#61. Romans 2:25-27 – The Three “If” Clauses

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

For circumcision, indeed, is benefitting if you should be putting the law into practice…

At this point, it seems as though Paul has fully demonstrated his argument – mankind fails to act, and fails to judge properly, and is thus on track to receive the indignation and just judgment of God. Knowing these, in summary, are imperative prerequisites to the evangel.

However, before Paul can officially unveil the evangel he has hyped up, we must deal with a few disagreements from the religiously inclined. Both the Jew and the Christian are at odds with Paul at this point. It may not be explicitly said by the vast majority of Christendom, who would shrink away from the notion that they are speaking contrarian to an apostle, yet it is true that their belief system disagrees with his.

Why? Because both the Jew and the orthodox Christian operate under the premise that man’s works accomplish God’s goals. The Jew, as we will read through three “what if” statements, is forced into this trap – they are clearly unable to accomplish the law that the circumcision’s rite demands. And the Christian cult often operates under the notion that your acceptance of God’s sacrifice solidifies the salvation itself. Neither are correct, for both stress a righteous responsibility for an unrighteous race.

Circumcision

The Jewish argument primarily concerns its place as the “circumcision.” As most of us well know, to be “circumcised” is to have the foreskin of your penis removed (proper Jewish custom passes a child through this rite at 8 days old.) This is the first time Paul mentions this covenant with God, showing that he is anticipating a critical objection from the Jew. This objection, in its simplest form, says, “Suppose that what you are saying is true – that sin is operating in us, condemning us. If we face more severe judgment under law, and we are all sinners, as you say, then how on earth can anyone enjoy these promises God Himself declared to our forefather?”

Paul will spend an ample amount of time reconciling this discrepancy, as we will study. Indeed, Paul has much to say concerning “circumcision” – he is the writer who uses the term the most. Paul must show how his evangel accounts for this promise, without exploiting or contradicting its eventual fulfilment. He must further show that they are not voided. He will spend most of his time discussing the circumcision in this passage, and later in Romans 4. The difference between these objections is structural – the former objections are often made when the Jew does not yet grasp the evangel, still unprepared through attempts to self-justify on the shoddy stage of “works.” The latter objections are made when the Jew has heard Paul’s evangel, and disagrees with its premise.

With the structural considerations out of the way, let’s get into the meat and potatoes: what is circumcision? It first appears in Genesis, when Yahweh appears to Abraham when he is ninety-nine years old. When it is introduced to Abraham, Yahweh says, in Gen. 17:11–

Namely, you will be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and this will be the covenant sign between Me and yourselves.

Paul will allude to this later, by pointing out that circumcision is a sign and seal of the righteousness of the faith which is in uncircumcision. It was prior to Abraham’s circumcision when he had faith, and when faith was accounted to Elohim for righteousness (Gen. 15:7.) The circumcision was introduced as a mark, essentially. It was to say, “This sign indicates that this one is ‘severed’ in the flesh, set apart unto Me, and stands as proof of their faith toward Me, through which I may account them just.”

The important stress, then, on the circumcision, was not merely that it was effected, but that it was meant to signify a true faith. If one did not have this faith (evidenced by maintaining irreverence and injustice,) then the circumcision was no better than maiming. Circumcision noted the blessings that already were – it did not secure blessings that could be.

It must be understood, however, that this is not how the Jew interprets circumcision, to this very day. To the Jew, it is not looked upon as the sign of God giving a measure of faith, nor does it lead to an appreciation of God for being able to fulfill His promises. The Jew looks upon circumcision in relation to the scene at Mount Sinai, from Exodus 19-40. Though circumcision is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, it is understood that all of those who are circumcised were locked under this covenant. It is made clear, in Ex. 19:5, that the fulfillment of the promises of Abraham will become present when Israel manages to follow Yahweh’s instructions.

This certainly brings about a major problem. The promises were emphatically made to Abraham without condition on his end. It is proclaimed as the definite future, then. Yet God also makes that future contingent on Israel’s conformity to righteousness! Both of these aspects of God’s and Israel’s relationship was expressed in the act of circumcision (Deut. 10:12-22.)

How is God supposed to solve this problem?? The answer, as has been alluded to many times, will be expounded upon in Romans 9-11. In the meantime, it is clear that a critical explanation is imminent. Paul is using “circumcision” in light of the covenant made in Exodus – where circumcision blessing is viewed as the fulfillment of human conduct. The problem is not that the Jews see circumcision in this light, but that they only see circumcision in this light. To look upon human conduct apart from God’s divine hand removes the Potter from the clay, and implicitly conveys a selfish idea that you belong to yourself, when you did not make yourself, nor do you keep your body functioning, nor did you establish the instinct for personal or physical growth for yourself. There is nothing we have enacted, of our own will, that was not intended by God first and foremost (even the bad things, as we have read in Rom. 1:22, 24, 26, 28.)

The practical reality of the problem must first be made clear, then: God has made Israel’s blessings dependent on their conduct – hence they may be circumcised, but it will not benefit them yet. This is not, as is commonly supposed, because Israel is able to do the law, but because it must first be made clear that they are unable to do the law (and thus be righteous) when law works in them. This is because of sin (Rom. 1:18-23,) which entered into man’s heart long before this covenant with Israel was ever established. God must fix their conduct of His own volition. Only when Israel is humbled in this manner, and the matter of sin dealt with, will they be able to conduct themselves properly, and truly value the promise that was bestowed to Abraham.

“If”

The three “if” clauses Paul will give in this passage are common knowledge for the Jew – they should know that circumcision benefits if they should be putting the law into practice. For them to ignore this would be to ignore the clear affirmation to this within the Pentateuch itself. Even Paul, arguably the most knowledgeable Jew to walk the earth, can affirm, in this very verse, that this is the case.

There is an implicit logical question being asked in this clause. The first is this: “Does the Jew put the law into practice so that he may receive its benefits?”

The answer is no. Such is impossible under the irrefutable argument of Romans 1:18-32.

From this alone, the startling reality must dawn upon the humbled Jew, and the supposedly law-abiding Christian. The law’s benefits – being life, and the promised kingdom – cannot yet be enjoyed by man. That no man has yet effected the law properly is proof that Israel, nor any denomination, could rationally be enjoying the blessings of the promised kingdom. The nation is not yet humbled.

Though it is not explicitly written here, we get the most out of this passage when we realize that the kingdom cannot yet be present, or no one would be enjoying the kingdom, having never put the law into practice effectively. Before Israel’s kingdom can be realized, they must be freed from the 613 laws of the Old Testament, and brought into the new covenant, where the law is written in their hearts already (Jer. 31:33,) and they have been born again (John 3:3-4, Rev. 20:4.)

…yet if you should become a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

The second “if” clause is yet another contingency guising a rhetorical question which should be Jewish common knowledge. The question is, “Is the Jew a transgressor of the law?”

The answer is yes.

There has been no Jewish individual insusceptible to sin. The source of transgression is sin (cf. 1 John 3:4.) Let us keep in mind Paul’s conclusion to this argument, yet again: not one is just. There is not even one.

The Jews, in their transgression of the law, act as though the ritual itself is righteous, and makes one righteous by nature. They thus ignore the spiritual notions behind it. Circumcision benefits you if you’re putting the law into practice, but if you break the law (which all of them did, dishonoring God in the process,) you group yourself with the rest of the world – the “uncircumcised” of which they so believed themselves superior. Quite the frustrating message for Israel to hear. Paul will go as far, in Philippians 3:2, to call these active “law-keeper-breaker-Jew-people” the maimcision – those who proclaim the righteousness which the circumcision seal displays, but inadvertently void it through unrighteous acts.

All of this brings Israel back to judgment. Though the Jew may suppose that circumcision exempts them from the judgment, the fact is that because they void it, they need judgment, and must face the music if they are to move forward in true righteous conduct. The lesson must be learned so that righteousness is secured.

If the Uncircumcision, then, should be maintaining the just requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?

The final “if” clause presents one more rhetorical question: “Does anyone who is uncircumcised maintain the just requirements of the law made known to his conscience by nature?”

The answer is no.

Thus we realize the full scope of the problem – both Jew and Greek are all under sin. There is no excuse – no rite within the Jewish culture, no fallacy by ignorance, which could indicate that they have earned some magical exemption from the judgment of God. It is God’s responsibility to judge every human being in light of sin’s degradation of the human race. Since none meet the righteous standard, all must be corrected with a view to it.

This is the dikaioma. The Greek elements of the term are “JUST-effect.” We saw this term appear in Romans 1:32, where it was referred to as the “just statute.” The term’s concept does not change – lacking condemnation, and thus a true life of grace and peace. This further foreshadows the quality of the evangel, which is meant to give grace and peace, and thus must make it so that we meet this just statute.

Through law, of course, this concept remains lost. The circumcision folk failed to see the true meaning behind their splicing and dicing – it was a sign of faith! Faith which did not require a specific phallic cosmetic in order to be true. The contingency Paul gives has to be accepted by the Jew, or they concede a misapprehension of circumcision’s value. For example, if the Jew replies, “No, his uncircumcision will not be reckoned for circumcision because of his place in the Abrahamic line,” then Paul could reply, “Ah, so you are no longer arguing that obedience to the law brings about its blessings, but that you have a special place in the bloodline. Why, then, does God threaten to cut you out for disobedience (Lev. 26, Deut. 28?) Why does Moses plead for a circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16, 30:6?)”

And the Uncircumcision who, by nature, are discharging the law’s commands, shall be judging you, who through letter and circumcision, are a transgressor of law.

As if the first half of this “if” clause were not enough, Paul adds an “and,” then keeps on going! We read that the uncircumcision, if they are maintaining the just requirements of the law, would have the right to judge those who transgress it.

First – let us briefly point at the term “nature,” which accords with its use in Romans 2:14. In both cases, “nature” accords with the “law’s commands” – highlighting, yet again, the goodness of human nature. Simply put, by failing to uphold the law, the Jew has demonstrated both a lack of accord with righteous conduct, and that they are out of stride with their… factory setting, if you will.

Even still, it is a scary thought for the Jew. They operate under the notion that they will be ruling and judging the nations, having been given an allotment on the most valued ground on the planet. The idea that the nations, whom they have considered inferior, would be judging them, is very disagreeable to Jewish culture. The inconsistent dealing with the nations is not proof of the nations’ subordinate place, but of Israel’s lacking disposition, demonstrating that they are not yet fit to take their rightful place in the holy land.

In making such a bold statement, Paul will have ideally roused the senses of even the most ignorant Jew, preparing them for the final two verses of this chapter. He will then suppose that the ignorant Jew begins a discourse, and suppose a dialogue with them for the next nine chapters. By indicating that a just uncircumcised individual may be justified if they were to do it, the severity of the Jews’ sinfulness becomes apparent. They have, through letter (another term for ‘law’ – 2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor. 3:6-7, highlighting their ignorance to the explicit words,) and circumcision, are transgressors of law. They will be judged by those who believe Paul’s evangel at the great white throne (1 Cor. 6:1-2,) and repentant men and women will also be able to confirm their guilt (Matt. 12:41-42.)

The Jew, through these three “if” clauses, is cornered yet again. They can either confirm that it is doers of the law alone that can be justified by it, or they must deny circumcision’s function within their community, that it is a pointer (no pun intended,) and not a causer. They are forced to be consistent on the matter – if they deny that the uncircumcision who fulfills the “just requirements of the law” can be reckoned as circumcision, they must also deny that their own circumcision is voided when they transgress the law. Paul forces them to be consistent: if transgression nullifies circumcision, then obedience validates uncircumcision. And if, for whatever reason, they argue otherwise, then again, they dismiss the just statutes of law themselves, and stand in open opposition to their God.

The logic cuts both ways. Again, there is no excuse. They must recognize the trap that they, above any other nation, are in. The alternative is stubbornness, and self-serving pride – which ties us back to Paul’s critical issue. Those under law are not exempt from judgment because they were given it, but are in special need of more severe judgment because they have failed to follow it.

- GerudoKing