to pistis (faith or faithfulness) is more obvious in the Greek sentence than in the English. It might be rendered as follows: ‘If some to whom God’s promises were entrusted (episteuthēsan, 2) did not respond to them in trust (ēpistēsan, 3a), will their lack of trust (apistia) destroy God’s trustworthiness (pistis, 3b)?’ If God’s people are unfaithful, does that necessarily mean that he is?
Paul’s riposte (mē genoito) is more violent than is suggested by the expression Not at all! John Ziesler suggests that ‘“not on your life” or “not in a thousand years” gives something of the flavour’. For God will never, ever, break his covenant, as Paul will elaborate in chapters 9–11. His truth or faithfulness is a given. Indeed, Let God be true, and every human being a liar (4a). The first of these two propositions, writes Calvin, ‘is the primary axiom of all Christian philosophy’; the second is a quotation of Psalm 116:11. It is so far from the case that human unfaithfulness undermines God’s faithfulness that, even if every single human being were a liar, God would still be true, because he remains invariably himself and true to himself. This is confirmed by the Bible. David even acknowledged that he had sinned and done evil in God’s sight in order that God’s word might be proved right and his verdict justified: So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge (4b).
Objection 3: Paul’s teaching questions God’s justice (5–6). Perhaps the reference to God as judge (4) leads Paul to mention his justice, which is displayed in his judgments. In this case the objector is making the general point that our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly. The more unrighteous the criminal is, the more righteous the judge appears. Or the objector may be alluding to God’s righteousness revealed in the gospel (1:17), his way of salvation. In this case he is arguing that the more sinful we are, the more glorious the gospel seems. Either way, according to Paul’s teaching, says the objector, our unrighteousness benefits God, because it displays his character all the more brightly. This being so, what shall we say? Shall we conclude (as, according to the Jewish objector, the logic of Paul’s position demands) that God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us (5a)? God’s wrath is certainly on the immoral Gentiles (1:18) and will fall on the critical moralizers (2:5); but will he really bring it on his own people, the Jews? Would it not be unfair of him to punish them for something which is to his advantage? Even as he expresses this tortuous reasoning, Paul feels embarrassed and adds apologetically as an aside: (I am using a human argument) (5b).
He goes beyond an apology, however. He continues with another categorical denial (Certainly not!) and then asks his heckler a counter-question. If he really were unjust, how could God judge the world? (6). Paul takes it as basic both that God is the universal judge and that therefore, as Abraham said, the Judge of all the earth will do right. To question God’s justice is to undercut his competence to judge and so to show up the absurdity of the original question.
Objection 4: Paul’s teaching falsely promotes God’s glory (7–8). Someone might argue, Paul continues, and goes on to develop the previous argument. In doing so, he also impersonates the objector by using the first person singular. If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness, just as our unrighteousness displays God’s righteousness more brightly (5), and so increases his glory, then surely God ought to be pleased, even grateful? Am I not doing him a service? This being so, Paul’s teaching prompts two further questions. First, why am I still condemned as a sinner (7), if my sin is to God’s advantage? How can God condemn me for glorifying him? Second, why not say (as, Paul adds, some slanderously claim that he does say), ‘Let us do evil that good may result’? This is the cry of the person who makes a virtue of his or her lawlessness: ‘If evil behaviour causes good consequences, such as manifesting God’s character and so promoting his glory, then let’s increase evil in order thereby to increase good. The end obviously justifies the means.’ C. H. Hodge puts it well: ‘According to this reasoning, says Paul, the worse we are, the better: for the more wicked we are, the more conspicuous will be the mercy of God in our pardon.’
This time Paul does not answer the questions which his teaching is supposed to raise. For they do not merit a serious answer; they are self-evidently perverse. It is enough to say of these objectors that their condemnation is just! (8). For no good results can justify the encouragement of evil. Evil never promotes the glory of God.
We note from this passage (3:1–8) that Paul was not content only to proclaim and expound the gospel. He also argued its truth and reasonableness, and defended it against misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Whether these Jewish objections were genuine (because he had actually heard them advanced) or imaginary (because he had made them up), he took them seriously and responded to them. He saw that the character of God was at stake. So he reaffirmed God’s covenant as having lasting value, God’s faithfulness to his promises, God’s justice as judge, and God’s true glory which is promoted only by good, never by evil.
We too in our day must include apologetics in our evangelism. We need to anticipate people’s objections to the gospel, listen carefully to their problems, respond to them with due seriousness and proclaim the gospel in such a way as to affirm God’s goodness and further his glory. Such two-way preaching has a powerful apostolic precedent in this passage.