David Bercot - Early Christian Understanding of Romans 2 - Romans Series Part 7 - Law or law

We are in Chapter 2 of Romans, and the last message we looked at, the first part of Romans. Does anyone remember just one of the themes that the second chapter of Romans has? One of the truths that sort of stands out in that.

This may be not a fair question because there's a number of things. Probably the thing we focused on the most, or that Paul focuses on, I should say, is the judgment. That on Judgment Day, God is going to judge everyone. And what does Paul say he's going to judge them based on?

Their works. Their works. Okay. So we don't get on the vine of Christ through our works. We don't have to. When you come to Christ and salvation, you don't have to bring any works with you. It's fine. It's good if you've lived a righteous life like Cornelius when Peter came to him and he got baptized. But it's not required at that point. That's faith and repentance. It's totally God's grace there combined with our faith and our response. But once we're on the vine, then Jesus says we have to produce fruit.

Paul says, "Yeah, we have to have the works." As Conrad Grebel said, "Jesus' teachings were meant to be put into practice." These aren't just thoughts that you read and, "Oh, okay, yeah, that's a beautiful thought. Wish I could do that." No, he expects us to live by his teachings. Okay. So today we're going to start with verse 11. And we're getting into the material that furnishes most of Romans. As we mentioned when we started this, one of his main themes is the relation between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians and how that plays out in church life and in salvation. If I can encourage you, go ahead and turn to your Bible because as we go through this, I'm not going to be able to go back.

I'll have the verses up here. But then once we go past it, yeah, you may want to look back at it as I'm discussing it and it won't be there. So Chapter 2, we're going to start with verse 11.

Okay. In this passage, Paul sets forth one of the main themes of his letter to the Romans. It's not often what you hear today is one of the main themes, but it's the theme the early Christians saw. And what we're discussing, for those of you who this is maybe your first or second sermon, this isn't my take on Romans. In fact, man, I had to spend, I don't know how many months reading and rereading and rereading the early Christian writings to grasp how they were understanding it. It took me a while to totally grasp that. And so I'm just sort of digesting it and now giving out to you.

But this isn't my personal take on it. Okay. So one of those themes is this, Romans 2:11, "For there is no partiality with God." I mean, Paul says it's so plain. You couldn't say it more plain. And yet, and for so long, Christians totally understood this. But nowadays, so many Christians think, "Oh, there is partiality." That no, God deals with Jews differently than he deals with Gentiles.

Paul says, "No, there is no partiality with God. He treats Jews and Gentiles the same. We're all the same in Christ."

And yet this statement is not original with Paul. It's all like, "Oh, until we got the book of Romans, we didn't know this." No, decades before Paul wrote Romans, Peter had said the same thing. Acts 10:35, this is when he met Cornelius.

He said, "In truth, I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation, whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him." So yeah, Peter said that from the beginning when Gentiles first came in the church. There's no partiality with God. So Paul is just reiterating a truth that had been set forth decades before he wrote Romans.

And I think I mentioned this to you in one of the early lessons in Romans. I had done a Bible search on my computer software for works righteousness because we hear that so much today. Works righteousness, that's a bad thing. And I was thinking, "Yeah, has that ever talked against in the Bible?" So I put in works righteousness. This is the only verse that comes in.

Whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him. So I thought that was kind of interesting. But again, Cornelius had those righteous works before he was saved, but you don't have to. Of course, if you grew up in a Christian home, you normally are going to have that.

Okay. Verse 12, "For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. And as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law." Okay. Now, we're going to explain that in a minute. Before we do, I'm going to digress just a second. It's not a digression, but if you don't get this down, it's one reason why Romans is so misunderstood today. It's because of what translators do to the text. I guess I feel like when I pick up a Bible and read it, I should—I know you can translate things different ways, but I should have the assurance, "Okay, I'm reading God's word without a bunch of bias put into the translation.

Let me decide how it's to be understood." But it's not fully how it works. Translators, in some ways, you can understand that your theology is going to affect how you translate. But sometimes it goes just beyond maybe a subtle influence. I mean, to me, it borders on spiritual dishonesty. And this gets back to that word law. Now, the text I put up there, there was a capital L, those without the law. Now, if you're reading it in, I think, almost any other English translation, you're going to see a small L on law. And there's a vast difference between law with a small L and the law with a capital L. Luther argued, and this is where this came in, and this was really novel with Luther, that Paul, when he's talking about law, he's talking about any kind of law, Christ's law, whatever, that we're not under law.

And so that was this unique take that he put on Romans, and he was very influential. Now, like I said, the Anabaptists were saying something different, but they're the ones who got drowned and burned at the stake, not Luther and Zwingli and those guys. So their view just totally prevailed.

And Luther changed the discussion of the law in Romans and Galatians into a discussion about law with a small L, okay, commandments. Oh, yeah, Paul is saying, "Yeah, works, law, we don't have that." It's not what he's talking about. And like I say, modern Bible translators accommodate Luther by refusing to capitalize law, even when the context shows that Paul is clearly talking about the Mosaic law. And this is, to me, just so dishonest. I mean, this is the New King James. "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law. And as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law." And that's pretty confusing. I mean, Romans is hard enough to understand, but when you start doing that, what is that supposed to mean?

Sinned without law with all small Ls.

Somebody reading the typical English Bible today might not even know that Paul primarily talks about the Mosaic law throughout Romans. Now, sometimes he talks about law besides the Mosaic law. It's not the only way he uses the word law, but that's his predominant theme. The early Christians all saw that. I mean, it was pretty clear to them. Now, in case you're wondering what I'm saying, the small L and the capital L, okay, well, yeah, what does the Greek say? And see, that's where the problem comes in. Ancient languages, no ancient language that I'm aware of, no one had invented the idea of a capital letter versus a small letter in order to show a proper noun versus a common noun.

Now, they had upper and lowercase letters, or at least at one point they did. But the New Testament was written in all uppercase, all capital letters. So see, the English translator has to decide, okay, is this a proper noun here, or is it just a regular noun? And where to capitalize? And yes, there are times when there's going to be a difference of judgment. In some of the verses, I'm not sure, and the early Christians weren't sure that you have a divergence of views. But so often, it's clear what Paul is talking about. It's clear there should be a capital L. He's talking about the law, the Mosaic law, and they put a small L there.

Like I say, the law with the capital is talking about the Mosaic law. Law with a small L could be anything. You're talking about the law of Pennsylvania or whatever. Now, this is not for me. This would be an English—I mean, we all learned this in grade school. The basic rule for capitalizing proper nouns is that the first letter of a proper noun should be capitalized no matter where it appears in the sentence or how it's being used. And do you all remember that from grade school or high school? I mean, did anyone not learn that rule that you capitalize a proper noun?

Again, this is from this website, Grammar. And like I say, there's a million websites and a million books. They all say the same thing. The key to correctly capitalizing proper nouns lies with knowing how to identify types of proper nouns. So what is a proper noun? Any noun that refers to a specific rather than a general person, place, or thing is a proper noun. I remember that still from like fifth grade. A proper noun is the name of a specific person, place, or thing. And a noun in general is the name of a person, place, or thing. But if it's a particular one, then it's a proper noun.

Okay. So we all know there's a difference between constitution with a capital C. What does that refer to?

The constitution. Yeah, the United States Constitution, or it could be the Pennsylvania Constitution. But yeah, when you say the US Constitution, they always put a capital C by it. Versus constitution, that could be anything, the bylaws of Scroll Publishing or whatever. We have a constitution. President, capital P versus president, small p. Okay. Capital P, we're talking about usually the president of the United States. Small p, that could be any president, president of a little corporation.

Bill with a capital B versus Bill with a small b.

I'm sorry, I wasn't even picking on you, Bill. This just came. I thought, "Oh, that's a good illustration." I thought, "Oh, poor Bill." But yeah, capital B. You should pay your bills.

So yeah, capital B is a guy sitting there, the audience. Small b is a bill that you get in the mail or by internet that you don't necessarily want to get. It's something you have to pay. Thanksgiving, capital T, that's talking about the holiday, Thanksgiving. Small t, hey, that's just Thanksgiving, giving praise to God.

Law with a capital L, that's the law of Moses. Small l is any kind of law. Simple enough. Now, Bible translators know those rules. They are purposefully promoting Reformation doctrine by the way they translate. I mean, there is no excuse for it. Like I say, there are some of those verses, yeah, you're not sure, but when you know this is the Mosaic law, I mean, that is a proper noun. It is a specific law, and you put a capital L, and no, they put a small l. Now, in the days of King James, there weren't these rules of capitalization. So King James, I mean, they capitalize all kinds of nouns and don't capitalize other ones.

So the fault doesn't lie with them. It's when these rules came into play, which was in the late 1700s, the 1800s, and there's what we have in place now. Well, now we know the rules. I mean, now we have the rules. So yeah, there is no excuse. The King James, yeah, I'm not faulting it because back then that rule wasn't in place. Now, those same translators who refuse to capitalize law when it's talking about the Mosaic law, they would never write Torah, which is the Hebrew name for the law, in small letters. They always capitalize it. I mean, the same scholars, when you're reading their stuff, Torah, oh boy, they put a capital T. Law, oh yeah, they put a little one because, like I say, for Martin Luther, those same translators, it's so strange, like in the New King James.

When in the Gospels you read about the law and the prophets, yeah, we know what that's talking about, and they put a capital L and capital P. Then they come over to the epistles, and they just refuse to capitalize law no matter what law it's talking about, even when it's clearly the Mosaic law. Okay. So I'm going to just mention that. We're not going to talk about it anymore, but when you're seeing it up here, it's going to have a capital L when it's talking about the Mosaic law, and it should be that in your Bibles, but most translations it won't.

Okay. So back to that verse. For as many as have sinned without the law, okay, so that's without the Mosaic law. Who would that be? Who have sinned without the Mosaic law? The Gentiles, okay? They didn't have the law. They're also going to perish without the law. In other words, if you sin, it doesn't matter if you're Jew or Gentile, you're still going to perish, okay?

And you can sin without the law, and you can sin within it. And as many as have sinned in the law, that's the Jews, will be judged by that law that they sinned against. So the Jews would be judged by the Mosaic law, the commandments God gave. And we're talking about, this is the period leading up to Christ or the period of people who have not known Christ. In the church, this isn't exactly how it works.

The principle would be there, but it's a little bit different.

Now, it may seem strange that those who sinned without knowing the law, again, capital L, if you put small l, then that would be a little different, would still be held accountable. Is that fair of God? Okay. The Jews had the law.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. The Gentiles didn't have that. Okay. So is it fair that those Gentiles are going to be judged without the law when they didn't even have the law? Well, the early Christians said, yes. The order, he's one of the early ones who wrote a commentary on Romans. The Jews, he writes, will be judged based on the teachings of the Mosaic law. He's not talking about now. He's talking about in this period leading up to Christ or those who haven't learned Christ. The Gentiles will be judged based on natural law. So Paul says, those who don't have the Mosaic law will still be judged for their sins because they do have natural law.

We've spoken about that. Everybody has a conscience. Some people have seared their conscience where it no longer works like it should, but everybody is born with some innate sense of right and wrong, not all of the commandments, but some basic things.

Like everybody, I don't think there's a culture on earth that says it's okay to steal. Or if there are some, it's a rather small abnormal culture. Almost every culture, wrong to commit adultery, wrong to murder. Those things, okay? So yeah, the Gentiles had that implanted in them, and usually they had tribal or national laws that said the same thing as well. So God says, they're going to be judged. There's a basis for judgment there. They did have a knowledge of sin. They're not going to be judged on things they didn't know, but they will be judged on things they did know.

Okay. Now, and now Paul had started, his main theme is going to be talking about the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the church. He started off saying some very heavy things about the Gentiles. We saw in chapter one, and he went down the list of sins.

Okay. Now in chapter two, he's starting to turn his focus to the Jews. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified. And this echoes James. Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. Again, the Anabaptist thing, Christ's teachings are meant to be put into practice. They're not there to hear and say, "Wow, that's a beautiful sermon. Yeah, he talked about loving our enemies. That's beautiful. Now I'll go home and kill my enemy." I mean, no, you do it, or there's no point to it. He said that the doers of the law will be justified. Okay. What does justified mean? We think of it today, and it's often presented like it's a theological word.

I mean, it has some theological implications when it's used in the scriptures, but it was an ordinary Greek word. I mean, it was an everyday word that people used. And I'll probably butcher this. Dikai, uh-oh, is the Greek word.

And what it meant, in fact, I see it a lot in the early Christian and writings from that time period. I don't think it was exclusively used in judicial proceedings, but that was one of its main uses. Okay. So you have a trial. It could be a criminal trial, or it could be a civil one, all right?

And the person who is vindicated is justified. He's declared righteous or declared just. Okay. So let's say it's a criminal, and the state has said that you've murdered your neighbor or something, and it turns out the neighbor committed suicide. Okay. Then they would use that word, justify. You've been justified. You're declared righteous. You're innocent. Okay. Or a civil trial.

Justin Kevin, Justin says, "Kevin took some tires off of his truck," or whatever. And they go to trial. This happened all the time with the Romans. Man, they went to trial a lot. Okay. And Kevin produces a witness. He finds those tires in Justin's carport. They're there in the back of your carport. You overlooked them. Don't you remember? You changed your tire. Oh yeah, yeah. So Kevin is justified. Okay. I mean, it was just a simple word, okay, that you're declared righteous. Okay. Now, when God does that to us, when we first get saved, he justifies us. We aren't righteous. This is God being generous. It's his grace that he will give us that righteous standing.

But it's not because any of us, yeah, if it is a real trial that, oh yeah, no, we all come as sinners, and that's why we have to come with repentance. Romans 2:14. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these not having the law are a law to themselves. And see, that's where, boy, if you just put all small letters there, that would be really hard to understand. It's not like, like I say, Paul is not an easy writer. He doesn't use very simple sentences like John is a lot easier to understand usually. Okay. So let's go through this one. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, what law did they not have?

They didn't have the Mosaic law. They did have natural law. Do by nature, okay, this is where we get the term natural law. Okay. By nature, the things contained in the law, the Mosaic law. Okay. If they do those things, then even though they don't have the Mosaic law, they are a law to themselves. In other words, they're practicing what is right and wrong. Now, what part of the law did the Gentiles do by nature? Okay. Origen talks about this. He says, "It's not the things pertaining to sacrifices or to Sabbaths or festivals, outward observances, all of those things." No, the Gentiles weren't doing those things. They weren't practicing the rituals of the law. It was the more basic things, the natural moral precepts that are in the Mosaic law.

They're in Jesus's teaching as well, like honoring parents. We have less of that today, even I'd say among Christians, than what they had in most ancient cultures. I mean, boy, that was really embedded in them to honor their parents. And most cultures looked upon it really badly as a very bad, wicked thing to not honor your parents.

Like I say, almost every culture, not stealing, not committing adultery, not murdering. So this is what Paul is talking about. Paul repeats himself a lot in Romans for emphasis. He'll say something, and then a few verses later, he says it in a few different words. A few verses later, he says it again in a little bit different words. He's like, "Okay, did you not get it the first time? Let me say it again. You still didn't get it? Okay, I'm going to say it again." So we'll be seeing this same thing several times.

Okay. Still talking about the Gentiles, who demonstrate the work of the law written in their hearts. They didn't have the written law, but they demonstrated it in their hearts, the Gentiles. Okay. Just if you want to think of a person, if this is still kind of hazy to you, all right, think of Job. He was a Gentile, all right?

He lived such a godly life that God could talk to Satan and say, "Look at my servant Job. Have you seen him, how he lives?" Wow. I mean, that's amazing. I don't know that any of us would have that honor. We all should have, but that God would point to us, to Satan, and say, "Yeah, what about him?" And he's a Gentile, but this was even he lived before there was the law, but it was written in his heart.

Their conscience also bearing witness, okay? God has given us a conscience, okay? Job didn't have the law. He didn't have any kind of scripture, but he knew what was right from his conscience. I mean, there's things in there that you don't see until Jesus's teaching. I mean, like he said, he made a covenant with his eyes that he wouldn't look upon a young maiden, okay? He was a married man, okay? And so he knew, "I don't even need to be looking at somebody else. I might get tempted or that sort of thing." He had been given no written law saying that, no oral law that we know of. It was built in his conscience.

And meanwhile, their thoughts either accusing them or else excusing them. So Origen points out, this is the most fair trial you could possibly have, that you're going to be brought before this tribunal, before God's judgment seat. And most trials, there's a prosecutor, and then there's somebody defending you, and then there's the accused person. And he said, "All three are you, okay? Who's going to be accusing you? Your own conscience, your own thoughts. Who's going to be defending you? Your own thoughts." I mean, your conscience is either going to accuse you or defend you.

In other words, you've done it to yourself. I mean, this isn't anyone else. This is your own situation. And this would apply to everybody, not just the Gentiles. In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Now, it's interesting there, I noticed most translations will capitalize the day. It's talking about judgment day, a proper noun. So they know the rule. They put a capital D on day, but then they refuse to capitalize law. Okay. So all the secrets of men are going to be judged on judgment day.

Chrysostom writes, "By these words, Paul shows that God has made man independent, that is, with free will, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice." So before Augustine came along the scene, everybody reading this, it was very clear to them that we were not totally depraved, that we do have a degree of free will. Now, they all realize we have fallen. I mean, none of us can live perfectly. We are going to stumble every single day. But we can choose what is right. We can avoid what is wrong to a large extent. Even the Gentiles, even people who are not converted, have a conscience. They know it's wrong to steal. They can make a choice, "I'm not going to steal," or they can make a choice, "I am going to steal."

No one is compelling them to do either one. On the day of judgment, when God judges the secrets of men, as we said, our own thoughts will either accuse us or defend us. Now, Paul isn't thinking, is not talking about, "Oh, on judgment day, whatever you're thinking on judgment day, you're going to get accused." I mean, because you might have the ability, "Okay, I'm going to just have a blank mind here, and I'll just stand here," or I'll be thinking, "I'll start thinking about all the good things I did in life, the things I did right." No, he's talking about right now, your thoughts and secrets that are there right now. That's what's going to be there on judgment day.

Yeah, you can't try to rig the system once you get there. It's what's happening right now. You're writing your accusation or your acquittal. Now, again, we're going to be getting then to God's provisions for forgiveness. I mean, this isn't the end of things, but this is the basic rule of how it works. And it still applies. I mean, again, Luther would have it, "Okay, then once you're saved, then all of this, you can just forget this. This is all wiped out." No.

Yeah, there's a basis of forgiveness, but the principle still applies. None of these things are hidden from God, and they will be revealed on that day. On judgment day, our own actions in this life will be a witness either for us or against us.

Okay. Verse 17, "Behold, you are called a Jew and rest in the law and make your boast of God." Okay. So from this point on, he's mainly going to be talking about, well, he'll be back and forth. I was going to say mainly about Jews, but it'll be some back and forth. Okay. Did you notice Paul says, "You are called a Jew"? In other words, you have the name Jew, but not the substance, not what a Jew is supposed to be. He's talking not about Jewish Christians, but about the unbelieving Jews.

And continuing on, he's talking about Jews, "And you know his will and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law." So God had given the Jews the law and the prophets, the Old Testament. These set forth the will of God. They knew the will of God. And it showed the Jews the things that are more excellent. Okay. Now, Paul said that they know God's will. He didn't say they were doing it. He said, "You know it. You've been instructed in all of this. You know it, what you should do, but you aren't doing it."

He continues, "And you're confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in the darkness." He's talking about the unbelieving Jews who put themselves way above the Christians, ridicule the Christians. We're the ones who know God's will. We're the ones God is dealing with. We're a guide to the blind. You Christians are just wallowing in darkness.

And so he's going through these different boasts the Jews were making in his day. He doesn't say, "You are a guide of the blind." He said, "But you are confident that you are." In other words, you're just merely boasting. Instead of truly being a guide to the blind, the Jews were blind themselves. And probably you think of Jesus' words, "I did." As we mentioned, I think last lesson on this, we never contrast Paul with Jesus.

Everything Paul says is built on Jesus' teachings. And even these verses that aren't talking about salvation necessarily, you see Jesus' thoughts all throughout Paul's teachings. Jesus called the Jewish leaders blind guides who strain out a net and swallow a camel.

And he said, in another place, "They are blind leaders of the blind." So he said the Jewish religious leaders, the rabbis were blind, and the ones following them are blind. The blind leading the blind. And the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch or into a pit, I think the King James says. So yeah, Jesus had announced, "You guys are blind. You're in darkness. You say you see, but you're really blind."

Paul continues, "You're boasting that you're an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes who have the form of knowledge and the truth in the law." Paul is saying the Jews imagined themselves to be instructors of the foolish. They weren't, but that's how they looked upon themselves. But Jesus told them, "Who do you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of Gehenna or hell as yourselves." So yes, they saw themselves as the guide to the Gentiles, and they made converts. And Jesus said, "When you do, you made him twice as much a son of hell," because it was a lot harder to bring them to Christianity.

If they had been converted to Judaism and embraced that, then yeah, it made them actually more resistant. Okay. Now we come into this passage with verse 21. Now, if you're looking at your Bible, it's going to be presenting it, which I don't care what translation it is, more than likely it's going to be presenting it as a series of questions. And that's how I'd read it all my life. And the early Christians, I noticed, were reading it as a series of statements of accusations. Now, back to what I mentioned about capitalizing, I can't blame here the translators, I'd say, are innocent.

You see, in the ancient languages, probably all of them, certainly in Greek, there were no punctuation marks, no periods, no commas, no quotation marks, no question marks. So when you read a sentence, it's hard to tell in Greek, is it a question or is it a sentence? Well, I say it's hard unless the context makes it real clear.

Kind of from the context, you can tell a little bit, but often, and certainly here in Romans, so often the early Christians are reading a statement where our Bibles have a question, or they're reading a question where our Bibles have a statement. And that's dealing with the Greek. I'm not blaming the translators for that because even the early Christians did not know for sure. Okay. But here they're reading this as a set of accusations. If they're questions, they're rhetorical questions. It's about the same thing.

So therefore, you teach another, but do not teach yourself. You preach not to steal, but you commit theft.

As I said, this is usually rendered as questions. Now, to be sure, most Jews probably would not have violated these commandments in a literal or physical sense. It had puzzled me much of my life. You say, "Do not steal. Do you steal?" You say, "Do not commit adultery. Do you commit adultery?" Well, I mean, those are fine, good questions. The implication is that the Jews were doing all of those things. And some Jews would have been, but that wouldn't have been the typical Jew that he's stealing, committing adultery when we look at some of these other things. So the early Christians understood Paul here to be speaking in more of a spiritual sense than a literal one.

Some Jews, it would have been literal. Origen points out that they stole from the law and the prophets. What did they steal? They stole the prophecies that pointed to Christ, doing their utmost to conceal and explain them away. In fact, they eventually junked the Septuagint because the prophecies in it, there's a lot of Messianic prophecies in it that are not in the Masoretic text. So even in Paul's day, the Septuagint was what all Greek-speaking Jews were using. But after the first century, the rabbi said, "We got to get rid of the Septuagint and get something else." And they got it was a Jewish proselyte, a native Greek speaker, to retranslate from the Masoretic text, the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament, to retranslate into Greek so that these prophecies would disappear.

And this is what they're talking about. You've stolen from the law and the prophets. You hid the things that would have helped the people. You forbid adultery, but you commit adultery. You abhor idols, but you commit temple robbery.

Now, again, whether you read that as a question or not, I always wondered on that one. I think most Bibles will say, "You who abhor idols, do you commit temple robbery?" And it's like, well, it's hard for me to picture a Jew going out and robbing some pagan temple. I mean, I'm sure there were maybe brigands who might do that, but that would have been a strange thing to accuse the Jews in general about because I don't think very many would do that. I'd puzzle all my life. Well, it's there. It means something.

Well, how the early Christian understood it, like I say, that Paul is speaking spiritually. The Jews adulterated the law by adding numerous man-made traditions to it. You say, "Don't commit adultery," but you've committed it because you've adulterated the law. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for this very thing. He said, "You've made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites, well, did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, 'These people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." So they had adulterated the law given them. What about these idols committing temple robbery?

As Origen points out, they defiled the true temple of God, Jesus Christ. Jesus had told them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up." But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So no, they weren't going out and robbing Gentile temples and committing sacrilege there. It's talking about the temple, Jesus Christ, that they had defiled. You make your boast in the law, but you dishonor God by breaking the law.

Now, how did they break the law? By rejecting the prophet of whom Moses had spoken. Right there in Deuteronomy, Jesus said, "There will be a prophet, Moses, rather, a prophet like myself who will come." And he came, and they rejected him. So they're breaking the law. I mean, they were to listen to him, and instead, they rejected him. Jesus told them, "You do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me."

And as he declared on another occasion, "He who rejects me rejects him who sent me." So yeah, they were breaking the law. Even if they followed every last little thing, if you reject the one the law pointed to, who all the law is about, yeah, you have broken the law.

And then Paul ends that passage, "For as it is written, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." He quotes there from Isaiah to show like, "Hey, it's not me, Paul, who's being hard on you. Your own prophets said this." And of course, Paul himself was a Jew.

And he's quoting from the Septuagint, which I think he always does, or well, he either quotes from it or he paraphrases, which says, "My name is blasphemed continually among the Gentiles because of you." That's from Isaiah 52:5. In the Septuagint, I'm making the point of the Septuagint because if you look that up in the Masoretic text, this is what it says. The Lord says, "And my name is blasphemed continually every day."

Do you see the difference? The Septuagint says, "My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," which is a prophecy about the Gentiles and the Jews. And in the Masoretic text, "My name is blasphemed continually every day." It doesn't say who, what, anything else.

And that's why Paul quotes it from the Septuagint. And we throw out the Septuagint as Christians. It's like, "This is crazy." I mean, there's a reason why Paul quotes from it, Jesus and everyone else, is because so many prophecies turn on it.

Now, digress a minute. That same principle, he said, "The Gentiles blasphemed God because of the disobedience of the Jews," but it can work that way among us. Origen writes, "When it becomes public knowledge that a leader in the church has turned financial gifts into private gains or has committed other sins, then again, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles." Wow, how does that apply today?

Oh, I mean, because today the world is looking every time a Christian leader does something ungodly. The world loves to pounce on that. And boy, that's going to be in all the media, and it's going to point out, "He's a so-and-so Christian," all that. Now, if a non-believer does the exact same thing, which they do, do a lot more of, they don't point out, "And this man was an atheist.

This man who did whatever and never went to church a day in his life. Look what happened." No, they don't ever point out somebody's religion unless it's a Christian. Then it's like, "Yeah, he's so-and-so in the Southern Baptist Convention, and he did this or that." But again, the blame is on us. I mean, the shame we bring on the name of Christ when we do those things, and it happens all the time. And I just cringe. It's like, "Oh, what you have done to the name of Christ and caused his name to be blasphemed."

And he continues on, "For circumcision truly profits if you keep the law." Again, without a capital L there, it doesn't make sense. But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision. Now, that has puzzled Christians. Circumcision truly profits you.

Because when he wrote to the Romans, which he wrote, I mean, to the Galatians, which he wrote before he wrote Romans, he said, "Indeed, I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing." And he just says, "Circumcision truly profits if you keep the law." It's like, "Okay, Paul, you've just said two different things." Well, it's because it's two different audiences, two different settings. Okay. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul was primarily addressing Gentile, Gentile converts.

And they had been influenced by the Judaizers and were turning back to the law. Okay. And he was instructing them, "No, don't get circumcised. Don't keep the Sabbath. Don't do that. There's no salvation in the law. It's not going to profit you spiritually." Now, if someone wanted to do it for cultural reasons or health or something like that, that's a whole different issue. But he's talking about, "If you're thinking it's going to bring you salvation, there is no benefit in it." And by turning to circumcision, the law for salvation, they were denying the grace of Christ. So Paul speaks one way in Galatians, very much softer in Romans, because he's dealing now with a church that's mixed Jewish and Gentile.

And probably the Gentiles are the majority, and they don't seem to be affected by the Judaizers. So he now wants to be very gentle when he talks to the Jews. He's diplomatically addressing them and telling them they don't have to discontinue the practice of circumcision. They don't have to not keep the Sabbath. They can still live by as much of the law as they want to, as long as they don't think there's salvation in it.

Along the same vein, when he wrote Corinthians, he said, "Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised." In other words, whether you're Jew or Gentile, just stay where you're at. Okay. Gentiles should not be circumcised for religious reasons, but Jews don't have to be ashamed of their circumcision. They don't have to discontinue it. Okay. That's his message when you read all of his letters. And there was so what profit is there in that? And the early Christian commentators puzzle on this. Origen points out, well, there was something very profitable, and that is if the Jewish Christians were going to effectively witness to their Jewish relatives, their Jewish neighbors, there was a benefit in keeping the law.

You could reach them a lot more effectively if you abandoned the law as a Jewish Christian. And it was okay to as far as Christ, but there was a benefit if you were going to try to reach other Jews. Okay. So we see later in the book of Acts, towards the end of it, yeah, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, they were still keeping the law. James says, "Look how many there are." And they're zealous for the law. Not because they thought there was salvation in it, but yeah, they knew it would be a stumbling block if they dropped the law living in a Jewish nation, in a Jewish city.

Origen said, "Circumcision is of no value then for those who think that some justification is to be obtained from it. But it is of value for those who believe that certain people were not going to come to Christ if circumcising their sons would be denied them." So that was such a touchpoint issue with the Jews. If the Christians said, "Yeah, you're going to have to drop circumcision. You're going to have to drop this and that." Oh, then I don't want to become a Christian. So yeah, there was a benefit for the Jewish Christian to keep following that and other things of the law that would have been big stumbling blocks. Paul himself said, "To the Jews, I became a Jew that I might win Jews.

To those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law." So yeah, there was a benefit in that sense. That would be the only sense.

But he says, "If you're a transgressor of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision." Well, the Jews were transgressors. As we said, the whole law and the prophets pointed to Jesus. Ambrose Astor, another early Christian commentator, says, "If a Jew does not have faith in Christ, then he's a transgressor of the law." And that means his circumcision doesn't profit him in the least. If you don't have Christ, yeah, you don't get any benefit from it.

Therefore, if someone of the uncircumcision, a Gentile, in other words, keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? Okay. I said he repeats himself again, not because he's absent-minded, but he wants to make sure these points get down. As we said, the Mosaic law contains many types of provisions: dietary requirements, ceremonial and priestly regulations, sacrificial laws, health and quarantine procedures, and then finally, righteous requirements. He said, "If they keep the righteous requirements of the law." What does he mean? Justin Martyr explains that they are those things in the law of Moses that are naturally good, pious, and righteous. What we've talked about, thou shall not steal, etc. Origen defines them as the abiding moral precepts contained in the law.

There are a lot of things in the law we still go back to. They've been repeated by Jesus. We find them in both the New and the Old Testament. There are a lot of things that are forbidden in the Old. They're forbidden in the New as well. They're commanded in the Old. They're commanded in the New as well. There are enduring moral precepts. Those are the righteous requirements of the law. It will not someone who is by nature of the uncircumcision, if he fulfills the law, that is the righteous requirement, judge you who by the letter and with circumcision transgress the law. So now he's talking about Jewish Gentile Christians. Okay.

He's fulfilling the righteous requirements, and he believes in the prophet the law points to. He's fulfilling the law, and he's going to be judging you, not meaning having a judgmental mindset, but just his life is going to judge those who transgress the law with their circumcision.

And this idea of a spiritual circumcision isn't new to Paul. It's in the Old Testament, Jeremiah 4:4. "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your hearts, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my fury come forth like fire and burn so that no one can quench it because of the evil of your doings."