The Jew Condemned

Romans – A Treatise
Chapter Two
THE JEW CONDEMNED

Scripture Reading: verses 17-29

Paul continues regarding the guilt of both Jew and Gentile before God. By way of illustration we may call this the case for the prosecution, for it is an outline of the charges brought against the creature because of disobedience to his Maker. Prior to this, Paul has been dealing with the Gentile who is not under law, but who has heart, conscience and thoughts which have been given to him by God Himself in order that he might be guided in the way of righteousness. Now, in verse 17 and on to the end of the chapter, the Jew is placed before the bar of God's judgment.

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; AND ART CONFIDENT THAT THOU THYSELF ART A GUIDE OF THE BLIND, A LIGHT OF THEM WHICH ARE IN DARKNESS, AN INSTRUCTOR OF THE FOOLISH, A TEACHER OF BABES, WHICH HAST THE FORM OF KNOWLEDGE AND OF THE TRUTH IN THE LAW.¹ THOU THEREFORE WHICH TEACHEST ANOTHER, TEACHEST THOU NOT THYSELF? THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL? . . . THOU THAT MAKEST THY BOAST OF THE LAW, THROUGH BREAKING THE LAW DISHONOUREST THOU GOD? FOR THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES THROUGH YOU². . . . FOR HE IS NOT A JEW, WHICH IS ONE OUTWARDLY; NEITHER IS THAT CIRCUMCISION, WHICH IS OUTWARD IN THE FLESH: BUT HE IS A JEW, WHICH IS ONE INWARDLY; AND CIRCUMCISION IS THAT OF THE HEART, IN THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE LETTER; WHOSE PRAISE IS NOT OF MEN, BUT OF GOD.³

Generally speaking, in this important passage the charge of the prosecution concerns enlightenment and the behavior of the one enlightened. While it is true the unbelieving nations had knowledge of the power and Godhead of the Creator made manifest in the visible creation, it is still true that these nations did not have the opportunity for enlightenment that was accorded to God's people Israel who are represented today in the Jews.

The place of privilege of the Jew, in the day of the great apostle, corresponded not only to the Jew of our day, but also, as far as enlightenment is concerned, to the so-called Christian nations of today. The charge is that they were enlightened and knew the will of God, and being enlightened, their behavior was abominable – the Name of God was blasphemed because of their conduct. It is a rather difficult subject to discuss, because we are living in days of racial prejudice, and one could make Bible truth an excuse for such prejudice. However, taking this passage in its entire context, let us remember that the main objective of the whole thing is that both Jew and Gentile are to be brought in guilty before God. Because of his abominations, the Jew cannot pride himself over the Gentile and point at him. Neither can the Gentile point at the Jew on account of sin, because they are both sinners; they are both criminals at the bar of God’s justice. However, let us not mitigate the guilt of one or the other.

Today, we see a world gone mad with all kinds of prejudices. The beasts of the forest are tame compared to sinful men of our present, civilized age. Never in all history has the Jew racially come so pointedly to the front in international relations. In this critical hour in which we live, the welfare of the Jew is an absorbing consideration in world affairs. Therefore, these verses become more meaningful than ever, and their truth bring home the solemn consideration that not one of us, whether Jew or Gentile, can come into the light of Divine revelation without being responsible for how we shall treat that Divine revelation.

The tragic history of the Jew down through the centuries is a potent argument that none of us can do as we please with God. The charge brought here is that the Jews rested in the law, made their boast in God, knew His will, and approved the things that are more excellent, being instructed by the law. They were confident of being a guide of the blind, a light to them in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. In the law, they had the form of knowledge and truth. Being teachers, then, the question is boldly asked: “Teachest thou thyself?” And again, “Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” They made their boast in the law, and through breaking the law they dishonored God. Thus, through them the name of God is blasphemed among the other nations.

These are not opinions expressed with the desire to vilify a certain race on the earth. They are the charges set forth against people who for centuries basked under the sunshine of God’s favor. God loaded them with loving kindness. They sprang from the loins of Abraham and were the object of Divine promises. By a mighty hand, God brought them out from under the yoke of their enemies; they journeyed dry-shod across the Red Sea; they traversed the wilderness for forty years, the manna falling in gentle grace like snowflakes on the desert ground to sustain them, the water gushing from the flinty rock to refresh them as they journeyed on toward a land flowing with milk and honey. Empowered and emboldened by God to go forward and possess the land, they triumphed over their enemies. Then, as a people, they went headlong into idolatry, becoming guilty of many abominations. That is not the New Testament history of the people of Israel; it is the Old Testament history – the Hebrew Bible history.

Hopefully, our Jewish friends will understand and remember that just as the indictment of our Gentile race comes solely from the New Testament, their indictment is written in blood and tears of anguish through their own prophets. Moses, the meekest man in all the earth was driven to distraction by it. That towering witness of righteousness, Elijah, denounced the pagan idolatry of his own people Israel on every hand. David, the anointed of the Lord, was driven across moor and fen because of the godlessness of the people of Israel. Jeremiah wept rivers of tears because of their sins. Patriarch, priest and prophet, from Abraham to Daniel, Micah and Habakkuk decried the very iniquity that is summarily presented in this second chapter of Romans. Theirs are the voices heard in court in substantiation of this prosecution that brings in the Jew guilty before God,4 even with all his privileges of light, truth and knowledge. This is the tragic reason behind the sorrows, anguish, and persecution of the Jewish people today. Let not any Gentile dare lift his voice against them, for we stand in the same criminal dock, having prostituted the light of God in our own so-called Christian civilization, going headlong into idolatry, worshiping the material. That is the story of Romans, chapter two, depicting in letters of blackness that whether Jew or Gentile, we are all sinners before God, and only in Jesus Christ the Lord, the Messiah of Israel, the Savior of the world, can be found eternal salvation.

Footnotes:
¹ Thou art called a Jew … “But if you call yourself a Jew” (RSV) would indicate that Paul did not consider the people addressed here as worthy of so honorable and worthy a name as that of “Jew.” He made the same distinction at the end of this chapter where he denied them any right to be so called. It is as though Paul had said, “I do not associate myself with you in your usurpation of this honored name.” The name “Jew” first occurs in 2 Kings 16:6; but after the Babylonian exile, it was used frequently. It is thought to be derived from “Judah,” the name of the principal tribe of Israel, especially of the southern kingdom, after the division. It was an honored and sacred name. In the mind of the Jew, it was a name associated with all on which he prided himself. “Judah” means “praised,” being the name given by Leah to her fourth son, because, as she said, “Now will I praise the Lord” (Gen. 29:35). The same meaning of “praise” is therefore attached to the name Jew. The name had the highest status among the Hebrews. Even on his death-bed, Jacob said, “Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise” (Gen. 49:8), which is an evident reference to the glorious name of the fourth son, which came, in time, to be adopted by all the Hebrews in the abbreviated form. This is an appropriate place to note that the noblest of those who wore that name deserved it in every sense of the word. Antiquity reveals no more noble persons than those great Jews whose names adorn the pages of the Hebrew Bible. All of the patriarchs and prophets, some of the kings, and many God-fearing members of this chosen nation must be reckoned among the noblest ever to live on earth and surely met Paul’s specifications for people worthy to be called Jews (Rom. 2:28-29). To be sure, none of those ancient worthies was perfect; but their lives as a whole established new bench-marks of character in an age when virtue itself had been almost banished from the earth. Thus, it is clear Paul thought that some who called themselves Jews were unworthy to wear the name. And restest in the law ... Here Paul began to list the prerogatives that surely pertained to the honorable but were falsely claimed by those whom Paul addressed. They rested in the law, not by keeping its teachings but by glorying in it as a national possession ministering to their pride and conceit, and as having nothing at all to do with their behavior. And makest thy boast of God ... Paul did not mean that any of the things in this list were wrong in themselves, but that they were, like a jewel in a swine’s snout, wrong by circumstance, that circumstance being the wickedness of those glorying in God, etc. Of course, they were not actually glorying in God in the sense that it was lawful and commendable to do so. True glorying in God is right and proper, as the Scriptures teach: “He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31). “Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercises lovingkindness, judgment, righteousness in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord” (Jer. 9:23,24 KJV). What kind of glorying was it then which Paul enumerated here as reprehensible? It was a vain and empty glorying of wicked men which nourished their conceit that they were something special in God’s sight, and in which they attributed to God an attitude of indifference, or even approval of their sins. And knowest his will ... Just as above, knowing God’s will is very well indeed; and it is the solemn duty of every man ever born to know God’s will as perfectly as possible; but it is a mark of honor to know God’s will, only if the knowledge is accompanied by a sincere intention to do it. On the other hand, when mere knowledge is made to support human conceit and causes the possessor to fancy that such knowledge endows him with some kind of superiority over his fellow man, or when it may be supposed that the mere possession of the knowledge of God, apart from the true obedience to God’s will, conveys any eternal merit – then occurs the condition reproved here … and approvest the things that are more excellent ... A glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin shows an alternate translation of this clause as “dost distinguish the things that differ.” It is impossible to decide exactly what Paul means. A probable meaning of both clauses taken together might be expressed thus: “You have the ability to make accurate moral judgments and to distinguish and appreciate moral values.” That ability was derived from God’s law in which those people had been instructed. Every Jew, through parental training and weekly attendance of the Sabbath worship, was instructed in the law, at least to the extent of hearing it repeatedly read, and of hearing the public discussion of it. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind ... These men were precisely the same kind of persons of whom Jesus said, “They are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). There was a certain superficial sense in which those people might indeed have led the blind and served as the light of the world; but the moral cancer within them negated such an ability completely. Moreover, their minds had already been darkened in the manner Paul described in Romans 1:21; and the mere fact of their clinging to the external and superficial glories of the old covenant and conceitedly glorying in it could not take away their essential blindness in spiritual things. An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes ... Here Paul completed the list of Jewish prerogatives begun in Romans 2:17. The things listed here are synonymous with some already mentioned. Collectively, the expressions listed provide an excellent picture of the way Gentiles were regarded by the enlightened Jews of Paul’s day. Tragically, the picture is accurate. The Gentiles were indeed blind, ignorant, babes, walking in darkness, an extremely foolish people who desperately needed the wisdom and guidance which properly instructed Jews might have given them. These covenant people detested the ridiculous idolatry of the Gentiles and were in full possession of the most wonderful revelation that ever came from God until Christ appeared upon Calvary. Which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law ... identifies the source of all Jewish knowledge and superiority as the law of Moses. The words strongly suggest Paul’s words to Timothy, “For men shall be lovers of self, etc. ... holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away” (2 Tim. 3:2,5).
² This devastating blast is a charge of hypocrisy, immorality, dishonesty and general wickedness leveled against the persons Paul addressed. The interrogative form of the charges is idiomatic and does not raise the slightest uncertainty concerning their sins, and should be understood as the bluntest and most dogmatic affirmation of their unmitigated guilt. Paul evidently selected the very sins which were most odious to the Jews, at least in theory; for, of all the sins of the pagans around them, the Jews particularly detested their idol worship and the abominable sexual excesses. Theft and blasphemy were also regarded similarly. Therefore, it is amazing that Paul charged them with guilt in all these areas. Although there were doubtless many personal exceptions to the gross wickedness Paul charged against the Jews, the tragedy lies in the fact of its being so generally true of that particular generation. Christ Himself supported Paul’s charge of theft thus: “And he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers” (Matt. 21:13). The persons charged in Jesus’ indictment were none other than the social, religious, and political leaders of the nation. Paul’s charge of adultery was supported by all the Old Testament prophets, especially Jeremiah, who wrote, “(They) assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife” (Jer. 5:7,8). Jeremiah even went so far as to say that the Israelites had committed adultery “under every green tree” (Jer. 2:20). The charge of robbing temples is more difficult to understand because, grammatically, it does not seem to fit in. For that reason commentators take it in a secondary sense, like “profaning sacred things” or robbing God through non-payment of tithes (as in Mal. 3:8-10); but there is no need of any attempt to soften this. Those addressed were guilty as charged. True, we are unable to cite specific examples, as of adultery and theft; but, what is more important, their reputation for doing just that is established in the Word of God. Since the town clerk at Ephesus defends Paul and his colleagues against any such charge as robbing temples (Acts 19:37), we cannot suppose this wrong was one to which the Jews were entirely immune. How strangely perverse is the human heart, which, in the midst of abounding depravity and sin, and while participating in and sharing in the very sins known to be prohibited and abominable, the heart is yet capable of indulging in delusions of spiritual safety and security; and never in history were there any more pitiful examples of such a phenomenon than those persons Paul addressed in these verses. Thou that makest thy boast of the law ... This and the following clause constitute a summary of what Paul wrote in Romans 2:17-20, and the second clause of Romans 2:23, whether understood as affirmative or interrogatory, is a pronouncement of guilt on those people in all points as charged, namely, theft, profanation, adultery, etc. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you ... is the pinnacle of Paul’s indictment, the same being a paraphrase of Isaiah 52:5, last clause, which reads, “And my name continually every day is blasphemed.” It is worth noting that the blaspheming of God’s name mentioned by Isaiah was due to the captivity of Israel, it being the view of the pagans that any god who could not protect his people from captivity could be blasphemed with impunity; but this circumstance does not invalidate Paul’s appeal to this verse for support of what he said, because the captivity itself was due to the sins of Israel, thus making their sin to be the originating cause of the blasphemy.
³ In two verses the principle is stated both negatively (Rom. 2:28) and positively (Rom. 2:29) that the rite of circumcision is useless unless the moral values of the law, which were pledged and symbolized by that circumcision, are also maintained. Therefore, the false circumcision would be the circumcision of one whose life showed no regard for the moral values of God’s law; and the true circumcision would be the case of the circumcised person who regarded and honored such values. To make Paul’s statement in this context mean that every external rite, such as baptism, which was commanded by the Lord Himself, may be dispensed with, and that some vague inward experience or strong emotional commitment may be substituted for it, is to make it speak a falsehood. There is not a particle of evidence that Paul had in mind Christian baptism, or that these words may be forced into an application to that rite. Paul was only declaring that the only circumcision that could avail the Jew anything was a circumcision honored by a life consistent with the rite. In the case of baptism, for example, the submission to the ordinance is itself a part of the laying hold, for in that ordinance, faith becomes obedient; and the salvation Paul taught in Romans has nothing to do with anything else, other than an “obedient faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26, etc.). Having at this point completed his argument concerning the sinfulness of all people, Jew and Gentile alike, and having established the broad principles of it, Paul then proceeded in the next chapter to answer some objections to it, employing the device of the diatribe as a vehicle for the conveyance of his thought.
⁴ The words “by nature” in this verse are made the basis of referring this statement to pagans, or Gentiles, of the nobler variety, who were presumably living up to all the light they had. The only way the law can possibly be fulfilled is “in Christ,” and that mountain fact solidly identifies the “uncircumcision which is by nature” as those Gentiles who had become Christians, the expression “which is by nature” being but another way of saying they had been Gentiles. Any notion that unregenerated Gentiles had indeed “fulfilled the law” dissolves in light of Paul’s extensive argument in Romans 1:18-21.