#62. Romans 2:28-29 – Spiritual Israel? (The Bride and the Body: Prologue)
Part II: The Conduct of Humanity
For not that which is apparent is the Jew, nor yet that which is apparent in flesh is circumcision; but that which is hidden is the Jew, and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, whose applause is not of men, but of God.
As we wrap up the second chapter of Romans, I wish to stress, dear reader, that we have hardly come across a phrase that is “too difficult” to apprehend. When we take things word by word, and line by line, recognizing the general structure of the letter, and guarding against random presumptions, we reach valid and simple conclusions.
When we reach 2:28-29, this thought experiment is, I believe, seriously challenged for the first time. You may be reading along in tentative agreement or disagreement with the majority of this series thus far. I firmly believe that, at this point, the chaff will be severed from the wheat. This article will concern us with a major presumption made by the Christian religion – one which a majority of pastors will defend/pre-suppose almost immediately.
Simply put, the verses above are designed to “refute” or “discard” the idea that Paul’s letters are specially severed. Instead, it is argued, Paul’s letters pre-suppose “repentance” and “baptism” – that same “repentance” and “baptism” taught by Peter upon Jesus’ ascension (Acts 2:38-39.) The supposed refutation looks blatantly at the argument made from the first two chapters of Romans, from the “severance” of Paul (Rom. 1:1, Acts 13:1-4,) to the new audience (1:6,) to the evangel which operates through faith alone, apart from law (1:16-17, 3:21,) to the unique judicial verdict which the evangel gives (Rom. 2:13, 3:24,) to the expectation that this evangel proclaims (Rom. 5:2, 8:15-17,) with its distinct glory (Eph. 1:3, 2:6-7,) not to mention some explicit claims that Paul is entrusted with a different gospel (Gal. 2:7-9,) and disagrees with the claim that “Romans 2:28-29 disagree.”
The objector will proclaim that the final two verses of chapter two refer to a “spiritual Israel.” This is, in short, a theory that Paul’s gospel claims that Israel failed to follow law, so, apart from law (cf. Rom. 3:21,) meaning apart from the Jew, the Gentile is now saved by the blood of Jesus, and the saved ones are set to receive the same blessings that the Jewish community received.
Romans
2:28-29 is not the main passage used to demonstrate this position – such
a stance is generally “founded” upon proof texts in Romans 7:1-3, and 11:16-24,
for a few reasons. We will touch upon those reasons in greater detail
when we come across Romans 7 and 11, but before we get into all that, I wish,
for now, to simply establish the viewpoint taken by the “spiritual
Israel” theorists, and refute its basic interpretation of our present text.
Part of the reason for this is that it would be illogical to claim that
we must look at a later part of Romans (ex. 7 or 11) in order to understand
the argument hitherto in Romans 2. We may be able to look at this
passage again in light of the whole argument and appreciate it more, but
no logical argument (especially that of the Divine variety) could rationally say
that you must grasp a later part of the argument in order to interpret
the earlier part. This is a linear argument, and linear arguments are progressive.
This is a revelation, not an obfuscation. If proposition “B” requires
proposition “C,” then “C” must logically precede “B,” not follow it.
To make “B” a prerequisite for “C” would make the argument circular reasoning.
So also we must appreciate Romans 1-2 for what they are, and cannot
suppose that Paul’s argument becomes intelligible when you force a later
chapter into the former.
A Word on “spiritual”
Before we establish this viewpoint (from a couple popular “spiritual Israelite” proponents,) I wish to point out a major problem with the broadest swath of Christendom today. These men are often found in the Bible Belt, and like to mix the term “figurative” with “spiritual.”
This is no minor issue. One of the worst anti-intellectual habits that I see mankind do nowadays is look at a verse which, in the plainest words, would utterly disagree with their pre-conceptions about God, His power, or the story as a whole. These are the men that throw “spiritual” in front of any term they can – “spiritual death,” “spiritual resurrection,” “spiritual Israel,” and more. It is used so often to deny the grand truths which Paul conveys.
Do you, sir or madame, dislike what Paul says in Romans 3:21-26? Well, just make it spiritual!
Do you, perchance, dislike Paul’s distinction in Gal. 2:6-9? Well, just make it spiritual!
Is Revelation full of complex figures? Well, just make it spiritual!
It would be comedic if it were not so detrimental to a student’s grasp of the text. The “spiritual” label is almost always a red flag – a town crier, crying, “Be careful, here!” It stems from a misapprehension of the very practical figures of speech found in scripture.
I stress, figures of
speech, like, real figures of speech – allusions, alliterations,
metaphors, similes, anthropomorphism, parables, and more. These are not
“spiritual.” They are used in our everyday speech, for we gain knowledge relationally. When our minds fail to apprehend a
figure, we cry “It is spiritual!” to both nurse our wounded pride for lack of
understanding, and to escape the charge of “unbelief” from fellow men (God is
often not at the forefront of such thinking, for if He were, one would not be
arbitrarily labeling things “spiritual.”)
A Few Points from “Spiritual Israel” Fans
To explain the position
itself, I will quote from two different commentaries. The first commentary, by
one Matthew Poole (Presbyterian,) is evidence to the “Paul teaches the same
gospel as Peter” theory. He believed in a “spiritual Israel,” laying the
foundation for its belief in this passage. He writes,
“He is not a Jew; a right or true Jew, who is heir of the
promises made to the fathers.
That is one outwardly; the word only is to be understood: see 1 Corinthians
1:17
Neither is that circumcision; the right and true circumcision, which God principally requires, and is available unto salvation: that circumcision is not much to be accounted of which is only the cutting off an outward skin.”
The other commentary, by one Joseph Benson (Methodist,) is more detailed. He also believed in a “spiritual Israel.” Per his commentary on Romans 9-11, he seemed to believe that a full restoration of both “natural” Israel’s national supremacy and a “spiritual” Israel was in view (though how he reconciled this view, I have not yet found.) He writes,
“For he is not a Jew – In the most important sense, that is, one
of God’s beloved people; or a true child of Abraham, to whom the promise
belongs, and one that God will own for a true member of his church;
who is one outwardly – Only; or one of Abraham’s posterity, according to the
flesh, and enjoys the outward privileges belonging to that relation.
Neither is that circumcision – The chief and true circumcision, acceptable to God;
which is outward in the flesh – Consists only in the outward ordinance, and the mark
imprinted on the flesh.
But he is a Jew – One of Abraham’s spiritual seed;
who is one inwardly – Who inwardly possesses the disposition of Abraham, and imitates him in
his faith and obedience. In this sense, the pious Gentiles, though
uncircumcised, and members of no visible church, were really Jews, or children
of Abraham, entitled to the blessings of the covenant which God made with him.
It is of such as these that Christ speaks, in his epistle to the church at
Smyrna, Rev. 2:9; I know the blasphemy of them who say they are
Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
And circumcision is that of the heart – The circumcision which renders men the sons
of Abraham, and the people of God, is of the heart, made by
cutting off or mortifying its lusts. That this is the true circumcision, or the
thing meant by that rite, is evident from the command of Moses to the
Jews, Deut. 10:16, Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts, and be
no more stiff-necked; and from the promise made to the same
people, Deut. 30:6, The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, to
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.
In the spirit —
Seated in the inmost soul, renewed by the Spirit of God. Or the expression may
mean, according to the spiritual sense of the law;
and not in the letter — Not in an external ceremony, performed only according to the letter of
it.
Whose praise is not of men — Who look only on the outward appearance, and will probably be so far
from esteeming, that they will despise and hate such;
but of God —
Who sees in secret, and approves of what is internally holy and spiritual. It
is justly observed by Macknight here, that the apostle, by distinguishing
between the spirit and the letter of the law of Moses, intimates that the rites
enjoined in that law were typical, and had a spiritual or moral meaning, as
Moses also expressly declared to the Jews, Lev. 26:41, and in the passages
of Deuteronomy above quoted. Jeremiah, likewise, Jer. 4:4, represents
circumcision as emblematical; consequently all the other rites of the law were
so likewise.”
Whoop De Doo
Before we begin discussing these points in detail, please, first, keep in mind that the aforementioned notes are not 100% incorrect. To claim otherwise is one-dimensional. Let us first note the commonality between the commentaries and the scriptures.
We should all be able to agree that this passage is contrasting external rite with internal disposition. The expositors above note this, as well we should; the Jews were incorrect in believing that circumcision amounted to a ceremony that automatically bestowed upon them the blessings of the faithful. At its core, this is meant to drive home the message that the Jew, like the Gentile, will be subject to God’s correction, for they do not hold up to the righteous scrutiny exemplified in Rom. 2:6-10. Whatever else you may “agree” or “disagree” on with me (or the men above,) this, at its core, should be the fact that all believers agree upon, for it is in line with Paul’s argument until this point, and is not disposed above the subject matter.
Alas, we must diverge where man’s reasonings are prioritized. Poole, for example, assumes that salvation and circumcision of the heart are one in the same. Yet when Paul presents the evangel itself (Rom. 3:21-26,) he does not teach this as a “circumcision of the heart.” The burden of proof is on Poole to show the relation between these two concepts, since Romans does not factually state that circumcision and uncircumcision are interchangeable in spirit.
It may be argued (from the Preterist camp especially) that Paul is arguing that “circumcision and uncircumcision” are interchangeable, and that this verse shows that circumcision is a big hairy metaphor for the abrogation of Israel’s physical rites (and, again, this is often paired with an interpretation of all time in Romans 11.) Yet so far such an interpretation makes no sense. Paul is proclaiming a message to both Jews and Greeks (Rom. 1:16,) not “only the gentiles because Jews lost their promise,” for this is an extraneous, pre-supposed idea. Moreover, Paul himself clarified that judgment is not the evangel, but accords with it (2:16.) Since the evangel is God’s power for salvation, it cannot be supposed that “salvation” of either Jew or gentile is in view in Rom. 2:28-29.
Benson’s commentary is more direct. Benson calls the “inward Jew” – or, in a proper translation, “that which is hidden is the Jew” – as a part of Abraham’s “spiritual seed.” Yet this begs the question! Simply “stating” that this is Abraham’s “spiritual seed” begets nothing.
On this flawed premise, Benson proclaims that the “inward” Jew will imitate Abraham in faith and obedience, and that thus any religious gentile is able to partake of the blessings God promised to Abraham. Yet ample time is spent with the inception of Israel, from Genesis 12-35, stressing the necessity for the promised seed to come through Isaac and no other. The seed would not come through Ishmael, nor his servant Eliezer, nor from the sons he birthed from Keturah. Nor would the seed come through Esau, but Jacob, who was termed “Israel” in his later years. For God to backtrack on this would make most of Genesis a giant non-sequitur, and devalue all of His careful plotting on this front.
Benson claims this so as to portray the Reformed church(es) as the “spiritual Israel,” as if God has set aside the actual seed promised through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for some hidden set of parameters (which Paul has, notably, not conveyed to us,) so that the church may take Israel’s blessings for themselves. He blatantly ignores that the two passages he cited in Deuteronomy were written to Israel alone, to the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To wrench “circumcision of the heart” from the Israelites would be counter-intuitive, and I’m sure such a theft will not go over well with a just God.
In truth, Paul speaks of the “circumcision of the heart” at the end of this chapter because he is referring to the Jew (Rom. 2:17.) This is demonstrated by the fact that he is fielding objections from the Jew in Rom. 3:1-8! The “heart,” as we have considered from Romans 1:25, is the seat of moral and emotional sensation – a figure of the “pulse” for your spirit. As such, it would be odd to treat such a figure for the spirit as somehow absent from the faithful Jew. God is adamant that the Jew will receive a new spirit when their millennial kingdom comes to pass (Ezek. 36:26, Acts 2:17.) Thus the circumcision of the heart, too, will have come to pass, for the denomination God has prophesied would be.
It is only in this sense that “spiritual Israel” could be scripturally discussed – faithful Israel, the true Israel of the Old Testament who believed God, who will have a new spirit when they are subjected to their Lord. The notion that the present day church(es) represent “spiritual” anything is nigh laughable. The “spiritual” who confuse the “spirit” with the “soul?” The “spiritual” who, in flesh, still believe themselves capable of following law? The “spiritual” who believe there must be some greater, physical burning one must endure in death to satisfy their bloodlust? The “spiritual” who cannot distinguish between the “spirit of God” and the “spirit of Christ” in plain passages (Rom. 8:9-11?) The “spiritual” who do not recognize the Sovereign Spirit of all, and conduct hypocritical reasonings to pretend that they do?
Right.
This takes me back to the problem. “Figurative” need not be transposed by
“spiritual.” To knowingly do this is subtle, and evil. It supposes that
faithful Israel was too carnal, and yet we are spiritual, so that
we may understand whatever “spiritual” meaning the church or scholar wishes to
apply to it. And – it is almost always added – if you don’t understand
the spiritual meaning, you, too, are carnal, and cannot apprehend the
“spiritual” because you disagree with their presumption.
*
* *
Comments
Post a Comment