p. 536 | Question on Rom. 2:25 by James White

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 3, 1885

FromThe Signs of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 34

Question on Rom. 2:25.

By James White

“I HEARD a minister say that ‘the law’ in Rom. 2:25 is the ‘ceremonial law,’ because it is connected with circumcision. There seems to be a difficulty in it which I cannot solve. Can you give me any light on the subject? E. I. R.”

ANSWER.—There is indeed a difficulty in that view which no one can solve, but in the text itself, and in its connection, there is no difficulty.

1. Circumcision was given to Abraham as a token of the covenant which God made with him. Gen. 17:11. The covenant was made with him because he was a righteous man. Gen. 18:19; 26:3-5. Compare 1 John 3:7. Paul says that circumcision was given to Abraham as a seal or token of the righteousness which he had before he was circumcised. Rom. 4:11. It was a righteousness of faith; but faith without works is dead, and faith is perfected by works. Jas. 2:17-22. Therefore Abraham received the promise because he obeyed God’s commandments; this is doing righteousness, for God’s commandments are righteousness. Ps. 119:172; Isa. 51:7.

Now if obedience to the law is righteousness, and circumcision was given as a sign of righteousness, it was, of course, a sign of obedience. But, obedience to what? To the ceremonial law? No; there is no righteousness in that; and Abraham did not receive the promise because of obedience to the ceremonial law. Circumcision was not given as a sign of his obedience to the ceremonial law. It does not take any great amount of logical acumen to discover the connection, both in the Old and New Testaments, between circumcision and the law or righteousness of God.

2. In Rom. 2:17-27 Paul directly addresses the Jewish part of his readers. And in this address “the law” of which he is speaking is clearly identified. Notice what is said of it from the first reference to it. Verse 12 is the only text which presents even an apparent difficulty; the expression—“sinned without law”—is a stumbling-block to some. But it need not be if the context is well considered.

It is a fact acknowledged that the nations of the earth had mostly forgotten God when he chose Abraham as the one through whom he would fulfill his promise made to Adam (Gen. 3:15); and especially was gross darkness upon the earth when the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt. But the knowledge of right and wrong—of the principles of his Government which he had made known to Adam, to Enoch, to Noah, to Abraham, and to others—had not become entirely obliterated from the hearts of the sons of Adam. In Rom. 2:14, 15, Paul speaks of the Gentiles doing “by nature the things contained in the law,” and as showing “the work of the law written in their hearts,” and this to such an extent that their consciences bear witness to their actions, and their thoughts (or reasonings) accusing or else excusing one another. These nations, though they did not have the law given to them as it was given to the Jews, retained sufficient knowledge of the law by tradition from their fathers to be without excuse in their wrong-doing, or to have the approval of their consciences in right-doing.

In this sense only could they be said to sin without law. For, in the entire absence of law there can be no sin. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Hence, “where no law is, there is no transgression,” or sin. Rom. 4:15. Sin was imputed to all the nations from Adam to Moses, and after that time, as in the time of the flood, and the case of Sodom. But “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom. 5:13. Thus it is proved that there can be no sin and no imputation of guilt in the entire absence of law. And thus, again, is proved the correctness of our construction of Rom. 2:12, 14.

3. But there is another expression in verse 12 which should be well considered: “And as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” Verses 13-15 are parenthetical. Verse 16 is closely related to verse 12, saying that sinners “shall be judged by the law, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Here three very important facts are stated: (1) The gospel declares a future Judgment. See Acts 17:31. (2) Jesus Christ will be the Judge. Acts 17:31; John 5:22. (3) The law will be the rule of judgment. Compare Eccl. 12:13, 14.

4. This law by which sinners will be judged is clearly identified in verses 17-22. “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” This was the law given to the Jews; being instructed out of the law, they knew the will of God, and could thereby approve the things that were more excellent, and, of course, could reject the things that were not good. Mark well, that this law which the Jews had contained the will of God; it contained those principles of right and wrong which are written in the hearts of the Gentile world; and by it Christ will judge the world at last. The apostle further says to the Jews: “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal [eighth commandment], dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery [seventh], dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols [second], dost thou commit sacrilege? thou that makest thy boast of the law [ten commandments], through breaking the law dishonorest thou God?” Here we have three of the ten commandments quoted and the whole code called “the law,” and he declares that God is dishonored by its violation. “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” They who have the knowledge of the truth in God’s law, cause the enemy to blaspheme if they do not keep the law. Then comes the text in question, “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.”

5. Having “the law” most clearly defined to be the commandments which were proclaimed to the Jews, we turn again to consider the relation which circumcision sustains to this law. We have seen that circumcision was given as a sign of righteousness; also that personal righteousness is by obedience—by doing righteousness; and the righteousness to be done is the law of God, for his commandments are righteousness. In our little book on “The Law of God,” published in 1854, we made the following comment on this text: “Circumcision was given as a sign or seal of righteousness—the righteousness, of course, existing prior to the giving of the rite. Rom. 4:11. So that circumcision, or the sign of righteousness, is of avail only where the righteousness exists; therefore Paul says, ‘circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law,’ i. e., the seal is valid where the righteousness exists; ‘but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision;’ i. e., if the righteousness is wanting, the seal or sign thereof, is of no consequence, because it signifies nothing. Consequently the uncircumcision by nature, or Gentiles, if they fulfill the law, shall judge thee who by letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.” Hence circumcision was of no consequence only as it was connected with the observance of the law; as is said in 1 Cor. 7:19. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.”

6. But if righteousness consists in obedience, would not the Jew, if he had perfectly obeyed the law, been justified by obedience? Certainly he would; for Rom. 2:13 says distinctly: “The doers of the law shall be justified.” And Paul again says in Gal. 3:12: “And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” Jesus said to the lawyer who repeated the two great commandments given to Israel: “This do, and thou shalt live.” Luke 10:28. And Paul again said the commandment was ordained to life. Rom. 7:10. Another question: If the law was ordained to life, and the doers of the law shall be justified, whence the necessity of another means of justification, namely, by faith? The reason is very evident; it is because there are no doers of the law. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” “There is none that doeth good; no, not one.” “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And so Paul, after declaring that all have gone astray, said, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20. It is for this reason that the faith of Christ is made the means of justification. But the apostle has carefully guarded against the error of supposing that faith is substituted for the law as a rule of life. The law remains the rule whereby men will be judged; the gospel becomes the means of placing us in right relations to the law. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3:31.

7. But what of those who reject Christ, who refuse to receive him by faith, and who insist on retaining circumcision as their sign of acceptance with God? They place themselves under the necessity of showing that they have kept the law—the whole law. For if they have violated it in any particular, they are condemned by it; they have lost their justification by it. As Paul says in another place, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Gal. 5:3. This is an exact parallel to Rom. 2:25; and most of Paul’s expressions in his letter to the Galatians have their parallels in that to the Romans. He who insists on circumcision, insists that he has righteousness in himself; he insists on taking the law as his means of justification, and to such the apostle says, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” Gal. 5:2. On the other hand, “In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” Verse 6. This love always accompanies genuine faith, and the fruit of its work is shown in Gal. 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Apostle John also said the same thing: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” 1 John 5:3.

8. We must notice now the point in the question. Not one of the expressions which we have quoted, either in the words of Christ, or Paul, or John, can possibly be referred to the ceremonial law. The only relation that circumcision ever sustained to the law of God was that of a sign of righteousness. To Abraham it was a sign of the righteousness of faith. Rom. 4:11. But to them who reject the faith, it is but a sign of the righteousness of their own obedience. But no such righteousness exists; therefore as such a sign it has no significance—it “is nothing.” But in the Jewish system it was of great importance; it was a representative rite, so that it became the mark of distinction, “the circumcision” meaning the Jews, and “the uncircumcision” meaning the other nations. Bearing in mind this

fact. Rom. 2:26 most clearly shows the absurdity of supposing that these verses refer to the ceremonial law. But for a moment take it in that light and read the text: And shall not uncircumcision, that is, the uncircumcised, the Gentiles, if it fulfill the ceremonial law, and is circumcised, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the ceremonial law, that is, be not circumcised? We paraphrase thus, because no one could keep the ceremonial law and not be circumcised. Such a jumble as that view involves is often found in false theories, but never in the words of so clear a reasoner as the Apostle Paul.

Much might be added to show that Paul, in all his writings, and especially in his letter to the Romans, follows his divine Master, of whom the prophet said: “He will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. And so shall we if we also follow him.