17 But if you bear the name Jew
and rest on Law
and boast in God...
Here Paul begins to enumerate a list of points that identify
those who bear the name Jew. He says: they rest on Law
(i.e., Torah). This is not rest as in the Sabbath rest {Gk., hesuchazo},
but rest {Gk., epanapaue = settle, rely; only
here in the NT} in the sense of dependence on which
follows from commitment to the commandments or precepts
of the Torah.
For what does an observant Jew rely on the Law? For
soul-salvation? No, this is a Christian view of the purpose of
the Law, which they introduce along with their rejection of the
same. A Jew, on the other hand, would be more likely to point
toward (at least) two ends of the Law:
a) blessings of "prosperity and success"
(Joshua 1:7-8); cf. second paragraph of the Shema, Deut. 11:8,
13-15, material blessings of observance; Psalm 37 presents this
aspect of the Law very well, as does Psalm 1:1-3;
b) sanctification, as in Lev. 19:2, which introduces the
"holiness code" contained in the commandments that
follow; also, as in the traditional benediction spoken with the
observance of certain commandments: "Blessed are You, Lord
our God, who has sanctified us through His commandments and has
commanded us to..."
In addition, the commandments of the Torah offer a "moral
compass" as well as a disciplined daily regimen, a guide for
making practical decisions, and an answer to the questions:
"What does God require of us?" and "How then
should we live?"
On what else should a Jew rely? The prophet Isaiah declares:
"To the Torah and to the Testimony! If they do not speak
according to this word, there is no light of dawn in them."
(Isaiah 8:20) Testimony is the Hebrew word t'udah,
used here and in Isaiah 8:16 as another description of the body
of teaching known as Torah; compare the related word 'eidut
used frequently in Exodus in the same sense.
Then Paul says: they boast in God; or, as in v. 23, they
boast in Law (cf. 3:27) The NIV translation
over-interprets Paul's words as "brag about your
relationship to God." While Paul may intend this meaning, it
is not at all clear what his problem is (if any) with those who boast
in God.
Note that Paul himself allows boasting in two areas:
a) in II Corinthians 10:17 he says, "But the one boasting,
let him boast in the Lord," his words* taken
loosely from the prophet Jeremiah, who actually wrote, "Thus
says the Lord, 'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, and let
not the strong man boast of his strength, [and] let not the rich
man boast of his riches. But the one boasting, let him boast
about this: to understand and to know Me, that I am the
Lord who exercises kindness, justice, and righteousness on the
earth, for in these I delight,' declares the Lord" (Jeremiah
9:22-23 MT).
b) in Galatians 6:14a Paul declares, "But may I never boast except
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ..."
So Christians have grounds for boasting too, and do they ever
boast! Now if a Christian may boast in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf.
Philippians 3:3) and in his cross, why does Paul object (if he
does) that a Jew should boast in God and in His Law? Other than
pointing to one of the key differences between (his own)
Christianity and (his opponents') Judaism, Paul's words do not
seem to have any further import. I would therefore ask of Paul:
So what?
Psalm 105:3 uses the same Hebrew word for boast as the
verse (quoted above) from Jeremiah, although the LXX translation
is different: "Boast in His holy name, let the heart of
those who seek the Lord rejoice." (Cf. Isaiah 41:16b)
What of Paul's specific charge that Jews boast in Law?
Everett Harrison, in his commentary on Romans, claims, "In
Paul's time some of the leaders of Judaism were making such
extravagant statements about the law as to put it virtually in
the place of God. Many Jews were trying to keep the law for its
own sake, to honor the law rather than its giver." (1)
Christians and Christian commentators often go
beyond their own texts and take an even more extreme stance on
issues like this one: how Jews and teachers of Judaism view the
Law, or Torah. Paul may think that Jews place the Torah above
God, but he doesn't say as much here. Even so, I will assume for
the moment that Paul agrees with Everett Harrison in making this
charge. Since neither Paul nor Mr. Harrison cite any specific
examples to support their case, a counter-argument is
unnecessary. However, the offensive and unfair nature of the
charge demands a response.
First, to boast in God's Torah (cf. Paul's words in
Romans 2:23) has much precedent in the Hebrew Bible. Apart from
Psalm 19, Psalm 119, and a host of other scriptures praising the
Torah, we have this "extravagant" statement , "The
LORD was pleased for the sake of His righteousness to make His
Torah great and glorious" (Isaiah 42:21).
Second, that Israel may boast in the Torah (as God has)
does not mean that they boast in their own observance of the
Torah, i.e., in their works. Each weekday morning an observant
Jew prays that God will receive their prayer not based on any
merit or piety or righteousness or attainment they possess, but
based on God's abundant mercy shown to Israel. Indeed, the
Torah places repentance before good works as "the
penitent stands higher than even the thoroughly righteous." (2)
Third, that Israel would ever put
anything "in the place of God" or "honor the law rather
than its giver" is a false and offensive charge.
They honor the Torah as they honor the Sabbath: precisely because
both were given to Israel by God. These gifts are treasured and
celebrated as God intended. So on Friday evening the prayer is,
"Accept our Sabbath offering of rest, sanctify us with Your
commandments and let Your Torah be our portion. Fill our lives
with goodness, and gladden us with Your salvation. Cleanse our
hearts and we shall serve You faithfully. Lovingly and willingly,
Lord our God, grant that we inherit Your holy gift of the Sabbath
forever, so that Your people Israel who hallow Your name will
always find rest on this day." (3)
As with the Sabbath, so with the Torah:
the Giver is exalted with the gift; to do otherwise would be to
commit idolatry.
18 and know the will {i.e., His
will}
and approve the things essential,
having been instructed out of the Law
A fair statement? Certainly an observant Jew would identify with
the words instructed out of the Law. This is essential
to Judaism, as stated in Psalm 94:12, "Blessed is the man whom
you discipline, Lord, and teach out of your Law."
The Law, or Torah, serves for both instruction and correction in
the way of the Lord.
In what sense does a Jew claim to know the will of God?
In the sense that God's will has been revealed to Israel through
the commandments of the Torah. In other words, a Jew does not
claim to have special esoteric knowledge of God's secret will,
only that which may be understood from the reading of the Torah.
As Deuteronomy 29:28 (MT) teaches Israel:
"The hidden things are for the Lord our God,
but the revealed things are for us and for our children forever,
to observe all the words of this Law."
Siddur Sim Shalom interprets this verse: "Revelation does
not deal with the mystery of God, but with a person's life as it
should be lived in the presence of that mystery." (4)
Finally, the phrase approve the things
essential (Gk., dokimazeis ta diapheronta) is also
found in Philippians 1:10, where Paul intends a positive quality
to be sought. Indeed, Paul's prayer as a whole in Philippians
1:9-11 (for Christians) is just as ambitious as what a Jew is
said to claim for himself (or the Law) in Romans 2:17-20!
19 and are confident that you yourself
are a guide for the blind,
a light to those in darkness,
20 an instructor of the foolish,
a teacher of the young {immature},
having the form {embodiment} of knowledge and
truth in the Law
The teachers of Israel, in Paul's day as in our own, would
attribute whatever guidance or enlightenment or understanding
they could offer to the Torah, which indeed has the power to
"make wise the simple" and "give light to the
eyes" (Psalm 19:7-8). On God's charge to his servant Israel
to be a "light to the Gentiles/nations," see Isaiah
42:6-7, 49:6, 60:3.
21 You, then, who teach another, do you not
teach yourself?
You who preach not to steal, do you steal?
22 You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery?
You who detest idols, do you rob temples?
Paul may have in mind Jeremiah 7:9f, where the prophet (speaking
for God) rebukes his own people, the people of Judah at a
particular time in history, for their hypocrisy: "Do you
steal [and] murder and commit adultery and swear by false [gods]
and burn incense to Baal and follow after other gods you have not
known?"
Jeremiah's answer for the hypocrisy and wickedness of his day is repentance
(cf. 7:5-7); his judgment is on his own generation (cf. 7:29).
But Paul turns Jeremiah's words into an unfounded slander of the
Jews and the Judaism of his own day. For he has no interest to
rebuke and correct them (in the way of the Torah), only to
condemn or convert them (by his gospel).
23 You who boast in Law,
do you dishonor God through transgression of the Law?
24 For "through you the name of God is blasphemed {spoken
evil of} among the Gentiles" just as it is written.
These words are a loose quotation from Ezekiel 36:20-23, with the
word blasphemed imported from Isaiah 52:5 (LXX); but see
the entire context in Ezekiel 36:16-36, with the resolution in v.
27b, "to follow my decrees and to carefully keep my
laws."
25 For indeed circumcision has value
if you observe [the] Law,
but if you are a transgressor of [the] Law,
your circumcision {Gk peritome} has become uncircumcision
{Gk akrobustia}.
On the first line, contrast I Corinthians 7:19,
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but what matters is keeping God's commandments."
Likewise Galatians 5:2, "...if you are circumcised Christ
will have no value to you." So Paul has toned down
his language for the Roman church. But his point remains dubious,
for the newborn son who is circumcised on the eighth day enters
into a covenant relationship of great value between Israel and
God; yet apart from the circumcision the newborn himself has done
nothing to observe the Law.
As for the second half of Paul's statement, indeed Leviticus 26
speaks metaphorically of "uncircumcised hearts" (v. 41)
in the sense of unrepentant hearts, those who have "rejected
[God's] laws and abhorred [God's] decrees" (v. 43). However,
the solution is found within the Law: they must confess their
sins (v. 40) and humble themselves in repentance (v. 41). A Jew
who transgresses the Law does not cease to be a Jew: his
obligation to the covenant remains.
26 If, then, the uncircumcision keeps the
righteous requirements of the Law,
will not his uncircumcision be counted for {regarded
as} circumcision?
The simple answer: no. Apart from circumcision, that would make
him a "righteous Gentile" acceptable before God, but
not a Jew. Physical circumcision is the sign of God's everlasting
covenant with Abraham and with the nation Israel: this
commandment especially ties the Sinai covenant (Lev. 12:3) to
that made with Abraham. With brit milah (covenant of
circumcision) a person enters the "covenant of
Abraham." Furthemore, for Israel circumcision is
one of the righteous requirements of the Law, so Paul's
rhetorical point is nothing but that: empty rhetoric.
In fact, circumcision is one of the ways (along with tefillin,
tzitzit, and mezuzot) that a Jew is reminded of the other
commandments, to do them, which is his calling as a Jew.
27 And the uncircumcision by nature, keeping
{fulfilling} the Law, will judge you
who through letter and circumcision are a transgressor of [the]
Law.
28 For he is not a Jew who is [so] in the open {NIV, outwardly},
nor is circumcision that in the open [i.e.,] in flesh,
The NIV translation softens the force of Paul's claim by
inserting "only" before "outwardly" and
"merely" after "circumcision." A Jew might
even agree with this softer version (cf. Jeremiah 9:25-26), but
unfortunately Paul does not say this or intend this.
Compare Philippians 3:2-3: "Beware of the dogs, beware of
the evil workers, beware of the concision; (5)
for we are the circumcision, who worship by
the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and do not trust in
the flesh..." Here we have the real Paul, who, like his
Gentile friends, refers to physical circumcision as concision
(i.e., mutilation), then has the arrogance to claim that he and
his Gentile friends are the true (more spiritual?) circumcision.
29 but a Jew is he who is [so] in the
secret {NIV, inwardly},
and circumcision is of [the] heart, in spirit, not [in] letter,
of which {whom} the praise is not from men but
from God.
Both inwardly and outwardly, a Jew would respond, according to
the word of the Torah. For Israel, circumcision is of the heart
(Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6) and of the flesh (Genesis 17:10-14;
Lev. 12:3), forever. Ezekiel 44: 7, 9 refers to "sons of the
foreigner [who are] uncircumcised in heart and
uncircumcised in flesh." Both barriers prevent the
foreigner from entering God's sanctuary.
Gottlob Schrenk writes: "It is precisely through what is
written and through circumcision that the Jew is a
transgressor....since neither what is written nor
circumcision leads him to action."
(6) Likewise,
Everett Harrison refers to "what the law requires but
cannot produce" (7)
Both statements flatly contradict Psalm 119
and various other scriptures which detail how the law produces
behavior consistent with its demands.
Where does this argument for the superiority of the inward over
the outward lead us? Christianity through the centuries would
replace the letter of the law with an equally meticulous
letter of doctrine: what specifics you must believe
in order to be counted among those who have "pure
doctrine," which varies with each denomination. What is the
intrinsic superiority of believing doctrine over doing
commandments? I fail to see any.
Notes
1. The Expositor's Bible
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976) , vol. 10, p.
33.
2. Joseph ben Joseph Nahmias (14th century), quoted in The Living Talmud, ed. Judah Goldin (New York: New American Library, 1957), p. 168.
3. Adapted from Siddur Sim Shalom, ed. Jules Harlow (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 1985), p. 315.
4. Ibid., p. 282
5. Gk katatomen (NIV has "mutilators of the flesh"); cf. Gk peritome (circumcision).
6. Quoted in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, pp. 34-35.
7. Ibid., p. 35.
Return to home page
© 2002 Charles F. Hudson