#65. Romans 3:1-2 – Objection #1

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

What, then, is the prerogative of the Jew, or what the benefit of circumcision?

The Objector

Throughout Romans, there is an objector present. He is in the front row, and he is not afraid to interrupt the apostle’s argument when he hears something troublesome. This objector questions Paul some nine or ten times throughout this epistle, and each time his mouth is shut by Paul’s answer.

Yet do not assume that this objector is not present where no question is asked. Most often, Paul anticipates cross-examination, proposing questions and answering them before the objector can even begin (Rom. 3:27, 4:1, 8:31, etc.) Though the objector may be absent from the immediate discussion, he is looming – hanging on to Paul’s every word, likely even more carefully than you or I, seeking a slip-up.

The objector is wrong. There is no doubt about it; the problem with the objector is that his position inherently argues from the negative. By arguing from the perspective of disagreement, the objector assumes the role of the judge, as Paul began in Romans 2:1. He must tell God, “Here is how You should be doing things,” as if he held the same insight or position as He. He must tell the King, “This is why I disagree.” In doing so, he must detest the justice of Romans 1:32, and thus the proof for Romans 2:6-10. The objector must then explain why any of the 22 actions listed in 1:29-31 are right, and give more righteous parameters of judgment than Romans 2:6-10. If any real-world objector asks any of the objections made by said objector throughout Romans, then this must be the alternative stance; there is no in-between.

If the objector is assumed to be Jewish (as is implied,) then this objection implies a bigger problem: that, by objecting in any way to the points stated thus far, the Jew is proving Paul’s point by trying to disprove anything. They, most of all, should have known that Paul, too, was an apostle sent by God. For them to ignore this and proceed under objections demonstrates the very irreverence that God said exposed one to indignation and correction.

However, this does not mean that the objector is useless, or lacks any purpose or value. So often, it is asked, “If God is in sovereign control over everything, then is an objector truly wrong?” The answer is yes, for no author will write fifteen contrastive characters and then say that every single one fully represents their own views on the world. Some characters may reflect some attributes, but all characters do not reflect all attributes. In the writing community, it is agreed upon that “depiction is not endorsement” – in other words, to display wrong does not suddenly mean agreement with wrong. God’s sovereignty, then, necessitates this paradigm far more than if He were not sovereign over all. It is precisely because God is in control that right and wrong should remain distinct.

We have seen no shortage of this throughout Romans 1 and 2. Just because man is given over to the failures of the flesh, and are given a body made of flesh, does not mean that we are suddenly not accountable for the actions we make. This is because of God’s sovereign demonstrations, not in spite of Him.

This is most clearly shown through the objector of Romans. His questions, while wrong, are important, are vital. In almost every case, the question is posed as Paul (and God’s) excuse to unfold more truth, within the logistical confines of the evangel’s premise. The objector is crucial to the narrative, and cannot be discarded as a crack pot; after all, if Paul is correct and his evangel true, then the objector will inevitably cease their objections, and be humbled by the answers.

You may see some of yourself in the objector. You may even see all of yourself. This is okay. Worry for nothing, dear reader, and hopefully, if you see yourself asking the same questions as the objector, you will keep in mind that your questions burdened God’s mind, so much so that He provides answers, here. And, in a 2,000 page book covering over 1,500 years of history, such is, naturally, quite the honor.

The Question

The objector’s first question is a doozy, to say the least. The Jew’s self-glorification has been exposed and confronted. They are forced to acknowledge that the gentiles – those they considered dogs – were actually better than them if they managed to keep the law that the Jews continually break. Their uncircumcision logically could be accounted for circumcision under such a premise, and this, essentially, spat in the face of their traditions. How could they remain superior if the two were the same, regardless of their rites?

Worse still, there is the notion that God would actually turn to the nations – that He would truly provide the nations with blessings apart from their priestly mediation – to the point where the uncircumcised would be able to judge the circumcised. This is all too much for the apparent Jew to take, for they have placed much stock in their earthly traditions, believing their allotment of the kingdom to be deserved, and cannot risk their religious foothold on the earth.

The Prerogative of the Jew

The objector asks, “What is the prerogative of the Jew?” The term “prerogative,” in Greek, is perissoteron, “ABOUT-more.” It is often translated “excess,” or “excessive,” to show a surplus, or major abundance of something. In this case, the “excess” is special; what, specially, is for the Jew?

This question presses against the major friction between God and man: impending indignation and judgment. The man who recognizes the reality of God must acknowledge this judgment. The Jew is one step ahead in this regard, yet two steps behind because they believe themselves exempt from such a charge! Paul’s argument in Romans 2 has forced the Jewish hand – they must recognize that they are not exempt from the judgment of God. Of course, they do not like this, and begin to subtly discount their blessings. “If it doesn’t resolve our need for judgment,” they sigh, “Then it must be useless!”

This is hyperbolic, and manipulative, reasoning. It is designed to force a false dichotomy. You can either agree with the Jew, that their religious rites and physical acts have value, or you must hate the Jew. They did not even care if Paul was a Jew; the Judaizers conflated themselves with Mosaic law – thus to disagree warranted the death penalty.

The Benefit of Circumcision

The “benefit” of circumcision was provided for us in Genesis 17, as presented in the previous article. It was specially selected with a view to a “flawless walk” (Gen. 17:1.) This is indirectly verified by Paul in verse 25, when he said that “circumcision will be benefiting if you should be putting law into practice.” The same term is used, in both 2:25 and 3:1; its root element is “OWE.” Indeed, one would be owed for their fleshy circumcision if they followed the law to perfection, for they must do the law to be justified by it in God’s sight (2:13.)

Now, I have dragged out this study so much that you have probably read ahead to Paul’s conclusion to this section. He clarifies that “not one is just” (3:10,) and further concludes that “through law, no flesh at all shall be justified in His sight” (3:20.) So we know that the Jew is feeling like his pride has taken a major hit!

It is only natural, then, that those who have been circumcised in the flesh would respond this way. The question, while apparent-ly simple, is quite deceptive. What, then, is the prerogative of the Jew? What is so special about being distinguished as a Jew? What is further special about being circumcised, if the law must be put into practice for its enjoyment to transpire? Why would God work up an entire nation like this, and then not admit any into the promised kingdom, if what Paul gave in 2:25-26 is true? And, finally, if the circumcision of the heart is separate from the circumcision of the flesh, as Paul distinguished it, then what, also, is the value of the circumcision of the flesh, if the heart circumcision is the true “seal” for the Jew?

Paul replies,

Much in every manner.

Wait, What?

Against any logical pretense, Paul replies to the objection with “Much in every manner!”

Much… in every… manner. Huh.

This sure doesn’t sound like the expected answer! What happened??

For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

They were entrusted with the oracles of God. Goodness, this is beautiful. It is well above the common presumption, that they were merely the custodians of the word of God. They were specifically entrusted with them. The term is pisteuo, here inflected episteuthEsan, or “THEY-WERE-made-BELIEVE.” For eagle-eyed readers, this term does indeed carry the element of the term faith (see study on Rom. 1:8.)

We are forced, then, to take the entirety of the oracles of God into consideration. This does not merely include the documentation of the Sinai covenant, but the events which unfolded afterward. Israel themselves annul that covenant (Jer. 31:32.) This must be believed in order to appreciate the true switcheroo at play.

The stress is that of faith – not of practice. They were en-faithed with these oracles. Note that here, the premise is not that the Jew “does” what God requests in His oracles, but that he was made to believe them. The term is written in the passive tense, to show that the Jew is the recipient, and not the cause, of the faith. Among the true member of the circumcision, it is believed that Jesus Christ is the great Inaugurator of one’s faith (Heb. 12:2.)

It is further written in the past tense, to highlight that the oracles of God have already been given. The Hebrew scriptures are incomparable to the Epstein files; they cannot be “redacted.” Today is a day in which the word of God has already been completed (Col. 1:26.) The oracles were orated to Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and their progeny. These specially selected people were for a nation, and should not be confused with the present day “church,” as is so commonly misinterpreted through Acts. When such a baffling conflation between “kingdom” and “gathering” is enforced, errors crop up.

The only rational concession is that the oracles were given to the nation of Israel. If this, for some reason, meant that they “merely” held the oracles, then not only has Paul failed miserably to handle the objection, but he would have made himself sound rather foolish in the process. Why would God craft Israel to, in turn, craft the scriptures, and then cast them away? If He does not fulfill the promises, then He leaves faithful Israel a broken up, dispersed and confused people! Such a lacking response to faith from a faithful God would be wholly unacceptable, and blaspheme the contrastive character of God!

The truth is that they were to grow intimately familiar with the word, and in turn learn the heart of God. King David did this, and his harp remained vibrant. And what do the oracles of God say? That those of the circumcision will be granted a circumcision of the heart. Jeremiah entreats Israel to “circumcise the foreskin of their heart” (Jer. 4:4,) and later claims that Yahweh will document everyone who is circumcised only as to the foreskin (Jer. 9:25 – this is a warning, not a commendation.)

The oracles further assert that those circumcised in heart – not forgetting the purpose for which the seal was given, being faith – will be given the law in the future, and thus will be able to put circumcision into practice, and benefit therein. Observe Jeremiah 31:31-33–

Behold, the days are coming, averring is Yahweh, when I will contract a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not like the covenant which I contracted with their fathers in the day I held fast onto their hand to bring them forth from the land of Egypt, which covenant of Mine they themselves annulled while I was Possessor over them, averring is Yahweh. For this is the covenant which I shall contract with the house of Israel after those days, averring is Yahweh: I will put My law within them, And I shall write it on their heart; I will become their Elohim, And they shall become My people.

Here is another, being Ezekiel 36:26-28–

I will give you a new heart, And a new spirit will I bestow within you, And I will take away the heart of stone from your flesh, And I will give you a heart of flesh. My spirit shall I bestow within you, And I will make it that you shall walk in My statutes and observe My ordinances, And you will obey them. Then you will dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, And you will become My people, And I shall become your Elohim.

Yes! That sounds more like it! This new covenant is completely in line with both old and new plot details. “First,” it is true to the blessings of Genesis 12 and 17. To be circumcised is to be sealed – for a future event. This leads to “second,” that it is also true to Jesus’ continual proclamations that believers in the coming kingdom will be resurrected for that day – which, when we take into account the oracles of God, will include the law being written in their hearts. This will fulfill the seal of circumcision, and thus it will be what it truly is: the seal of the circumcision, those who are of the kingdom of God on earth.

The Jewish objector, then, is operating under the false supposition that circumcision is meant to be enjoyed at present. Yet this runs contrary to the whole point of circumcision, which operated through faith that God would fulfill the blessings, that He alone would do what He said He would do. It is, not so subtly, by faith that the Jew must apprehend the new covenant, their only true “lifeboat” amidst the pending judgment.

Let the message sink in: the major contrast between the Sinai covenant and the new covenant is the contingent party. In the former, the contingency rested on the Jew’s ability to follow law. They have failed to do this. On its surface, this is sin. Yet the sin is necessary for us to appreciate the contrastive contingency, being God’s ability to fulfill His promises.

Thus, the Jew who is entrusted with these oracles can never lose them. They belong to him, through faith alone, the only channel through which God has accounted them righteous for His purpose (Gen. 6:8-9, 15:7, Heb. 11.) They are his inalienable possessions, and to claim he can lose them would not only be an affront to him, but to God.

At this point, the objection is resolved. It is not that Paul has gone into deep explanation, but the objections have not yet reached such a breaking point. Yet he does not need to elaborate “how” God goes about fulfilling His blessings, or get into a pissing contest concerning “how much do you know of Old Testament prophecy?”

For now, the objection is only challenging the superficial. Paul has successfully evaded the idea that he is discounting Jewish blessing, without blaspheming God, and further proving that faith is the only manner through which those blessings come about, since only their faith could accompany right acts and craft a meek disposition. Paul will return to this topic on the other side of our individual salvation, beginning in Romans 9, including a brief list of the blessings with which the Jew is entrusted (9:4-5.)

- GerudoKing