Romans - January 7, 2008

Section -- Two; Condemnation -- Romans 1:18-3:20

IX. {Rom 2:25-29} Physical obedience is not sufficient to prevent God’s wrath
A. Introduction
1. Review — The Jews were convinced they were not condemned for they had the Law, they alone knew the mind of God, thus, they could not be condemned.
2. Preview — Contrary to the Jew’s belief Paul informs the best known physical act of the Jewish people did not prevent a Jew from being condemned, i.e., did not make a Jew God’s people; this act of obedience did not mean they were not condemned.

B. Question For Discussion?
1. What prevents obedience to an act commanded by God from accomplishing God’s stated purpose for the command?
C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. (v.25) Was Paul accusing the Jew of not being sinless — i.e., their problem was they were sinners ?
a. NO! That goes without saying [cf. 3:20]; Paul is accusing them of flagrant misconduct, which was known both to themselves and the heathen.
b. The Jew’s lifestyle had caused “circumcision” to become a synonym for Romans 1:18-32.

2. Was circumcision a physical act or a spiritual act?
a. Was a physical act with spiritual ramification [v.28]


3. According to our passage (v.25-29) when is an uncircumcised person treated as circumcised?
a. When he obeys the requirements of the Law. Does not mean he must obey requirement to be circumcised for his “uncircumcison is only regarded as circumcision” — i.e., it is not circumcision [v.26-27]

4. PONDER: (v.26) If one’s heart is right, i.e., has “heart faith”, yet, was not circumcised he was considered circumcised. Since baptism has taken the place of circumcision as indicator one is of God, thus, if one has “heart faith”, i.e., he lives a good moral life and serves God to best of his understanding of what pleases God, he will be considered baptized. If not why not? (Support you answer with scripture.)
a. Gentiles had not been commanded to be circumcised, therefore they broke no law. Such is not so with baptism for sin remission [Mar 16:16; Act 2:38; 10:28; 22:16; 1Pe 3:21].

5. What is required by those having access to [knowing] God’s will and being circumcised to prevent them from being condemned by those not knowing God’s and will and not being circumcised?
a. Must walk the talk, not just talk the walk. [v.29]

6. [v.27,29] Is Paul teaching strict obedience to the Law is not necessary, as seen in act of circumcision, to please God, i.e., God looks at hearts not physical acts?
a. No. This is a section on condemnation not justification, thus, Paul is not addressing what one must do to be justified (saved) but why one is condemned who bases his salvation on outward obedience. Doing the right act for the wrong reason is the same as not doing the act — must do the right act for the right reason.

7. (v.29) Was Paul saying it was not important for the Jew to keep the letter of the law?
a. The physical keeping of the law was important but the attitude was more important.

8. What had become the problem with Jew’s action of circumcision?+
a. Being circumcised was no more than a physical act to receive praises from peers (make one acceptable by fellow Jews) with little concern for God’s praise — praise requiring inward obedience to God’s commands
b. (Mat 23:23-26) Outward and inward man must do the things of the law.
OBSERVATION: [Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25] Paul is not telling Jews in Roman anything new. God never considered circumcision to be only a physical act — an act without inward ramifications.

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — What prevents obedience to an act commanded by God from accomplishing God’s stated purpose for the command?