Welcome to EBible Fellowship’s Bible study in the book of Romans. Tonight is study #28 of Romans 2, and we are reading Romans 2:25-29:

For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 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.

We have been spending some time looking at some of the things the Bible has to say about “circumcision” and “uncircumcision.” Interestingly, we find that it was the controversy over circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses that led to that wonderful statement in Galatians 2:16. Let us go to Galatians 2, and I will read
Galatians 2:11-16:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Here, Paul is admonishing Peter. He is using the Word of God to correct an error that Peter and some of the other Jews were falling into. And, certainly, Peter should have known better because in Acts 10, the Lord gave him the vision of “unclean animals” three times, and He said, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” And Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” And God said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” Then immediately an embassage came from Cornelius, an Italian and a Gentile, and they beckoned Peter to come with them, and he went with them because of that vision. He went to this Gentile’s home, and he witnessed the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius and his household, just as it had fallen up the Jews. So Peter was moved to say in Acts 10:42-48:

And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

So Peter had personally witnessed God blessing the Gentiles and saving these Gentiles exactly as He had done on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out, and they spoke in other tongues (known languages). And, here, too, he had heard them speak with tongues, so there was really no excuse, and the Lord admonished Peter through Paul’s reasoning. It was very sound reasoning when he said to him, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews.” That is, he was saying, “Peter, you are no longer living according to the Law of Moses. You are not offering sacrifices. You are not keeping the feasts. You are not trying to get right with God through the Law, but you believe that you are saved through the faith of Christ.” And that is what leads into Paul’s point as he asked, “Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” That is, if the Jews were living as the Gentiles, why would you have the Gentiles to live like Jews? It did not make any sense. God was pressing that point upon them, and it was necessary because of the “leftovers” from the Old Testament relationship between God and the people of Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham. There were numbers of Jews that became believers and followed the Lord, and as they entered into the church age, they were bringing many errors with them that had been longstanding doctrinal errors that went back for centuries with the traditions of the Jews and their failure to understand that they could not get right with God through the Law. The Law was given to show the sin of the sinner and to lead him to Christ, and then one is justified by the faith and work of Christ alone, and not by the works of the Law. So the Judaizers were a constant problem for Paul and for the early church, but through it, God has given us much Scripture to correct those errors.

You know, in a similar way at the end of the church age when God’s people came out of the churches and went out into the world, there were some people that wanted to take some of the traditions of the church out into the world. They were no longer part of the churches. They had come out, and they had recognized it was the end of the church age, but they still wanted to continue to do baptisms and the Lord’s Table. But those things identified with the churches, and God gave those ceremonial laws for the church age, and they were to be carried out under the supervision of church authority, the pastors, and elders. And when God caused the pastors to cease from feeding the flock and He took away all church authority, there was no one to oversee baptism or the Lord’s Table. But there were some – especially early on – that were insistent because they had the idea that we need to baptize the children; or when someone becomes a believer, he or she needs to be baptized because it must have something to do with salvation; or we need to partake of the Lord’s Table, because there had been a longstanding teaching that this somehow mysteriously imparted grace to the one who ate of the bread or drank of the grape juice. But, no, all the necessary things that come with the salvation of the soul are done by God. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit, and we feed upon Christ, spiritually, as He is the bread, and we drink of His blood, spiritually, as we go to the Bible. There is no longer any need for these “physical signs.”

But I do not think we had nearly the trouble that the early church had trying to detach from so many centuries of following the Law of Moses with the ceremonial laws, especially since a number of Pharisees had entered into the churches and were teaching these things. But God was using certain individuals like Paul to bring correction.

Let us go back to Romans 2:26:

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law…

Again, God is speaking of the “uncircumcision,” so He is referring to people that were uncircumcised, the Gentiles. Again, it says in Romans 2:26-27:

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

So the point is that if a Gentile (the uncircumcised) keep the righteousness of the law, he does not have the “sign,” and yet, he is keeping the essence of it, which is more important. Therefore, should not his “uncircumcision” be counted for “circumcision”? This is one of the reasons that God says later in these verses that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and that is because he is doing the Law. He is fulfilling the righteousness of the Law in the inward man.

Earlier we looked at Romans 2:13-15:

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

We talked about how God has written His Law upon the hearts of men. While I think this is related, it is just referring to the Gentiles’ uncircumcision, but I think we can see how God’s salvation is in view. When He saves a Gentile that does not have the outward physical sign of circumcision, God changes his nature or his heart, giving him a new, born again soul, which means he is all righteous. Therefore, that individual is keeping the righteousness of the Law inwardly, and his keeping of righteousness is counted for “circumcision” in God’s sight, even though he is not circumcised.

We have evidence of this very thing, if we turn over to Romans 4, where the Lord is going to tell us about the situation with Abraham, in Romans 4:8-10:

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?

And that is an important question. God is saying that faith was reckoned to Abraham, and what was his condition at the time that God reckoned faith to him (when the faith of Christ was counted on Abraham’s behalf and the blood of Christ shed at the foundation of the world was applied to him) and saved him? Was Abraham in a circumcised condition or in an uncircumcised condition?

And the answer is at the end of the verse in Romans 4:10:

… Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

It was when he was a Gentile. Abraham was a Gentile when God saved him, and he was not circumcised. Then it says in Romans 4:11-16:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

You see, God identifies Abraham as “the father of many nations.” That is really what he is well known for in the Scriptures, if we go to Genesis 17:3-5:

And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

The word “nations” is a Hebrew word that is also translated as “Gentiles.” He is a father of many Gentiles, and he was qualified, and it was fitting because Abraham himself was saved as a Gentile, and then he took upon himself the “sign” of the covenant, which was physical circumcision, and his descendants also took that sign. So you can see how erroneous it was for Israel to think that because they had this “sign” of the covenant by obeying the letter of the Law (to circumcise a male child on the eighth day), they were saved. They were the circumcised ones, and remember that God had said that whoever was not circumcised would be cut off, and they were not understanding that there was the matter of not being spiritually circumcised, which is more in view with the statement of not being “cut off” than was in view with physical circumcision. They did not understand the spiritual implications of circumcision and uncircumcision. They apparently did not think too much about Abraham having been justified by the faith of Christ while he was in an uncircumcised condition as a Gentile.

Remember, Abraham had come out of Ur of the Chaldees, which is Babylon. He was a Gentile. But the Jews failed to consider this, and they became puffed up and highminded in thinking that they were the people of God, and they looked down their noses at the people of the nations, the Gentiles. They thought that salvation and being the people of God was their right, and it belonged to them only. And yet, that was not the case. It was never the case. Remember what the Lord Jesus taught…and I think the principle applies from Romans 2, where it says, “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” I think we see that principle in action in Luke 4, where Jesus went into the synagogue on the Sabbath Day, and it says in
Luke 4:16-30:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

This is the Word of God, and what the Lord Jesus was speaking about was from the Old Testament. In the day of Eliseus, there was a famine and no rain, and yet God sent Eliseus to Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. But were there not widows in Israel? Yes, but God sent His prophet outside of Israel. And the other example is that there were many lepers in Israel, and the Lord pointed out that none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian. And they got the point. This man (“Is not this Joseph’s son?”) was saying that God was blessing the Gentiles rather than the Jews. The Lord was using these examples, but, of course, the Lord was also blessing many of the Jews at various times. But to say that He would only bless the Jews was their error, so the Lord Jesus was showing from the Word that God had already blessed the Gentiles. And these were examples of salvation: to cleanse a leper or to feed a widow. They are types and figures. And much more could have been said concerning Rahab the harlot, or Ruth the Moabitess, or of Jonah being sent to Nineveh to preach the preaching that God had bid him, and God wrought a great work of salvation in the city of Nineveh, which was in the land of Assyria, not in the land of Israel. Truly, when we look at the great work that God did in Nineveh, there is no comparison anywhere else in the Old Testament, and there was no time when you could look back at Israel and see as many people saved at one time as in the city of Nineveh through the preaching of Jonah the prophet. The city of the Ninevites is a type and figure of the great multitude that were saved outside of the churches at the time of the end, and that is why God sent Jonah, whose name means “dove,” which connects it to the Holy Spirit and the sending of the Holy Spirit the second time as the Lord sent Jonah to Nineveh, a figure of the world or the nations (the Gentiles). It was done outside the churches, as typified by the land of Israel, and God saved the great multitude.

So the teaching of the Word of God is that God is no respecter of persons. And God has never been a respecter of persons, but for the Lord’s own purposes, He had an intimate relationship with one people for a period of time in order to move His prophets to write down His Word and compile the Scriptures, and for other purposes. But God has always shown that He could save anyone at all in the world.