Circumcision Revised October

Circumcision
Introduction
The ordinance of circumcision could not save man but was to be the
distinguishing sign of the Jewish nation from the other nations. God has not
commanded circumcision of the flesh for Christians.
The First Church Council in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 15 deemed that a
person does not get saved through the practice of circumcision but through faith
alone in Christ, thus the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised.
Paul consented to circumcision in the case of Timothy “because of the Jews”
(Acts 16:3). Paul had Timothy circumcised after he asked him to become his co-
worker (Acts 16:3). According to the text Paul did this not out of deference to
Timothy’s mother but on account of local unregenerate Jews who knew Timothy
had not been circumcised. Timothy’s thoughts about the matter are not mentioned
but evidently he willingly complied with Paul’s request.
Paul’s refusal to have Titus, a Gentile by birth, circumcised (Gal. 2:1-5) is not
inconsistent with his decision to have Timothy, a Jew by birth, circumcised; both
decisions accord with his theology and missionary strategy. Paul considered
circumcision per se as nothing, and the same was true of uncircumcision (Gal. 5:6;
6:15). If someone insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation, Paul
fought against this as false doctrine and refused to permit the uncircumcised person
to be circumcised. But in Timothy’s case circumcision was simply a matter of
expediency; and since Paul himself was prepared to become all things to all people
so as to win some (1 Cor. 9:19-23), he did not hesitate to ask the same of Timothy.
Paul would not risk impeding the gospel’s progress among the Jews by having
an uncircumcised Jewish-Christian as his associate. Had he obstinately done so, he
would have alienated his audience immediately and forever. Therefore, Paul
regarded Timothy’s circumcision not as a means of salvation but as a legal act to
remove a serious obstacle to the presentation of the gospel to unregenerate Jews.
In Galatians, Paul refutes the Judaizers and states that a man is saved by faith
and not through circumcision. The Judaizers originated with the Pharisees and
those who adhered to their teaching and were composed of both believing and
unbelieving Jews who taught strict adherence to the 613 mandates found in the
Mosaic Law as well as the oral traditions of the Rabbis, which are now,
documented in the Mishna and the Talmud. Many of the Judaizers were believers
since Acts 6:7, 15:5 and 21:20 state that many of the priests and Pharisees who
were teachers of the Mosaic Law believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation
but after salvation they still adhered to the Mosaic Law rather than the mystery
doctrine for the church age that Paul was teaching.
2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1
The Judaizers taught that one had to observe and practice the Mosaic Law in
order to get saved whereas Paul taught that salvation by grace through faith in
Christ and not through the works of the Mosaic Law (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16). The
Judaizers followed Paul throughout his missionary journey’s seeking to discredit
and destroy his ministry (Acts 13:45; 17:5). Paul denounces their teaching of the
Judaizers in the book of Galatians since they taught a “different gospel” according
to Gal. 1:6 and “distorted the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7).
In Philippians 3:2-3 Paul issues a warning to the Philippians to beware of the
Judaizers and their legalistic teaching, in which they taught that man must be
circumcised in order to be saved.
God is concerned about the condition of the heart and not the male phallus.
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. (NASB95)
Circumcision of the flesh is useless unless there is a circumcision of the heart.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your
heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all
your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” (NASB95)
Colossians 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision
made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ. (NASB95)
Your faith in Christ is what is important to God and not whether you are
circumcised or not. Abraham was first justified by his faith and then he was given
circumcision as a badge or a mark that he was saved and set apart by God. The
Jews in Paul's day believed that because they were physical descendants of
Abraham that they could ride into heaven on the coattails of Abraham. They
believed that they were sons of Abraham by right of circumcision, when in reality
those who believe God are the true sons of Abraham. Therefore, the ritual act of
cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis and was given as a sign of God’s
covenant with Abraham and his biological descendants that they were set apart by
God and yet was not given to justify or saved them.

Chapter One: Vocabulary
In the Greek New Testament, “circumcision” translates the noun peritome

(περιτομή) (peree-toe-me), which means “circumcision” and is found in literature
from Agatharchides and Artapanos (second century B.C.). The plural occurs in
Strabo (16, 2, 37) who refers to peritomai (“circumcisions”) as a Jewish custom
derived from Egypt. Its cognate verb peritomeno is a compound word which
literally means “to cut around.”
The verb peritemno had the following meanings and usages: (1) “To prune
vines” (Herodotus IV, 71). (2) “To make incisions round one’s arms as a sign of
mourning” (Dio C., 62, 7, 2). (3) “To cut the breasts” (4) “To encircle with a view
to taking away, to rob” (Homer Odyssey 11, 402). (5) “Driving away cattle or fine
flocks of sheep” (Homer Odyssey 24, 112). (6) “Since they were robbed of a
considerable territory” (Polybius 23, 13, 2). (7) “That his dominion should
everywhere be cut short” (Diog. L., III, 63). (8) “To be deprived of all wisdom” (9)
“Encircled by the cavalry” (pertaining to the capture of chariots) (Xenophon
Cyrop. V, 4, 8). (10) “To circumcise” (Herodotus II, 36, 104).
The verb was used figuratively in reference to “cutting something off” in an act
of robbery. Later the verb was also used as a technical term for cutting away the
foreskin of a male’s penis and for the removal of the female clitoris (Herodotus 2,
36, 3; 2, 104, 2).
The noun peritome appears to have always been used in a technical sense for
the rite of circumcision. It occurs only 4 times in the Septuagint (Gen. 17:13; Ex.
4:25-26; Jer. 11:16) and the verb appears much more frequently occurring 36 times
in the Septuagint.
The noun is used for the Hebrew term mulah (lwm), which is used for the
following Hebrew terms: (1) Yahadh (rhy), hithpael: become a Jew (Est. 8:17). (2)
Karath (jdk), cut off (Ex. 4:25). (3) Sur (rws), turn aside; hiphil: remove (Jer. 4:4).
(4) Mul (hlwm), Qal: circumcise, one who is circumcised (Gen. 17:23; Jos. 5:2;
Jer. 9:25): niphal: be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:48; Lev. 12:3).
In the Septuagint, the verb peritemno occurs exclusively as a ritual technical
term predominately literal (Gen. 17:10-14, 23-27; Ex. 4:25; 12:44, 48; Lev. 12:3;
Jos. 5:2-8; 21:4d; 24:31a; Est. 8:17; Jdt. 14:10; 1 Macc. 1:60f.; 2:46; 2 Macc. 6:10;
4 Macc. 4:25.
The noun peritome is also used only in a ritual sense for “circumcision” (Gen.
17:13). The peritemno word group is of great theological importance in the Old
Testament, where it is used exclusively to designate circumcision as a cultic
practice. It is used in the literal sense in the Septuagint (Gen. 17:1-14; Ex. 4:24;
12:43-48; Lev. 21:3).

Circumcision is also used in the figurative sense (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; cf. 9:25;
Ezek. 44:9). In the Old Testament, according to God the Holy Spirit, the Divine
Author of Scripture the spiritual or figurative sense is the circumcision that God
desires for those who seek to worship the Lord.
The verb peritemno appears 18 times in the New Testament, and the noun
peritome occurs 36 times. Both the verb and the noun have literal and figurative
meanings in the Greek New Testament. The verb is used exclusively in the literal
sense as a technical term and the only time it has a figurative or metaphorical usage
is in Colossians 2:11.
The noun also occurs predominately in the literal sense, and the only time it
appears in the metaphorical or figurative sense is in Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3
and Colossians 2:11.
The noun peritome when used in the literal sense is a technical term in the New
Testament for the new racial species, the Jews.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words has the following article for the
noun peritome, “lit., ‘a cutting round, circumcision’ (the verb is peritemno), was a
rite enjoined by God upon Abraham and his male descendants and dependents, as a
sign of the covenant made with him, (Gen. 17; Acts 7:8; Rom. 4:11). Hence
Israelites termed Gentiles ‘the uncircumcised,’ (Judg. 15:18; 2 Sam. 1:20). So in
the NT, but without the suggestion of contempt, e. g., (Rom. 2:26; Eph. 2:11). The
rite had a moral significance, (Ex. 6:12, 30), where it is metaphorically applied to
the lips; so to the ear, (Jer. 6:10), and the heart, (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4). Cf. (Jer.
9:25-26). It refers to the state of ‘circumcision,’ in (Rom. 2:25-28; 3:1; 4:10; 1 Cor.
7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15; Col. 3:11). ‘In the economy of grace no account is taken of
any ordinance performed on the flesh; the old racial distinction is ignored in the
preaching of the gospel, and faith is the sole condition upon which the favor of
God in salvation is to b e obtained, (Rom. 10:11-13; 1 Cor. 7:19). See also (Rom.
4:9-12).’ From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine. p. 69. Upon the preaching
of the gospel to, and the conversion of, Gentiles, a sect of Jewish believers arose
who argued that the gospel, without the fulfillment of ‘circumcision,’ would make
void the Law and make salvation impossible, (Acts 15:1). Hence this party was
known as ‘the circumcision,’ (Acts 10:45; 11:2; Gal. 2:12; Col. 4:11; Titus 1:10)
(the term being used by metonymy, the abstract being put for the concrete, as with
the application of the word to Jews generally, (Rom. 3:30; 4:9,12; 15:8; Gal. 2:7-9;
Eph. 2:11)). It is used metaphorically and spiritually of believers with reference to
the act, (Col. 2:11) and (Rom. 2:29); to the condition, (Phil. 3:3). The apostle
Paul's defense of the truth, and his contention against this propaganda, form the
main subject of the Galatian epistle. Cf. katatome, ‘concision,’ (Phil. 3:2).”

Both the verb and the noun are employed by Paul in the figurative or
metaphorical sense in relation to the Baptism of the Spirit in Romans 2:29 and
Colossians 2:10-12.
The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon lists the following (page 506): (1)
The act or rite of circumcision (2) The state of circumcision (3) By metonymy of
the Jews (4) Metaphorically of Christians.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature-Third Edition: (1) circumcision (a) as a cultic rite (b) passive the state of
being circumcised (c) figurative of spiritual circumcision (2) one who is
circumcised (a) literally of Judeans (b) figurative of believers in Jesus Christ (Page
807).
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament lists the following: (1)
literally, as a religious rite signifying covenant participation with God; figuratively
as spiritual circumcision denoting separation from sin and consecration to God in
covenant relationship (2) by metonymy, for those who are circumcised; literally
the circumcised, i.e. Jews; figuratively of Christians (Page 3115).
In Romans 2:25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 3:1, 4:10 and 11, the noun peritome, which
refers to the ritual act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis and was given
as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological descendants that they
were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or saved them.
In Romans 3:30, 4:9 and 15:8, the noun peritome is a designation for those
members of the human race who are descendants racially of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob and members of the nation of Israel and thus, denotes nationality
distinguishing the Jew from the Gentile. It refers to those individuals who have
received the surgical and ritual act of cutting the foreskin of the male’s penis as a
sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological descendants that they
were set apart by God to be His people.
The use of peritome as a designation for the Jew is attested to in other passages
in the Greek New Testament (Acts 10:45; Galatians 2:1-12; Ephesians 2:11-12;
Colossians 4:10-11; Titus 1:10-11).

Chapter Two: Abraham and Circumcision
Genesis 17 records Abram receiving circumcision as a sign of the covenant that

God had established with him and his descendants. Genesis 17:9-14 records that
the Lord gives Abram and his descendants the ritual of circumcision to observe as
a sign to ratify the covenant that He established with Abram when he left Haran.
Genesis 17:9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall
keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their
generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and
you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be
circumcised.” (NASB95)
“Covenant” is the noun berith, which is a compact or agreement between two
parties binding them mutually to undertakings on each other’s behalf.
“My covenant” is a reference to the unconditional covenant that the Lord
established with Abraham when he left Haran as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3 and
was enlarged upon in Genesis 13:14-17, 15:1-6 and 17:1-8 and which covenant is
called by theologians, the “Abrahamic” covenant.
Theologically (used of relations between God and man) a “covenant’ denotes a
gracious undertaking entered into by God for the benefit and blessing of man, and
specifically of those men who by faith receive the promises and commit
themselves to the obligations, which this undertaking involves.
The “Abrahamic” covenant that the Lord established with Abraham denoted the
Lord’s gracious undertaking for the benefit of Abraham and his descendants. It was
“unconditional” meaning that its fulfillment was totally and completely dependent
upon the Lord’s faithfulness.
An unconditional covenant which binds the one making the covenant to a
certain course of action, may have blessings attached to it that are conditioned on
the response of the recipient. That response is simply faith or to trust that God will
deliver on His promise, which expresses itself in obedience to the commands of
God.
The blessings that Abraham would receive were conditioned on his obedience
to observe circumcision.
In Genesis 17:1-8, the Lord enumerates His promises to Abraham and now in
Genesis 17:9-14, the Lord presents the responsibilities of Abraham and his
descendants.
“You shall keep” is the verb shamar, which means, “to observe
conscientiously” in the sense that Abraham and his descendants were to be careful,
thoughtful, heedful, attentive, and meticulous in conforming their actions in
compliance with the practice of circumcision.

“Your descendants” refers to Abraham’s “biological” descendants, the nation
of Israel.
Genesis 17:11 “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin,
and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.” (NASB95)
“Circumcised” is the verb mul, which refers to the act of cutting of the foreskin
of the male’s penis and was given as a sign to Abraham and his biological
descendants that they were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or
saved them.
Circumcision was not exclusive to Israel but was also performed by several
Asian Oriental groups such as the Muslims as well as the Edomites, Moabites,
Ammonites, and was also practiced by Egyptian priests and those who wanted to
be initiated into their sacred mysteries.
Circumcision among these nations was a rite of passage but was not performed
on infants, thus the sign of circumcision given to Abraham to be performed on
infants eight days old was unique in the ancient world.
The ceremony of circumcision consisted in cutting away the foreskin, the hood
or fold of skin covering the head of the male organ, which was generally done by
means of a sharp knife, but in more primitive times sharp stones were used (Ex.
4:25; Josh. 5:2, flint knives). As a rule this act was performed by the father (Gen.
17:23), although it might be done by any Israelite, and, if necessary, women as
well (Ex. 4:25), but never by a Gentile.
In later times, in the case of adults, a doctor performed circumcision and the
Jews of the present day entrust it to a person called a mohel appointed especially
for the purpose.
At first, this requirement seems to be strange but the Lord gave it to Abraham
and his biological descendants as a “sign” of His covenant with Abraham and his
descendants.
Circumcision would symbolize in a distinct way the purpose and results of the
Abrahamic covenant. The emphasis of the covenant was on the Promised Seed, the
Lord Jesus Christ and on the abundance of progeny, which would accrue to
Abraham (Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record, page 333).
Circumcision was a sign only to the individual concerned, his parents and his
wife and was not to be shown to people in general, but was uniquely personal.
Henry M. Morris, writes, “To his parents it would confirm that they had been
faithful in transmitting the seed to the son with whom God had blessed their union
and that they were trying to follow God’s will in training him. To his wife, it
would give assurance that he indeed was a descendant of Abraham, to whom she
could joyfully submit in the marriage relation, in faith that God would bless their
home and their children. To the man himself, it would be a daily testimony that he

and his family were consecrated to the God of Abraham and that they shared in his
calling and ministry to the world” (The Genesis Record, page 334).
The sexual act and reproductive organs and processes were created by God to
be enjoyed by both the man and the woman in marriage and received the full
blessing of God (Gen. 1:28; 9:1). But with the Fall of Adam and the Woman, the
sex organs and sex act became vehicles of sin and corruption since Satan led man
into sexual debauchery, corrupting the institution of marriage in every conceivable
way in order to stop God’s purpose for man and his redemption. Therefore, we see
that another symbolic meaning of the act of circumcision where the cutting of the
foreskin spoke of a surgical removal, a complete separation, from the sins of the
flesh so widely prevalent in the world around Abraham and his descendants.
The nations and tribes around Abraham were involved in sins largely centered
in the misuse of the male organ in adultery, fornication and sodomy. Circumcision
symbolized to the Jewish man that he was a member of an elect nation, a peculiar
people, distinctly holy before God, in relation to sexual conduct, so it came
indirectly to speak of holiness in every phase of life.
Leviticus 20:7 “You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I
am the LORD your God.” (NASB95)
Therefore, the organ of the male body that was used for procreation is
consecrated to God (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4) and failure to submit to circumcision
demonstrated one’s overt unwillingness to obey the Lord. The penalty for failing to
submit to circumcision meant exile from Israel and from any inheritance in it and
in fact resulted in capital punishment.
In Exodus 4, Moses failed to circumcise his sons because of his Egyptian wife
Zipporah, and was as a result almost killed by the Lord for failing to do so but
Zipporah grudgingly gave in.
Circumcision has hygienic value since cancer of the penis has a much higher
incidence in uncircumcised males.
Henry M. Morris, “If the nation so formed was indeed to endure and to be a
witness for God through all generations to come, then it must be physically strong
and clean” (The Genesis Record, page 333).
“Sign” is the noun òth, which refers to the distinguishing mark upon the organ
of procreation among Abraham’s biological descendants who had entered into the
Abrahamic covenant and served as confirmation of Abraham’s lineage to fulfill
their covenantal responsibility.
Genesis 17:12, “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be
circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house
or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your
descendants.” (NASB95)

The phrase “every male” indicates that there were to be no exceptions, every
male who was a biological descendant of Abraham was required to be circumcised.
The phrase “every male” also exempts females for circumcision of females in
ancient times was a regular custom among some races or tribes.
All infants who were descendants of Abraham were to be circumcised on the
eighth day after birth. Modern medicine has discovered that blood-clotting agents
do not take full effect until eight days after birth. Of course, God knew this all
along since He is omniscient and is the One who designed and created the human
body.
Genesis 17:13 “A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with
your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your
flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (NASB95)
Also, notice that any slave bought by a descendant of Abraham would also have
to be circumcised, thus the servants and slaves were also brought into covenant
relation with God and became part of His people.
Genesis 17:14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has
broken My covenant.” (NASB95)
Genesis 17:14 records that there were to be no exceptions, any biological
descendant of Abraham would have to be circumcised otherwise, he would be
separated from those who were circumcised among Abraham’s biological
descendants.
Genesis 17:15-22 records the Lord promising Abraham that his wife Sarai will
be the progenitrix or in other words, the mother of numerous nations and kings.
Then, Genesis 17:23-27 records Abraham obeying the Lord’s command to
circumcise himself and all the males in his household.
Genesis 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants
who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every
male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of
their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him. 24 Now Abraham
was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin. 26 In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and
Ishmael his son. 27 All the men of his household, who were born in the house
or bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
(NASB95)
Notice that Abraham does not procrastinate but immediately the very same day
he obeyed the Lord and implemented the sign of circumcision. In Genesis 17:23-
27, we see Abraham conscientiously observing the practice of circumcision, which

was to be the sign or symbol of God’s covenant with Abraham. Abraham’s
obedience demonstrated his love for God (John 14:15).
Abraham’s obedience demonstrated his love for God in the sense that he
honored, respected, revered God and was dedicated and devoted to Him to the
point of self-sacrifice. Abraham’s obedience was the proper, appropriate, obedient
and obligatory response by him to God’s revelation of Himself since Abraham had
been created and redeemed by God for His purpose and good pleasure.
The “objective” in God revealing Himself and His ways to men through the
living Word, Jesus Christ and the written Word, the Bible is so that men might love
Him, experience fellowship with Him, glorify Him and worship Him.
1 Timothy 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and
a good conscience and a sincere faith. (NASB95)
The believer who thinks that gnosis, “knowledge” of God is the ultimate reason
for the Word of God will be arrogant. On the other hand, the believer who achieves
epignosis, “an experiential knowledge” of God is affected by God’s revelation of
Himself and His ways and will have a love for both God and all men.
Here we see that Abraham is affected by God’s revelation of Himself, His
ways. Abraham possesses an epignosis, “an experiential knowledge” meaning
that he has personally encountered through the process of fellowship, the love God
has for him as this divine-love is revealed by the Holy Spirit. He has been affected
by this encounter with the love that God has directed toward him resulting in the
gaining of practical spiritual wisdom and more of the character of Christ.
God’s revelation of Himself and His ways is not so that the believer can simply
acquire knowledge but rather so that a transformation of character might take place
in the believer’s life where this knowledge of God and His ways affects the
believer’s lifestyle and priorities.
1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that
we all have knowledge. Knowledge (gnosis) makes arrogant, but love edifies.
(NASB95)
Abraham’s obedience was confirmation that he indeed was obeying the
command to “walk before Me, and be blameless” in Genesis 17:1 and
experiencing fellowship with the Lord.
Fellowship with the Lord: (1) Only believers can experience (2) Experiencing
God’s love for us (3) Experience of loving God and others (4) Experiencing eternal
life (5) Experience of being in the presence of God (6) Worshipping the Lord (7)
Lost due to sin but recovered through confession of sin (8) Based upon obedience
to the Father’s will.
Not only did Abraham circumcise himself and his son Ishmael but also
everyone in his household including servants he had purchased and those born in
his household while their parents were in service to him. Even though Ishmael
would not inherit the promises with Isaac, Abraham circumcised him desiring that
he receive the spiritual blessings that would originate from the fulfillment of those
promises.
The Lord’s promise that He would make His covenant with Isaac and not
Ishmael meant that the Messiah would be a descendant of Isaac and in no way
excluded Isaac from sharing in the blessings that originate through faith in the
Messiah and the same holds true for everyone in Abraham’s household.
Abraham’s obedience to the law of circumcision demonstrated his faith since all
the males in his household would be incapacitated for several days thus leaving his
home and possessions with no protection at all except of course for the Lord.
Undoubtedly, Abraham met resistance and many questions but nevertheless, his
entire household received the sign of circumcision.
The fact that all the males submitted to circumcision based upon the word of
Abraham is a testimony to the fact that Abraham was highly respected among
those in his household and those who were servants. At this time, everyone knew
that God was with Abraham and if this was what God required, they along with
Abraham would obey.

Chapter Three: Paul’s Teaching With Regards to Circumcision in Romans 2:25-29
Romans 2:25-Disobedience to the Law Negates the Value of Circumcision
In Romans 2:17-29, Paul taught that God judges according to reality and
without regard of racial background or religious profession. In his day, the Jews
erroneously, presumptuously and arrogantly thought that they would enter the
kingdom of heaven because of their racial background as Jews and circumcision as
well as the privileges that God had given to them such as possessing the Law given
to Moses.
In Romans 2:17-19, Paul destroys their false security, which was based upon
six privileges God had given to them, which did not produce obedience in the Jews
but rather arrogance towards their relationship with the Gentiles.
In Romans 2:19-20, the apostle Paul lists four pretensions of the Jew and in
Romans 2:20c, Paul teaches that this arrogance is based upon “having in the Law
the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth.”
In Romans 2:21-23, Paul poses five rhetorical questions to the self-righteous,
unsaved Jew, which exposes their hypocrisy. Then, in Romans 2:24, Paul teaches
his unsaved Jewish audience that their hypocritical conduct as a nation caused the
unsaved Gentiles to blaspheme the reputation of the character of the person of
God. In Romans 2:25, Paul teaches his unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience
that circumcision can not deliver them from eternal condemnation since
disobedience to the Law negates the value of circumcision.
Rabbi Menachem, commenting on Book of Moses writes, “Our Rabbis have
said that no circumcised man will see Hell.” Another rabbinic saying was
“Circumcision saves from Hell.”
The Midrash (Jewish traditions compiled about 200AD, basic part of the
Talmud) Tillim says, “God swore to Abraham that no one who was circumcised
should be sent to Hell.” The Midrash also taught that “Abraham sits before the gate
of hell and never allows any circumcised Israelite to enter.” Therefore, we can see
that the rabbis taught a “false gospel” declaring that the ritual of circumcision
guarantees entrance into the kingdom of heaven. They taught that God will judge
the Gentiles by one standard and the Jews with another.
In Romans 2:17-24, Paul addresses his unsaved Jewish audience with regards to
their arrogance related to their racial background as well as their being the
recipients and custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures. In Romans 2:25-29,
Paul addresses the issue of circumcision with his unsaved Jewish audience.
Romans 2:25 teaches his unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience that
circumcision can not deliver them from eternal condemnation since disobedience
to the Law negates the value of circumcision. This passage teaches the principle
that Jewish disobedience with the ritual of circumcision is meaningless and
unrighteousness in the eyes of God.
Dr. Thomas L. Constable commenting on Romans 2:25-27 makes the following
insightful comment, he writes, “Next to the Mosaic Law the Jews boasted almost
equally in their circumcision. Some of them believed that God would not permit
any circumcised male to enter perdition. They felt this rite guaranteed their
acceptance by God (as some Christians believe baptism guarantees salvation). Paul
reminded such people that reality is more important than profession and obedience
more vital than testimony. Circumcision would not shield them from God's wrath
if they failed to do all He commanded. ‘. . . in contrast to Jewish teachers, who
held that only a radical decision to renounce the covenant invalidated one's
circumcision, Paul argues that simple transgression of the law can have the same
effect.’ In our day cans and bottles have labels on them to indicate what is inside.
Circumcision was a label and implied that the Jew was obedient to God. However
if he was not completely obedient the label was not only worthless but deceptive.
The contents of the can are more important than the label. Similarly if a Gentile
was completely obedient to God the absence of the label of circumcision was not
of major consequence. The Jews had put more emphasis on the presence of the
label than on the contents of the can. Paul's point was that disobedience brings
condemnation and perfect obedience theoretically brings salvation, regardless of
whether one is a Jew or a Gentile (Notes on Romans; 2006 Edition; page 24).
In order to gain a greater insight into the impact of Paul’s words in Romans
2:25-29 that were addressed to his unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience, on
Thursday evening, we studied the meaning and purpose of circumcision and on
Sunday we noted the controversy that it caused in the first century apostolic
church.
In Romans 2:25, Paul is arguing with his unsaved Jewish audience that physical
circumcision does not guarantee entrance into the kingdom of heaven and can
never deliver them from eternal condemnation.
Romans 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law;
but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become
uncircumcision. (NASB95)
“For” is the post-positive conjunction gar, which emphasizes an inference
drawn from the preceding paragraph that began in Romans 2:17 and concluded in
Romans 2:24.
In Romans 2:17-19, Paul destroys the unregenerate Jews’ false security, which
was based upon six privileges God had given to them, which did not produce
obedience in them but rather arrogance towards their relationship with the
Gentiles.

In Romans 2:19-20, the apostle Paul lists four pretensions of the Jew and in
Romans 2:20c, Paul teaches that this arrogance is based upon “having in the Law
the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth.”
In Romans 2:21-23, Paul poses five rhetorical questions to the self-righteous,
unsaved Jew that exposed their hypocrisy implying that they did not obey the Law
themselves.
In Romans 2:24, he teaches that as a result of their conduct the reputation of the
character of the person of God being slandered among the Gentiles. Thus, Paul
destroys the false security that the Jew place in his being the recipient and
custodian of the Old Testament Scriptures in that possession of the Law does not
protect them from the wrath of God or guarantee them entrance into the kingdom
of heaven.
In Romans 2:25, the apostle Paul continues his emphasis upon obeying the Law
rather than simply hearing the Law. This time in Romans 2:25, Paul attacks
circumcision, which the unsaved Jew believed would guarantee them protection
from the wrath of God and entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Romans 2:25-29 emphasizes that the ritual of circumcision is of value if the Jew
obeys the Law but if he is disobedient, circumcision is of no value and cannot
protect him from the wrath of God.
Therefore, in Roman 2:25, the apostle Paul employs the conjunction gar to
intensify his discussion regarding the importance of obeying the Law and to
introduce a statement, which destroys the Jews’ false security in circumcision.
The conjunction gar intensifies the inference drawn from the preceding
paragraph that possession of the Law is meaningless if the Jew does not obey the
Law. In fact, their disobedience to the Law places them under greater
condemnation than the unsaved Gentiles who not given the privilege of being the
custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures.
The conjunction gar introduces a new paragraph that teaches that in the same
way, the ritual of circumcision is of no value if the Jew is disobedient to the Law.
Therefore, gar connects the previous paragraph to the one to follow, and intensifies
Paul’s argument that obedience to the Law is essential in order to be justified
before God.
Only the Lord Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient to the Law, thus revealing to
the Jew that he is in need of a Savior who is Jesus Christ.
“Indeed” is the conjunction men, which is employed with the conjunction de,
“but” in a correlative sense to demonstrate the contrast between the value of the
ritual of circumcision when obeying the Law with that of disobeying the Law.
The conjunctions men and de are used in a correlative sense to demonstrate the
contrast between the value of the ritual of circumcision when obeying the Law

with that of disobeying the Law and thus should be translated “on the one hand…
while on the other hand” respectively.
The conjunction men means, “on the one hand” and introduces a statement that
says that the ritual of circumcision is of value if the Jew obeys the Law whereas
the conjunction de means, “on the other hand” introducing a statement that says
that the ritual is of no value if the Jew disobeys the Law.
All the English translations translate the conjunction gar, “for” while they
translate men in Romans 2:25 in an emphatic or intensive sense with the English
“indeed” and de in an adversative sense with the English “but.”
However, as we noted in our study of the conjunction gar, it is being used by
Paul in an emphatic sense whereas the conjunctions men and de are used simply in
a correlative sense contrasting the value of circumcision when obeying the Law
with disobeying the Law.
“Circumcision” is the nominative feminine singular form of the noun peritome,
which refers to the ritual act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis and was
given as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological descendants
that they were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or saved them.
“Is of value” is the the person singular present active indicative form of the
verb opheleo, which means, “to be beneficial.”
In a passage that is related to Paul’s discussion on circumcision in Romans
2:25, the verb opheleo is used by Paul in Galatians 5:2 describing that Christ would
be of “no advantage” to the Galatian believers if they submitted to the teaching of
the Judaizers and performed the ritual of circumcision.
If the Galatian believers submitted to the Judaizers teaching to be circumcised
they would be placing themselves under a works program rather under God’s
grace.
The present tense of the verb opheleo is a “gnomic” present used to make a
statement of an eternal spiritual truth or spiritual axiom. It says that if Paul’s
unsaved Jewish audience obeyed the Law, then circumcision “as an eternal
spiritual truth” or “spiritual axiom” would be beneficial to them.
“If” is the conditional particle ean, which introduces the protasis of a fifth class
conditional statement.
In Romans 2:25, the conditional particle ean introduces the protasis of a fifth
class condition, which is actually semantically a third class conditional statement
that expresses a present general condition.
The conditional sentence in ancient Greece was used as a debater’s technique to
win a debate regardless of the side you took. It was the technique of the premise
and conclusion, dating back 2500 years ago.
The premise is called the “protasis” and the conclusion is called the “apodasis.”
The “protasis” is the cause that states the supposition or the premise whereas the
“apodasis” is the cause that states the conclusion derived from the premise. If the
logic between the premise and the conclusion is accurate and correct, the debater
makes his point and wins his debate regardless of which side he takes.
Winning a debate does not mean that the truth wins. Winning a debate to the
Greeks was one of the greatest pleasures and they were more interested in great
debates than anything else. The key to this debating technique is the selection of a
premise that suits you, which results in the conclusion necessary to win the debate.
Conditional sentences can be defined “structurally” or “semantically.”
“Structurally” a conditional sentence has two parts: (1) an “if” part and (2) a “then”
part. “If” is the protasis and “then” is the apodosis.
“Semantically,” conditions can be defined semantically in terms of the overall
construction as well as the individual components. There is often a tacit
assumption that the protasis of a condition indicates the cause and the apodosis
tells the effect, however, this is not the only relation the two can have.
Actually, there are three basic relations that a protasis can have to an apodosis:
(1) Cause-effect (2) Evidence-inference (3) Equivalence.
The first relation the two parts can have is that of cause and effect: “If” = cause;
“then” = effect. An example of cause and effect would be, “If you put your hand in
the fire, you will get burned.”
The second relation the protasis can have to the apodosis is that of ground, or
evidence, to inference in which the speaker infers something (the apodosis) from
some evidence meaning he makes an induction about the implications that a piece
of evidence suggests to him. An example of evidence and inference would be, “If
she has a ring on her left hand, then she’s married.”
The third relation the two parts can have to one another is one of equivalence
meaning: “If A, then B” means the same thing as “A = B.” An example of
equivalence would be, “If you are Henry’s son, then Henry is your father.”
The “apodosis” is grammatically independent, but semantically dependent. That
is, it can stand on its own as a full-blown sentence (e.g., “If I die, I die”), but it
depends for its “factuality” on the fulfillment of the protasis (“If he wins this race,
he’ll be the new champion”).
On the other hand, the “protasis” is grammatically dependent, but semantically
independent, which means, that it does not form a complete thought (“If I go
swimming tomorrow, I’ll catch a cold”), but its fulfillment is independent of
whether the apodosis is true.
Only the protasis is the conditional element, that is, the contingency lies with
the “if,” not the “then.” If the protasis is fulfilled, the apodosis is also fulfilled. As
far as it is presented, although sometimes the apodosis may be true without the
protasis being true, the apodosis must be true when the protasis is true. That is to
say, as far as portrayal is concerned, if the protasis is fulfilled, the apodosis is true.
Thus, “If you put your hand in the fire, you will get burned” is saying that if you
fulfill the condition, the consequence is true.
In Romans 2:25, we have “cause and effect.” The “cause” is contained in the
statement: ean nomon prasses, “if you practice the Law.” The “effect” is
contained in the statement: peritome…opheleo, “circumcision is of value.”
Conditional statements refer to the “portrayal of reality” rather than to reality
itself. However, within these parameters the following can be said: (1) If A, then B
[not =] if B, then A (the converse not necessarily true). (2) If A, then B [not =] if
non-A, then non-B (reverse not necessarily false) (3) If A, then B does not deny if
C then B (condition not necessarily exclusive or condition not necessarily causal).
There are two ways to convey a conditional sentence: (1) Implicitly: without
formal structural markers (e.g. ei or an). (2) Explicitly: with a formal structural
marker (e.g. ei or an).
Sometimes there is an incomplete condition where there may be an absence of
either the protasis or the apodasis, which is a form of ellipsis or aposiopesis and is
common to all languages.
In Romans 2:25, the conditional sentence is conveyed “explicitly” with the
conditional particle ean.
The fifth class offers a condition the fulfillment of which is realized in the
present time and is known as the present general condition. The present general
condition addresses a generic situation in the present time.
In Romans 2:25, we have a third class condition, which offers a condition the
fulfillment of which is realized in the present time. He employs a third class
conditional statement, which semantically presents a logical connection in the
present time that is sometimes called a present general condition, and indicates
nothing as to the fulfillment of the protasis.
In the protasis, we have the present subjunctive form of the verb prasso
whereas in the apodasis we have the present indicative form of the verb opheleo.
Thus this particular type of construction is known as a present general condition
and is called a fifth class condition.
In Romans 2:25 we have an example of the present general condition since
there is no hint of uncertainty about this event occurring, nor is it something
presented as an eventuality. Paul is simply presenting a hypothetical situation in
order to teach spiritual principle with the fifth class condition.
The fifth class condition expresses the spiritual principle that if the Jew
practices the Law, then the fact that he is circumcised will as an eternal spiritual
truth be beneficial to him. The subjunctive of prasso is used because the subject is
undefined, not because the time is future. Therefore, we should not insert “should”
into the translation of the word.

It is undefined because Paul is directing this spiritual principle at all of his
Jewish readers and is not speaking of any one specific individual Jew. This is
because Paul is presenting a principle that applies to all Jews, if you obey the Law,
then circumcision is beneficial to you.
“You practice” is the the person singular present active subjunctive form of the
verb prasso, which means, “to make it a habit of practicing” and denotes a habit
and a process leading to an accomplishment. In Romans 2:25, the verb prasso
refers to “practicing” the Law.
The present tense is “customary” or more accurately “stative” signifying an
action that is to take place “continually” or is an “unbroken process” since in
context Paul is demonstrating to his unsaved Jewish audience that they must be
perfect as God in order to be justified by Him. Of course, only Jesus Christ was
perfect and the entire human race has fallen short of the glory of God (Romans
3:10, 23). Thus, the “stative” present signifies that circumcision is beneficial to the
Jew if he “continually” or “always” practices what the Law teaches. This is
something that no Jew has been able to accomplish but only the God-Man Jesus
Christ.
The active voice is “stative” signifying that the subject exists in the state
indicated by the verb. Therefore, it signifies that circumcision is beneficial to the
Jew if he “continually exists in the state” of practicing what the Law teaches.
We will insert the English word “always” into the translation of the verb prasso
to reflect this continual state.
The subjunctive mood is employed with the conditional particle ean in order to
form the protasis of a fifth class condition or present general condition.
“The Law” is the accusative masculine singular form of the noun nomos, which
refers to the entire Old Testament Scriptures and not just the Pentateuch since in
context, Paul is mentioning the privileges that God gave the Jews’, which they
boasted of. Therefore, their boast would be regarding the entire special revelation
they received from God and not just the Pentateuch.
“If” is once again the conditional particle ean, which introduces the protasis of
a third class conditional statement in the adversative clause.
In Romans 2:25, we have the present subjunctive form of the verb eimi in the
protasis. However, in the apodasis we have the perfect indicative of the verb
ginomai. Thus, this is not a “fifth” class condition, which requires a “present
indicative” form of the verb in the apodasis whereas the “third” class can take
virtually any mood-tense combination, including the present indicative.
In the adversative clause of Romans 2:25, the third class condition “depicts
what is likely to occur in the future.” Thus, Paul is saying with the third class
condition that it is likely to occur in the future that his unsaved, self-righteous
Jewish audience will be transgressors of the Law.
In Romans 2:25, the conditional sentence is conveyed “explicitly” with the
conditional particle ean. The protasis expresses the cause and the apodasis the
effect. The “cause” is contained in the statement: ean parabates nomou es, “if you
are a transgressor of the Law.” The “effect” is contained in the statement: he
peritome sou akrobustia gegonen, “your circumcision has become
uncircumcision.”
“You are” is the the person singular present active subjunctive form of the verb
eimi, which means, “to possess certain inherent characteristics” or “a state.”
The word functions as a substantive uniting the subject with the predicate
nominative parabates, “a transgressor.” Therefore, in context the word denotes
the Jew as “possessing a state of being” a transgressor of the Law.
The present tense of the verb eimi is “gnomic” used in a generic statement to
describe something that is true “any” time. Therefore, the gnomic present of the
verb expresses the spiritual principle that if the unregenerate Jew “at any time”
transgresses the Law, then his circumcision is of no value and he has become as if
he were not circumcised in the eyes of God.
indicated by the verb. Therefore, it signifies the Jew in a “state” of being a
transgressor of the Law.
form the protasis of a third class condition, which depicts the probability of Paul’s
unsaved Jewish audience likely being transgressors of the Law in the future.
“A transgressor” is the nominative masculine singular form of the noun
parabates, which is a compound word composed of the preposition para, “beyond,
contrary to” and the verb baino, “to go,” thus the word literally means, “to go
beyond.” In Romans 2:25, the noun parabates is used from a vertical standpoint of
transgressing the Law of God.
The word functions as a predicate nominative meaning it is making the
assertion regarding Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience, namely, that if they transgress
the Law, then they will like the uncircumcised Gentiles.
“The Law” is the genitive masculine singular form of the noun nomos, which
again refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and functions as an “objective
genitive” meaning that it is receiving the action of the verbal idea implicit in the
head noun parabates, “a transgressor.”
Next, we have the apodasis of this third class condition, which is conveyed
“implicitly” meaning without a formal structural marker.
“Your” is the genitive the person singular personal pronoun su, which refers
Paul’s self-righteous, unsaved Jewish audience. The word functions as a “genitive
of possession” indicating that the self-righteous, unsaved Jew is responsible for his
being considered by God as uncircumcised for his disobedience to the Law.
“Circumcision” is the articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun
peritome, which functions as a nominative subject as indicated by its articular
construction that distinguishes it from the predicate nominative akrobustia,
“uncircumcision.”
“Has become” is the person singular perfect active indicative form of the verb
ginomai, which means, “to enter into a new condition or state, to become
something you weren’t before.” Therefore, the word signifies the entrance of the
circumcised Jew into the state of being uncircumcised in the eyes of God as a
result of transgressing His Law.
Perfect tense of ginomai is an “intensive” perfect emphasizing the results or
present state produced by a past action. In Romans 2:25, the “intensive perfect”
tense of the verb ginomai emphasizes the results or present state of the self-
righteous Jew of being uncircumcised in the eyes of God and which state was
produced by the past action of transgressing the Law.
The perfect tense also indicates that this is a third class rather than fifth class
condition since the latter demands that the verb in the protasis be in the “present
indicative” form.
The active voice is “stative” meaning that the unsaved, self-righteous Jew
“exists in the state of being” uncircumcised in the judgment of God as a result of
transgressing His Law.
The indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this assertion as an unqualified
statement of Bible doctrine.
“Uncircumcision” is the nominative feminine singular form of the noun
akrobustia, which stands in contrast to the noun peritome, “circumcision” and
means, “uncircumcision.”
The word appears twenty times in the Greek New Testament where it is used in
both a literal and figurative sense. In Judaism, to be uncircumcised meant to be a
Gentile.
The expression “uncircumcised” was a derogatory expression used by the Jews
when speaking of the Gentiles such as David speaking of Goliath (1 Samuel
17:26). Although akrobustia is not used in 1 Samuel 17:26 but it does appear in at
least fifteen places in the Septuagint.
The word is used in the Greek New Testament as a designation for the Gentiles
in Galatians 2:7 and Ephesians 2:11. It was used in a literal sense denoting the
physical condition of uncircumcision in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19. The word is also
used of the state of being uncircumcised in Romans 2:26, 27, 4:9, 10, 11, 12,
Galatians 5:6, 6:15 and Colossians 2:13 and 3:11.
In Romans 2:25, the noun akrobustia refers to the state of being uncircumcised.
Therefore, Paul is saying in Romans 2:25 that the Jew who is circumcised has

become for all practical purposes in the judgment of God an uncircumcised pagan
when he transgresses the Law.
The word functions as a predicate nominative meaning it is making the
assertion regarding Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience, namely, that if they transgress
the Law, then their circumcision will become uncircumcision in the eyes of God.
Romans 2:25 Indeed, on the one hand circumcision is, as an eternal
spiritual truth, beneficial if you should always practice the Law. On the other
hand, if you should be at any time a transgressor of the Law, (then) your
circumcision has become uncircumcision. (Author’s translation)
In Romans 2:25, Paul teaches that performing the ritual of circumcision cannot
provide salvation and produce the righteousness in the Jew that is needed to coexist
with a holy God who is perfect since it is only beneficial if the Jew is perfectly
obedient to the Law. Therefore, ritual without perfect obedience to the Law of God
is meaningless and unrighteousness.
Romans 2:26-Perfect Gentile Obedience without the Ritual of Circumcision is

Righteousness
In Romans 2:26, Paul poses a rhetorical question, which demands a positive

response from his unsaved Jewish audience that believed that because they were
circumcised that they could escape eternal condemnation and gain entrance into the
kingdom of heaven. This rhetorical question implies in a hypothetical sense that
although the Gentile is uncircumcised his perfect obedience to the principles of the
moral code of the Mosaic Law would make him circumcised in the eyes of God
and is designed to destroy Jewish confidence in circumcision to be justified before
God. This passage teaches the principle that perfect Gentile obedience without the
ritual of circumcision is righteousness in the eyes of God.
Romans 2:26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the
Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? (NASB95)
“So” is the “inferential” use of the post-positive conjunction oun, which
introduces an inference drawn from the principle that appears in Romans 2:25. The
inferential conjunction oun introduces a rhetorical question that demands a positive
response from Paul’s unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience and has its inference
from Paul’s previous statement in Romans 2:25.
“If” is the conditional particle ean, which introduces the protasis of a third class
conditional statement. The conditional particle ean is employed with the
subjunctive mood of the verb phulasso, “keeps” to form the protasis, which states,
“if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law.” The apodasis is
conveyed implicitly meaning without a structural marker and it contains the future
indicative form of the verb logizomai, “will be regarded,” whose meaning is
negated emphatically by the emphatic objective negative adverb ou, “not.” The
apodasis of Romans 2:26: “will not his uncircumcision be regarded as
circumcision?” Thus, this is not a “fifth” class condition, which requires a
“present indicative” form of the verb in the apodasis whereas the “third” class can
take virtually any mood-tense combination, including the present indicative.
The third class condition encompasses a broad range of potentialities in Koine
Greek. It depicts what is likely to occur in the future, what could possibly occur, or
even what is only hypothetical and will not occur. The context will ultimately
determine exactly what the writer is depicting for us.
In Romans 2:26, Paul is using the third class condition to present a hypothetical
case of the uncircumcised Gentiles always obeying the Law in order to
demonstrate to his Jewish audience that being circumcised is of no value if they are
not perfectly obedient to the Law since a holy God demands perfect obedience.
Now, in Romans 2, Paul is addressing a self-righteous, unsaved Jewish
audience. In Romans 2:25, Paul taught them that circumcision is only beneficial to
them if they always practice the Law, which only Christ could do. Also, he stated
in this verse that if they should at any time, transgress the Law then, their
circumcision is for all practical purposes, uncircumcision in the eyes of a holy God
who demands perfect obedience.
Now, in Romans 2:26, Paul is drawing an inference from these things he taught
them in Romans 2:25 as indicated by the inferential conjunction oun, “therefore.”
In Romans 2:26, Paul teaches his Jewish audience that if the uncircumcised
Gentiles perfectly obey the requirements of the Law, then won’t their
uncircumcision be regarded by God as circumcision?
In Romans 2:13-15, Paul taught that the uncircumcised Gentiles do at times
obey the Law instinctively since Jesus Christ wrote in their souls the moral code of
the Mosaic Law on their souls, and which code is manifested through the function
of their conscience. However, none of them has been perfectly obedient as
manifested through their sinning and yet the uncircumcised Gentiles obedient
conduct at times serves as evidence against the disobedient Jew.
Therefore, in Romans 2:26, the third class condition does “not” depict what is
likely to occur in the future, or what could possibly occur but rather what is only
hypothetical and will not occur since no Gentile has kept perfectly the Law of God
but only Jesus Christ. Paul presents this hypothetical case in order to demonstrate
to his self-righteous Jewish countrymen that being circumcised is of no value if
they are not perfectly obedient to the Law.
The relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is that of “evidence-inference”
since the apodasis infers from the evidence Paul presented in the protasis in that he
makes an induction about the implications that this piece of evidence suggests.

The evidence in the protasis: “If the uncircumcised man keeps the
requirements of the Law.” The inference in the apodasis: “Will not his
uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”
In Romans 2:26, Paul employs a rhetorical question in the place of a direct
assertion, which is a debater’s technique designed to encourage his Jewish
audience to respond and come to the conclusion of the apodosis that is implied in
the rhetorical question.
“The uncircumcised man” is the articular nominative feminine singular form
of the noun akrobustia, which is a designation for the Gentiles. The definite article
preceding the noun akrobustia is “generic” distinguishing the Gentiles from the
Jews. The noun akrobustia functions as the subject of the finite verb phulasso,
“keeps.”
“Keeps” is the the person singular present active subjunctive form of the verb
phulasso, which is used in active sense meaning “to observe,” which in turn
means, “to conform one’s action or practice to, to comply with.” Therefore, the
verb phulasso refers to the Gentiles observing the requirements of the Law in the
sense of conforming their actions to the Law, or complying with the Law.
action that takes place “continually” or is an “unbroken process” since in context
Paul is presenting to his unsaved Jewish audience a hypothetical case of the
Gentiles perfectly keeping the Law. This of course will not occur since no Gentile
has kept perfectly the Law of God but only Jesus Christ.
Paul presents this hypothetical case in order to demonstrate to his self-righteous
Jewish countrymen that being circumcised is of no value if they are not perfectly
obedient to the Law. Thus, the “stative” present signifies in a hypothetical sense
the Gentiles “continually” or “always” obeying what the Law teaches. This is
something that no Jew or Gentile has been able to accomplish but only the God-
Man Jesus Christ.
indicated by the verb. Therefore, it signifies in a hypothetical sense the Gentiles
“continually existing in the state” of practicing what the Law teaches.
We will insert the English word “always” into the translation of the verb
phulasso to reflect this continual state.
form the protasis of a third class condition.
“The requirements” is composed of the articular accusative (direct object)
neuter plural form of the noun dikaioma, which refers to that which God has
ordained by law regarding what is right and just. Therefore, it refers to a
requirement, regulation, or ordinance and can be translated “righteous
requirement,” or “righteous regulation.” In context, it specifically refers to the
principles or Ten Commandments contained in written form in the moral code of
the Mosaic Law. This moral code is inherent in the soul of every human being
according to Romans 2:12-15.
The definite article preceding the noun dikaioma emphasizes that this divine
regulation that establishes proper conduct is “well-known” to Paul’s Jewish
audience since it appears in the Ten Commandments.
“Of the Law” is the articular genitive masculine singular form of the noun
nomos, which refers to the Mosaic Law. The definite article is “anaphoric”
denoting previous reference, thus indicating that the noun nomos appeared
previously in the immediate context, namely, Romans 2:25. The noun nomos
functions as a “genitive of source” meaning that the word is the source from which
the head noun dikaioma, “righteous regulations” derives. Thus, the righteous
regulation “originates from” the Law.
Next, we have the apodasis of this third class condition, which is conveyed
“implicitly” meaning without a formal structural marker. Therefore, we will insert
the English “then” into the translation to mark the introduction of the apodasis.
“Will…be regarded” is the future passive indicative form of the verb
logizomai, which means, “to consider, to treat accordingly, to a hold viewpoint
concerning someone or something.” The verb indicates that if the uncircumcised
Gentile perfectly obeyed the Law, God would view their obedience as tantamount
to or the equivalent of their being circumcised since circumcision implied that you
were obedient to God’s will. Therefore, the Gentiles’ obedience would be
tantamount to or equivalent to being circumcised since circumcision implied that
you were obedient to God’s will.
Again, Paul is speaking in hypothetical terms of the Gentile being always
obedient to God, which is impossible because of the sin nature and human volition.
Only, the Lord Jesus Christ was impeccable and perfectly obedient to the Father’s
will. For Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience to think that circumcision would gain
them entrance into the kingdom of heaven and protect them from eternal
condemnation was in error since perfect obedience is required for circumcision to
be of any value if they attempt to be justified before God without Christ.
The future tense of the verb is a “deliberative future” meaning that it asks a
question that implies some doubt about the response. Paul is asking a rhetorical
question in place of a direct assertion that demands a positive response from his
unsaved Jewish audience, which is one of the nuances of a debater’s technique. It
is designed encourage his Jewish audience to respond and come to the conclusion
of the apodosis that is implied in the rhetorical question.
The passive voice of the verb means that the unsaved, uncircumcised Gentiles
are receiving the action of the verb from an unexpressed agency, who is God and
this is done for rhetorical effect.
This is an ‘interrogative” indicative where an “assertion is expected” from
Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience. It indicates that Paul is presenting a rhetorical
question that demands a positive response from his unsaved Jewish audience.
“Not” is the emphatic objective negative adverb ou, which is used
interrogatively since an affirmative answer is expected from Paul’s rhetorical
question.
“His” is the genitive third person masculine singular form of the intensive
personal pronoun autos, which refers to the unsaved Gentiles and functions as a
“genitive of possession” meaning that the Gentiles do “not” possess the rite of
circumcision as the Jew.
“Uncircumcision” is the articular nominative feminine singular form of the
noun akrobustia, which refers to the state of being uncircumcised. The definite
article before the noun akrobustia is used with the intensive pronoun autos to
denote possession.
“As circumcision” is composed of the preposition eis and the accusative
feminine singular form of the noun peritome, which refers to the ritual act of
cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis.
The preposition eis expresses “equivalence” meaning that perfect Gentile
obedience to the moral code inherent in their souls, which is in written form in the
Mosaic Law would be considered and treated accordingly by God “as equivalent
to” being circumcised. Therefore, we will translate the prepositional phrase eis
peritomen, “as circumcision.”
Romans 2:26 Therefore, if the uncircumcision always observes the
righteous regulations originating from the Law, then, will not (God) consider
and treat accordingly His uncircumcision as circumcision. (Author’s
translation)
Romans 2:25 teaches the principle that ritual without obedience to the Word of
God is meaningless and unrighteousness whereas Romans 2:26 teaches that perfect
obedience without the ritual is righteousness.
Romans 2:27-Obedient Gentile Conduct Would Serve As Evidence Against the

Disobedient Jew
In Romans 2:27, the apostle Paul teaches that obedient Gentile conduct would
serve as evidence against the disobedient Jew.
Romans 2:27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law,
will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and
circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? (NASB95)
The New American Standard, New American Standard Updated version, the
King James, New King James Version, American Standard Bible, the Darby
translation, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Translation of the Holy
Bible, 1833 Webster Bible, the New Testament in Modern English (Revised
Student Version) by J. B. Phillips and the 1912 Weymouth New Testament all
inaccurately translate the Greek text of Romans 2:27 as a rhetorical question since
Paul is making a statement. Whereas, the New International Version, the Revised
Standard Version, the Analytical Literal Translation, the 1965 Bible in Basic
English, the Good News Bible, the International Standard Version, the Murdock
translation, the 1898 Young’s Literal Translation, the Wuest translation, the New
Century Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the Modern Language Bible, the Jewish
New Testament by David H. Stern, the Living Bible and the Amplified Bible all
correctly translate the Greek text of Romans 2:27 as a declarative statement.
“And” is the conjunction kai, which is “emphatic” since it is introducing a
statement that says that the Gentiles obedient conduct would serve as evidence
against the unsaved, self-righteous Jew, which would be shocking to the Jew who
thought himself superior to the Gentiles.
“He who is uncircumcised” is the articular nominative feminine singular form
of the noun akrobustia, which refers to the state of being uncircumcised and is a
designation for the Gentile in contrast to the circumcised Jew. The definite article
preceding the noun akrobustia is “anaphoric” indicating that the noun was used
previously in the context, namely, Romans 2:26. Also, the definite article is
“generic” distinguishing the Gentiles from the Jews. We will translate the articular
form of the noun akrobustia, “the uncircumcised.”
“Physically” is composed of the preposition ek, and the genitive feminine
singular form of the noun phusis, which we have seen twice already in our studies
of Romans 1 and 2 and have noted the word in detail in these passages. Therefore,
we will only note the word’s usage here in Romans 2:27.
In Romans 2:27, the noun phusis refers to a physical condition inherited from
birth and thus a natural physical condition. Therefore, the word denotes the
“natural physical condition” of the Gentiles who were not circumcised in order to
fulfill the conditions stipulated by the Lord in His covenant He made with
Abraham and his descendants.
The preposition ek is used with the genitive form of the noun phusis as a marker
of the origin of the natural physical condition of the Gentiles. We will translate this
prepositional phrase adverbially with the English word “physically” since the best
reflects the idiom in the Greek.
The English word “physical” indicates connected with the human body as a
material organism, which reflects the meaning of this prepositional phrase that is
used in context with the natural physical condition of the Gentile not being
circumcised like the Jews.

“If he keeps” is the nominative feminine singular present active participle form
of the verb teleo, which is used with reference to the ten commands that appear in
written form in the moral code of the Mosaic Law that are also inherent in the soul
of the unsaved Gentile.
In Romans 2:27, the verb teleo means, “to fulfill perfectly” since Romans 2:25
teaches that Law is only beneficial to the Jew if he always practices it and Romans
2:26 presents a hypothetical case of the Gentile being justified before God through
his perfect obedience to the Law.
The participle form of the verb teleo is a “participle of means” indicating the
“means by which” the action of the verb finite verb krino, “will he not judge” is
accomplished. As a participle of means, teleo indicates that the Gentile will
condemn the Jew “by means of” his perfectly fulfilling the commands of the Law,
which are inherent in the soul of every Gentile.
action that takes place “continually” or is an “unbroken process” since in context
Paul is presenting to his unsaved Jewish audience a hypothetical case of the
Gentiles perfectly fulfilling the Ten Commandments that are inherent in their soul.
This of course will not occur since no Gentile has kept perfectly the Law of God
but only Jesus Christ.
Paul presents this hypothetical case in order to demonstrate to his self-righteous
Jewish countrymen that being circumcised is of no value if they are not perfectly
obedient to the Law. Thus, the “stative” present signifies in a hypothetical sense
the Gentiles “continually” or “always” obeying what the Law teaches. This is
something that no Jew or Gentile has been able to accomplish but only the God-
Man Jesus Christ.
indicated by the verb. Therefore, it signifies in a hypothetical sense the Gentiles
“continually existing in the state” of fulfilling perfectly the Ten Commandments.
We will insert the English word “always” into the translation of the verb teleo to
reflect this continual state.
“The Law” is the articular accusative masculine singular form of the noun
nomos, which refers to the ten commandments that appear in written form in the
moral code of the Mosaic Law since it is used in context with relation to the
Gentiles who did not have the entire Mosaic Law in written form but only the
moral code portion of the Mosaic Law on their hearts. The definite article
preceding the noun nomos is “anaphoric” indicating that nomos was used in the
previous statement in Romans 2:26. It is also is “monadic” as well indicating that
the Law was “well-known” to Paul’s Jewish readership.
“Will he not judge” is the third person singular future active indicative form of
the verb krino, which means that the unsaved Gentiles perfect obedience to the Ten
Commandments that are inherent in their soul will serve as evidence against the
unsaved Jew and serve to “condemn” the Jew at the Great White Throne Judgment
of all unbelievers at the end of human history (Revelation 20:11-15).
The future tense is a “predictive” future tense that this condemnation of the
unsaved Jews by means of the obedient conduct of the unsaved Gentiles will take
place in the future at the Great White Throne Judgment. This is not a “gnomic”
future since it is not used with reference to a particular event but rather to indicate
the likelihood of a generic event will take place.
The active voice indicates that the obedient conduct of the Gentiles serves as
the subject that performs the action of the verb krino, “to condemn.”
It is not an “interrogative” indicative since unlike in Romans 2:26, Paul does
not employ the emphatic objective negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo) in an
interrogative sense to denote that an affirmative answer is expected from Paul’s
rhetorical question. In fact, the translators of the New American Standard insert the
negative “not” into their translation of krino even though emphatic negative adverb
ou is not in the original text!
“You” is the accusative second person singular personal pronoun su, which
emphasizes the self-righteous Jew since in Romans 1:1-17, Paul uses the 2 nd person
plural to address the Roman believers and when referring to the Gentiles he uses
the third person, thus through the process of elimination we know that Paul’s is
speaking to the Jew.
The accusative masculine singular definite article ton precedes the prepositional
phrase dia grammatos kai peritomes parabaten nomou, “who though having the
letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law. It functions
as a “substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e. converts to a noun) the
prepositional phrase and thus we can translate it with the substantive phrase “who
are.”
The article functions as an “accusative of simple apposition” meaning that it
stands beside another accusative substantive, which in context is the accusative
second person singular form of the personal pronoun su, “you.”
“Though having the letter of the Law and circumcision” is composed of the
preposition dia and genitive neuter singular form of the noun gramma, which is
followed by the connective use of the conjunction kai and the genitive feminine
singular form of the noun peritome.
The noun gramma refers to “any kind of written document, whether in book or
manuscript form, with focus upon the content.” In Romans 2:27, the word refers to
the Mosaic Law with emphasis upon the Ten Commandments since Paul is saying
that Gentile obedience to the Law will serve as evidence against the Jew in their
condemnation and which Law the Gentiles did not receive in written form like the
Jew but were created with it inherent in their souls.
Then, we have the connective use of the conjunction kai, which connects two
privileges that the Jews received from God, namely, the Law and circumcision.
The noun peritome refers to the ritual act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s
penis and was given as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological
saved them and implied that they were obedient to God.
The preposition dia is used with the genitive form of the nouns gramma and
peritome as a marker of the instrument by which the unsaved Jew transgresses the
Law. Therefore, the Law as well as the ritual of circumcision that was to be a sign
of obedience to God were the instruments or means by which the unsaved Jew
transgressed the Law.
The unsaved Jew transgressed the Law by means of disobeying Scripture,
which resulted in the ritual of circumcision being meaningless since it was to imply
that the Jew was obedient to God. The privileges of the Law and circumcision
became the means by which the unsaved Jew transgressed the Law because of their
disobedience to the Law.
The Law and circumcision were privileges given to the Jews by the Lord and
their arrogant, self-righteous response to these privileges will result in their being
the means to condemn them at the Great White Throne Judgment because they
were not perfectly obedient to the Law.
“A transgressor” is the accusative masculine singular form of the noun
parabates, which is used to describes the unsaved Jews as those who violate the
Ten Commandments that appear in written form in the Mosaic Law.
The noun parabates functions as a “predicate accusative” meaning that the
word stands in predicate relation to another accusative substantive making an
assertion about it. Therefore, the noun parabates functions in predicate relation to
the substantive use of the accusative form of the definite article and makes an
assertion about the unsaved Jews, namely, they are transgressors of the Law.
“Of the Law” is the genitive masculine singular form of the noun nomos,
which refers to the Mosaic Law and functions as an “objective genitive” meaning
that it is receiving the action of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun parabates,
“a transgressor.”
Romans 2:27 In fact, the physically uncircumcised by fulfilling perfectly
the Law will condemn you who are by means of Scripture and circumcision a
transgressor of the Law. (Author’s translation)
So in Romans 2:27, the apostle Paul addresses his unsaved Jewish audience
with a hypothetical case that would destroy their confidence in circumcision as the
means of avoiding eternal condemnation and receiving entrance into the kingdom
of heaven. He presents to the unsaved Jew a hypothetical case of the Gentiles
fulfilling perfectly the Ten Commandments that are inherent in their soul, which
would serve as evidence against them resulting in condemnation at the Great White
Throne Judgment.
Romans 2:28-Authentic Jewishness and Circumcision are not Based on Externals
Romans 2:28 will teach us that authentic Jewishness is not based upon being a
biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob nor is authentic circumcision
based upon receiving the surgical procedure of circumcision as an eight day old
infant.
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision
that which is outward in the flesh. (NASB95)
Romans 2:28-29 concludes the paragraph that began in Romans 2:17 and
summarizes Romans 2:17-27 in which Paul destroys the unsaved Jews’ false
security in his racial background, possession of the Law and the ritual of
circumcision. All of which, the Jew erroneously and presumptuously and
arrogantly believed would gain him entrance into the kingdom of God and prevent
him from receiving eternal condemnation.
The Greek text of Romans 2:28-29 is elliptical but Paul’s meaning is clear and
emphatic to the unsaved, self-righteous Jew, namely that their racial background,
possession of the Law and circumcision will not gain them entrance into the
kingdom of heaven and protect them from eternal condemnation.
“For” is the “inferential” use of the post-positive conjunction gar, which
introduces a self-evident conclusion that is based upon Paul’s teaching concerning
circumcision in Romans 2:25-27. The term “post-positive” means that the word
does not come first in the sentence but rather second and sometimes is the third
word in the sentence. The first word in the sentence is the emphatic negative
adverb ou, “not.” So the conjunction gar introduces a self-evident conclusion
regarding the value of the ritual of circumcision to the Jew, which is based upon
Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:25-27.
In Romans 2:25, Paul teaches his unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience that
circumcision can not deliver them from eternal condemnation since disobedience
to the Law negates the value of circumcision. This passage teaches the principle
that Jewish disobedience makes the ritual of circumcision meaningless and
constitutes unrighteousness in the eyes of God.
In Romans 2:26, Paul poses a rhetorical question to his unsaved Jewish
audience, which demands a positive response from them who believed that because
they were circumcised that they could escape eternal condemnation and gain
entrance into the kingdom of heaven. This rhetorical question implies in a
hypothetical sense that although the Gentile is uncircumcised his perfect obedience
to the principles of the moral code of the Mosaic Law would make him
circumcised in the eyes of God and is designed to destroy Jewish confidence in
circumcision to be justified before God. This passage teaches the principle that
perfect Gentile obedience without the ritual of circumcision is righteousness in the
eyes of God.
Then, in Romans 2:27, Paul teaches that the perfect obedient conduct by the
uncircumcised Gentile would serve as evidence against the disobedient,
circumcised Jew. So in Romans 2:27, the apostle Paul addresses his unsaved
Jewish audience with a hypothetical case that would destroy their confidence in
circumcision as the means of avoiding eternal condemnation and receiving
entrance into the kingdom of heaven. He presents to the unsaved Jew a
hypothetical case of the Gentiles fulfilling perfectly the Ten Commandments that
are inherent in their soul, which would serve as evidence against them resulting in
condemnation at the Great White Throne Judgment. Therefore, in Romans 2:28,
the conjunction gar introduces a self-evident conclusion from the facts derived
from Paul’s statements that appear in Romans 2:25-27. The self-evident conclusion
is that being a true Jew does not pertain to being merely a biological descendant of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Externals, such as one’s racial background, i.e. being a
biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or circumcision, did not
constitute being a true Jew since circumcision is of no value without perfect
obedience to the Law of God.
“He is” is the third person singular present active indicative form of the verb
eimi, which means, “to possess certain characteristics” or “a state.” The
characteristic or state in view is that of being a biological descendant of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob and being a member of the nation of Israel, which is denoted by
the proper name Ioudaios, “Jew.” The meaning of the verb eimi is negated by the
emphatic negative adverb ou, “not.” Therefore, these three words denote that the
state of being a biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and thus a
member of the nation of Israel emphatically does not constitute being a true Jew in
the eyes of God.
The verb eimi functions as a substantive. The present tense is “gnomic”
indicating that it is a “spiritual axiom” that being a biological descendant of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and thus a member of the nation of Israel does not
constitute being an authentic Jew in the eyes of God. The active voice is “stative”
indicating that a true Jew is not identified as existing in the state of being merely a
biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The indicative mood is
“declarative” presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of Bible
doctrine. The subject is implied in the verb eimi and should be translated “he”
since Paul is explaining to his readers how to identify a true Jew.
“Jew” is the nominative masculine singular form of the proper name Ioudaios,
which refers to those members of the human race who are descendants biologically
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and thus members of the nation of Israel and thus,
denotes nationality distinguishing the Jew from the Gentile. Therefore, Paul’s use
of the term “Jew” in Romans 2:28 indicates that he is referring to the Jew’s false
security in his racial background or nationality, which he erroneously and
presumptuously believed would gain him entrance into the kingdom of heaven and
protect him from eternal condemnation.
Prior to the first century, the most common terms used for the descendants of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were “Hebrew” and “Israelite.” However, by the first
century, the term “Jew” had become the most common designation for the
descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
“Jew” is from “Judah,” (“praise”) and was one of the twelve tribes descended
from Jacob’s son Judah and was also a designation for the southern half of
Solomon’s kingdom after his death. From the time of the Babylonian captivity, the
whole race bore this title.
In Romans 2:28, the proper name Ioudaios, “Jew” functions as a “predicate
nominative” meaning that it is making an assertion that a true Jew is emphatically
not identified by the fact that he descended biologically from Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob and is thus not based upon nationality.
“Who is one outwardly” is composed of the nominative masculine singular
form of the definite article ho and the preposition en and the articular dative neuter
singular form of the adjective phaneros.
The nominative masculine singular form of the definite article ho functions as a
“substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e. converts to a noun) the prepositional
phrase en to phanero, “outwardly” and thus we can translate it with the noun
phrase “who is one.”
The article functions as a “nominative in simple apposition” meaning that is
“clarifies, describes,” or “identifies” for the reader what a true Jew is emphatically
not.
The adjective phaneros pertains to that which appears clear, evident or
manifest. Therefore, the word describes an authentic Jew as not being identified by
mere “outward appearance” or “externals that can be easily seen by the human
eye.” This word refers specifically to the unsaved, self-righteous Jews’ security in
his racial heritage or nationality.
The definite article preceding the adjective phaneros particularizes a general
quality denoted by the word it is modifying and is thus emphasizing or focusing
upon the concept of externals, which in context refers to being a biological
descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The adjective phaneros functions as a “dative instrumental of means” indicating
that the word is used to indicate the “means” or “instrument by which” the verbal
action of the verb eimi is accomplished. Therefore, it indicates that an authentic
Jew is never identified “by means of” the external of being a biological descendant
from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The preposition en is a marker of means indicating that an authentic Jew is
never identified “by means of” the external. Therefore, we will translate the word
“by means of.”
This first statement that appears in Romans 2:28 destroys the unsaved, self-
righteous Jews’ security in his racial background, heritage or nationality, which he
erroneously and presumptuously believed would gain him entrance into the
kingdom of heaven and protect him from eternal condemnation.
“Nor” is the adverb oude, which is composed of the negative particle ou,
“never” and the conjunction de, “and,” and thus is rendered means, “neither, nor.”
The adverb oude is related to the Greek word mede, “and not, but not.” Oude is
used with the negative ou in the previous causal clause and together, they combine
the two negative clauses together. They serve to connect two concepts: (1) An
authentic Jew is not identified by the external of being a descendant biologically of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (2) An authentic Jew is not identified because he is
circumcised.
“Is” does not translate a Greek word but is added by the translators in order to
make for a smoother translation. The apostle Paul omits the third person singular
present active indicative form of the verb eimi deliberately since he is employing
the figure of ellipsis.
The verb eimi means, “to possess certain characteristics” or “a state” and the
characteristic or state in view is identified by the noun peritome, “circumcision.”
The meaning of the verb eimi is negated by the adverb oude. Therefore, these
three words denote that the state of being circumcised emphatically does not
constitute being a true Jew. The present tense is “gnomic” indicating that it is “an
eternal spiritual truth” or “spiritual axiom” that the state of being circumcised
emphatically does not constitute being a true Jew in the eyes of God. The active
voice is “stative” indicating that a true Jew emphatically does not exist in the state
of being circumcised. The indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this
assertion as an unqualified statement of Bible doctrine.
that they were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or saved them and
implied that one was obedient to God.

The noun peritome, “circumcision” functions as a “predicate nominative”
meaning that it is making an assertion that a true Jew is emphatically not identified
by the fact that he is circumcised.
“That which is outward” is composed of the nominative feminine singular
form of the definite article ho and the preposition en and the articular dative neuter
singular form of the adjective phaneros.
The nominative masculine singular form of the definite article ho functions as a
“substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e. converts to a noun) the prepositional
phrase en to phanero, “outwardly” and thus we can translate it with the noun
phrase “that which is.”
The article functions as a “nominative in simple apposition” meaning that is
“clarifies, describes,” or “identifies” for the reader what a true Jew is emphatically
not.
As we noted earlier in our study of Romans 2:28, the adjective phaneros
pertains to that which appears clear, evident or manifest. Therefore, the word
describes an authentic Jew as not being identified by mere “outward appearance”
or “externals that can be easily seen by the human eye.”
In this second declarative negative statement that appears in Romans 2:28, this
word refers specifically to the unsaved, self-righteous Jews’ security in his being
circumcised.
The definite article preceding the adjective phaneros particularizes a general
upon the concept of externals, which in context, would be circumcision.
The adjective phaneros functions as a “dative instrumental of means” indicating
that the word is used to indicate the “means” or “instrument by which” the verbal
Jew is never identified “by means of” the external of circumcision.
The preposition en is a marker of means indicating that an authentic Jew is
never identified “by means of” the external of circumcision. Therefore, we will
translate the word “by means of.”
“In the flesh” is composed of the preposition en and the dative feminine
singular form of the noun sarx, which refers to the human body and functions as a
“locative of place” indicating that the location of where circumcision takes place.
The preposition is a marker of location denoting that the ritual of circumcision
takes place in the human body.
Romans 2:28 Therefore, as an eternal spiritual truth, he is absolutely never
a Jew who is one by means of the external, nor, as an eternal spiritual truth, is
circumcision, that which is by means of the external in the human body.
(Author’s translation)

This second statement that appears in Romans 2:28 destroys the unsaved, self-
righteous Jews’ security in his being circumcised, which he erroneously and
presumptuously believed would gain him entrance into the kingdom of heaven and
protect him from eternal condemnation.
An authentic Jew is one who has been saved by grace through faith in Jesus
Christ. The First Church Council in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 15 deemed
that a person does not get saved through the practice of circumcision but through
faith alone in Christ, thus the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised.
Authentic circumcision also takes place the moment a person trusts in Jesus
Christ as his Savior, which results in his being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and
thus receiving the nature of Christ called the new creation, or new spiritual species.
Galatians 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision,
but a new creation. (NASB95)
“Regeneration” is a ministry performed by the Holy Spirit on behalf of a person
the moment they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior where He creates a human
spirit for the person so that they might receive the imputation of eternal life.
Titus 3:5 He (God the Father) saved us, not on the basis of deeds (human
works) which we have done in (human power) righteousness, but according to
His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.
(NASB95)
This act of regeneration makes the believer a new spiritual species, which is the
nature of Christ that can never sin and that is described in Scripture by many
phrases such as the “new self, new man, newness of life, new creation.”
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new spiritual
species; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (NASB95)
The human spirit is the receptacle for eternal life and together they give the
believer the capacity to metabolize and apply spiritual phenomena communicated
by the Holy Spirit through the teaching of the Word of God and to pray according
to the will of God and to worship and serve God.
Philippians 4:23 May the grace which originates from the Lord Jesus
Christ be communicated to your human spirit. Amen. (Author’s translation)
According to Colossians 2:11-12, authentic circumcision also involves the
“baptism of the Spirit” where the believer in Jesus Christ is identified with Christ
in His crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection and session.
The “baptism of the Spirit” takes place exclusively during the dispensation of
the church age and is accomplished at the moment of salvation when the
omnipotence of the Spirit places the believer in a eternal union with Christ, thus
identifying the believer positionally with Christ in His death, resurrection and
session.

1 Corinthians 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to
drink of one Spirit.”
“Baptized” is the verb baptizo, “to cause the believer to be identified with the
Lord Jesus Christ.” At the moment of conversion, the omnipotence of God the
Holy Spirit causes the believer to become identical and united with the Lord Jesus
Christ and also ascribes to the believer the qualities and characteristics of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
The Baptism of the Spirit results in the “sanctification” of the believer, which is
a technical theological term for the believer who has been set apart through the
baptism of the Spirit at the moment of salvation in order to serve God exclusively
and is accomplished in three stages: (1) Positional (2) Experiential (3) Ultimate.
“Positional sanctification” is the believer’s “entrance” into the plan of God for
the church age resulting in eternal security as well as two categories of positional
truth (1 Cor. 1:2, 30; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 Thess. 5:23; Eph. 5:26-27; Heb. 2:11; 10:10;
Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 6:3, 8; 2 Thess. 2:13).
“Retroactive” positional truth is the church age believer’s identification with
Christ in His death and burial (Romans 6:3-11; Colossians 2:12).
“Current” positional truth is the church age believer’s identification with Christ
in His resurrection, ascension and session (See Ephesians 2:4-6; Colossians 3:1-4).
“Positional sanctification”: (1) What God has done for the church age believer.
(2) His viewpoint of the church age believer. (3) Sets up the potential to experience
sanctification in time. (4) Provides the believer with the guarantee of receiving a
resurrection body.
“Experiential sanctification” is the function of the church age believer’s
spiritual life in time through obedience to the Father’s will, which is revealed by
the Spirit through the communication of the Word of God (John 17:17; Rom. 6:19,
22; 2 Tim. 2:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 1 Thess. 4:3-4, 7; 1 Tim. 2:15).
“Experiential sanctification” is the post-salvation experience of the church age
believer who is in fellowship with God by confessing any known sin to the Father
when necessary followed by obedience to the Father’s will, which is revealed by
the Spirit through the Word of God.
1 John 1:9 If any of us does at any time confess our sins, then, He (God the
Father) is faithful and just with the result that He forgives us our sins and
purifies us from each and every wrongdoing. (Author’s translation)
1 John 2:5 But, whoever, at any time does observe conscientiously His
Word, indeed, in this one, the love for the one and only God is accomplished.
By means of this we can confirm that we are at this particular moment in
fellowship with Him. (Author’s translation)

This obedience constitutes obeying the commands to be filled with the Spirit
and letting the Word of Christ richly dwell in your soul.
Ephesians 5:18 And do not permit yourselves to get into the habit of being
drunk with wine because that is non-sensical behavior, but rather permit
yourselves on a habitual basis to be influenced by means of the Spirit.
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all
wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (NASB95)
This obedience enables the Spirit to reproduce the character of Christ in the
believer (Galatians 5:22-23).
Experiential sanctification is only a potential since it is contingent upon the
church age believer responding to what God has done for him at the moment of
salvation, therefore, only believers who are obedient to the Word of God will
experience sanctification in time.
The believer who experiences sanctification is walking in “newness of life” and
he does this by obeying the teaching of the Word of God, which states that the
believer has been crucified, died, buried, raised and seated with Christ and which
teaching is inspired by the Holy Spirit (See Romans 6).
“Ultimate sanctification” is the perfection of the church age believer’s spiritual
life at the Rapture, i.e. resurrection of the church, which is the completion of the
plan of God for the church age believer (1 Cor. 15:53-54; Gal. 6:8; 1 Pet. 5:10;
John 6:40). It is the guarantee of a resurrection body and will be experienced by
every believer regardless of their response in time to what God has done for them
at salvation.
Therefore, since the believer has been crucified, died and buried with Christ and
has been raised and seated with Christ and given a new divine nature, he is
commanded to abstain from the various lust patterns of the old sin nature, which
wage war against the believer’s soul and is to flee them.
The believer is prohibited from obeying the lust patterns of the old Adamic sin
nature and is commanded to put on the nature of Christ, which is accomplished by
obeying the Word of Christ and this constitutes walking by means of the Spirit
(See Romans 6:12-13; 13:14; Galatians 5:16; Ephesians 4:17-24).
Since the believer has been crucified with Christ, he is commanded to consider
himself dead to the sin nature. The believer who appropriates by faith the teaching
of the Word of God that he has been crucified, died and buried with Christ will
experience deliverance from the lust patterns of the old sin nature.
The believer is to consider the members of his body to be dead to these lust
patterns of the old sin nature since they were crucified at the cross and he has died
with Christ.
The will of God is that the believer obey the teaching of the Word of God that
he has been crucified, died, buried, raised and seated with Christ, which constitutes
experiencing sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).
The Lord Jesus Christ was crucified so that the believer might not live for the
lusts of the old sin nature but for the will of God (See 1 Peter 4:1-3). The believer
who experiences sanctification is obeying the command to be holy like God.
Sanctification is experiencing the holiness of God or in other words it is
manifesting the character of God through one’s thoughts, words and actions (1
Peter 1:14-16). Therefore, circumcision of the heart takes place at the moment of
salvation when a person trusts in Jesus Christ as their Savior, which results in the
Holy Spirit regenerating the believer, giving him the nature of Christ and also
identifying Him with Christ in His crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection and
session. All of this gives the believer the capacity to obey the commands of God
and reflect the holiness of God in his life.
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. (NASB95)
One of the symbolic meanings of the act of circumcision where the cutting of
the foreskin spoke of a surgical removal spoke of a complete separation, from the
sins of the flesh so widely prevalent in the world around Abraham and his
descendants. The nations and tribes around Abraham were involved in sins largely
centered in the misuse of the male organ in adultery, fornication and sodomy.
Circumcision symbolized to the Jewish man that he was a member of an elect
nation, a peculiar people, distinctly holy before God, in relation to sexual conduct,
so it came indirectly to speak of holiness in every phase of life. Therefore, we can
see that authentic circumcision involves sanctification and reflecting the holiness
of God.
Romans 2:29-Authentic Jewishness and Circumcision are Based on the Internal

Work of the Holy Spirit
We conclude our study of Romans chapter two by noting Romans 2:29, which
teaches that authentic Jewishness is by means of the internal and authentic
circumcision is by means of the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit. As we will note
from a comparison of Scripture, an authentic Jew is one who exercises faith in
Jesus Christ in his soul, which is invisible and authentic circumcision involves
“regeneration” by the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith in Christ as well as the
“baptism of the Spirit.”
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from
men, but from God. (NASB95)
“But” is the adversative use of the conjunction alla, which introduces a
statement that presents a contrast to the preceding statement in Romans 2:28.
In Romans 2:29, in the adversative clause, the phrase “He is” does “not” appear
in the original Greek text due to Paul’s use of the figure of ellipsis of repetition
where the 3rd person singular present active indicative form of the verb eimi
(ei)miv) (i-mee) is to be supplied from the preceding clause in Romans 2:28.
The verb is omitted deliberately by Paul in order to emphasize the remaining
words in the adversative clause. Thus, Paul omits the verb eimi in order to
emphasize that an authentic Jew is one inwardly.
The verb eimi means, “to possess a certain inherent characteristic or state” and
the characteristic or state in view is identified by the proper name Ioudaios, “Jew.”
The verb eimi functions as a substantive. The present tense is “gnomic”
indicating that it is a “spiritual axiom” that being a true Jew in the eyes of God is
that which is inward, in the soul. The active voice is “stative” indicating that being
a true Jew is an inward state of being. The indicative mood is “declarative”
presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of Bible doctrine. The subject
is implied in the verb eimi and should be translated “he” since Paul is explaining to
his readers what God considers a true Jew.
“Jew” is the nominative masculine singular form of the proper name Ioudaios,
which refers to those members of the human race who are descendants biologically
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and denotes nationality distinguishing the Jew from
the Gentile. It functions as a “predicate nominative” meaning that it is making an
assertion that a true Jew is an inward or internal phenomena that takes place in a
Jew biologically who trusts in Jesus Christ as His Savior.
“Who is one inwardly” is composed of the nominative feminine singular form
of the definite article ho and the preposition en, which is followed by the articular
dative neuter singular form of the adjective kruptos, which means, “hidden,
concealed, secret” and comes from the verb krupto, “to hide, conceal, cover, keep
secret.”
In Romans 2:29, the adjective kruptos means, “internal” and refers to what
takes place in the soul of the biological or racial Jew when he exercises faith in
Jesus Christ as his Savior, thus, an authentic Jew is one who has been saved by
grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The nominative masculine singular form of the
definite article ho functions as a “substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e.
converts to a noun) the prepositional phrase en to krupto, “inwardly” and thus we
can translate it with the noun phrase “who is one.” The article functions as a
“nominative in simple apposition” meaning that is “clarifies, describes,” or
“identifies” for the reader that a true Jew is one inwardly through faith in Jesus
Christ.

The definite article preceding the adjective kruptos particularizes a general
upon the concept of the internal working in the soul of the racial Jew who exercises
faith in Jesus Christ.
The adjective kruptos functions as a “dative instrumental of means” indicating
that the word is used to indicate the means or instrument by which the verbal
Jew is identified “by means of” what happens to him internally in his soul when he
exercises faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior.
The preposition en is a marker of means indicating that an authentic Jew is one
“by means of” what takes place internally in the soul of the racial Jew who
exercises faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. Therefore, we will translate the word
“by means of.”
This statement destroys the unsaved, self-righteous Jews’ security in his racial
heritage or nationality, which he erroneously and presumptuously believed would
gain him entrance into the kingdom of heaven and protect him from eternal
condemnation.
“And” is the “connective” use of the conjunction kai, which connects the first
declarative statement with a second one. The word connects the concept that an
authentic Jew is one internally through faith alone in Christ alone with the concept
that authentic circumcision is the work of the Holy Spirit through regeneration and
the baptism of the Spirit.
that they were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or saved them and
implied that one was obedient to God.
The phrase “is that which is” does not translate any word or words in the Greek
text but is added by the translators in order to make for a smoother translation.
“The heart” is the genitive feminine singular form of the noun kardia, which
refers to the dominant right lobe of the soul, where the mental activity or function
of the soul takes place. The word functions as a “genitive of source,” which means
that the genitive substantive is the source from which the head noun derives or
depends. Therefore, authentic circumcision “originates” in the human heart.
“By the Spirit” is composed of the preposition en and the dative neuter singular
form of the noun pneuma, which refers to the exercise of God the Holy Spirit’s
omnipotence at the moment a person trusts in Jesus Christ as his Savior since we
have the figure of metonymy where the Holy Spirit is put for the exercise of His
divine omnipotence.

The word functions as a “dative instrumental of means” indicating that
circumcision is accomplished “by means of” the omnipotence of God the Holy
Spirit. The preposition en is a marker of means indicating that the omnipotence of
God the Holy Spirit is the “means by which” authentic circumcision takes place.
“Not by the letter” is composed of the emphatic objective negative adverb ou
and the dative neuter singular form of the noun gramma, which refers to the
“written” code of the Mosaic Law. The noun gramma refers to the mechanical
observance of the written code of the Mosaic Law and in particular obeying the
command to circumcise all Jewish males as eight day old infants (Genesis 17:1-27;
Leviticus 12:3).
In Romans 2:9, the emphatic negative adverb ou emphatically negates the
meaning of the noun gramma and should be translated “never.”
The noun gramma functions as a “dative instrumental of means” indicating that
authentic circumcision is emphatically not “by means of” observing the command
to circumcise a Jewish boy as an eight day old infant. Therefore, the expression ou
grammati, “never by means of the letter” means that authentic circumcision is
never accomplished by means of the mechanical observance of the command to
circumcise a Jewish boy as an eight day old infant but rather by means of the Spirit
in the person who exercises faith in Jesus Christ.
In John 3, the Lord Jesus Christ taught a leader of the Jews, Nicodemus about
the importance of the Spirit’s work.
Israel was commanded to circumcise their hearts, which means to turn to the
Lord in faith so that they might be able to obey His commands.
Deuteronomy 10:16 “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no
longer.” (NASB95)
Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the
foreskins of your heart, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else
My wrath will go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it, because of
the evil of your deeds.” (NASB95)
Circumcision of the heart involves accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, which
enables the Holy Spirit to regenerate the believer, giving him a new nature that will
always be obedient to the commands of God. Circumcision of the heart is
connected to regeneration since it is through regeneration that one receives a new
nature enabling one to obey the commands of God.
In Ezekiel 36:25-27, Israel was promised by God that He would remove their
heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh and give them the
Holy Spirit so that they might obey His commands.
An “uncircumcised heart” means a will that is rebellious and negative to God’s
commands and is another way of saying the person is stubborn. It refers to
possessing an old Adamic sin nature that needs to be crucified with Christ through
faith in Christ. Therefore, the command to Israel to circumcise their hearts assumes
that human hearts are naturally rebellious and need correction.
In Acts 7:51, addressing unsaved Jews, Stephen called them “uncircumcised in
heart” meaning they were arrogant and had not accepted Jesus Christ as their
Savior so as to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and identified with Christ in His
crucifixion, death and burial, which would deal with the problem of their old sin
nature.
The nation of Israel will have circumcised hearts at the Second Advent of Christ
and subsequent millennial reign meaning they will accept Jesus Christ as Savior
and as a result will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they will have a nature
that will obey the commands of God (Deuteronomy 30:1-6).
“His” is composed of the genitive masculine singular form of the relative
pronoun hos, which agrees in gender and number with its antecedent, namely, the
nominative masculine singular form of the proper name Ioudaios, that refers to the
authentic Jew.
The word functions as an “objective genitive” meaning it is receiving the verbal
action implicit in the head noun epainos, “praise.” Therefore, this means that the
authentic Jew is receiving praise and the prepositional phrase ek tou theou, “from
God” indicates the source of this praise. We will translate the relative pronoun hos,
“whose” and not “his” since it is not functioning as a possessive pronoun but
rather an objective genitive.
“Praise” is the articular nominative masculine singular form of the noun
epainos, which refers to “approval” that comes from God. The authentic Jew
receives the approval of God rather than men since as we noted earlier, he has a
new nature through regeneration that enables him to experience eternal life and
gives him the capacity to obey the commands of God in order to receive God’s
approval. He also has been identified with Christ in His crucifixion, death, burial,
resurrection and session, which also enables him to experience eternal life, thus
giving him the capacity to obey the commands of God and receive approval from
God.
The unregenerate, self-righteous Jews in the first century sought the approval
and praise of men rather than God (Matthew 6:5; 23:1-12: John 5:39-47; 12:42-
43). In 1 Corinthians 4:6 and 2 Corinthians 10:18, the apostle Paul teaches the
Corinthians that praise from God is what is important.
In the last declarative statement in Romans 2:29, word “is” does “not” appear in
the original Greek text due to Paul’s use of the figure of ellipsis of repetition where
the third person singular present active indicative form of the verb eimi is to be
supplied from the context.

The verb is omitted deliberately by Paul in order to emphasize the remaining
words in the adversative clause. Thus, Paul omits the verb eimi in order to
emphasize that an authentic Jew will receive God’s approval.
The verb eimi functions as a copula uniting the subject epainos, “praise” with
the phrase ouk ex anthropon, “not from men.” The present tense is “gnomic”
indicating that it is a “spiritual axiom” that an authentic Jew receives his praise
from God and never men. The active voice is “stative” indicating that an authentic
Jew “exists in the state” of receiving his praise from God and never mankind. The
indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this assertion as an unqualified
“Not from men” is composed of the emphatic objective negative adverb ou,
which is followed by the preposition ek and the genitive masculine plural form of
the noun anthropos, which is used in a generic sense for unregenerate humanity.
The emphatic negative adverb ou negates the idea of the authentic Jew, i.e. the
Jewish believer in Jesus Christ of receiving praise from men since unregenerate
men enslaved to old Adamic sin nature and the cosmic system of Satan are
antagonistic to Jesus Christ and the believer (Galatians 5:17; John 15:17-19; 1 John
2:15-17).
The preposition ek is a marker of source indicating that the authentic, regenerate
Jew emphatically does not receive his praise from unregenerate mankind as a
“source.”
“But” is the adversative use of the conjunction alla, which introduces a
prepositional phrase that presents a contrast to the idea of receiving the approval of
unsaved men.
“From God” is composed of the preposition ek and the articular genitive
masculine singular form of the noun theos, which refers to the Lord Jesus Christ
since He is the member of the Trinity that will represent the Holy Spirit and the
Father at the evaluation of the believer.
The definite article preceding the noun theos indicates that the Lord Jesus
Christ is in view here since the article indicates that God is “well-known” to Paul’s
unsaved Jewish readership since he is referring to the God who manifested himself
to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Son of God is that member of
the Trinity who manifested God to men (John 1:18).
The noun theos functions as a “genitive of source” indicating that the authentic,
regenerate Jew praise “originates from” God as a “source.” The preposition ek is a
marker of source indicating that the authentic, regenerate Jew will receive praise
from God as a “source.”
Romans 2:29 But rather, as an eternal spiritual truth, he is a Jew who is
one by means of the internal and circumcision originates in the heart by
means of the omnipotence of the Spirit, never by means of the letter whose
praise is as an eternal spiritual truth never from men but from God.
In Romans 2:29, the word epainos, “praise” is a play on the term “Jew,” which
as we noted in our study of the word in Romans 2:17 comes from the Hebrew
“Judah,” which means, “praise.”
Therefore, in Romans 2:29, Paul’s point to the unsaved Jew is that it is God
who ultimately determines what an authentic Jew is rather than men. The external
ritual of circumcision did not constitute an authentic Jew in the eyes of God but
rather an authentic Jew is made one by God through faith in Jesus Christ and the
work of the Holy Spirit in baptism, sanctification and regeneration.

Chapter Four: Paul’s Teaching in Romans 3:1-2
Romans 3:1-2-The Chief Advantage of Being a Jew: Custodians of the Old

Testament Canon
In Romans 2:1-3:8, the apostle Paul addresses the sin of the Jews and will do so
in three stages: (1) Without naming his opponent, he establishes the principles of
divine judgment by which the Jew is clearly condemned, just as the pagan Gentiles
(Romans 2:1-16). (2) Paul explains how the Law condemns (2:17-29). (3) He adds
a parenthetical response to possible misconceptions of what he has said (3:1-8). In
Romans 3:9-10, Paul summarizes his statements made in Romans 2:1-3:8 that he
has made clear that God has declared not only the Gentile guilty but also He has
declared the Jew guilty before Him and thus is in need of salvation like the Gentile.
Therefore, in Romans 3:1-8, Paul adds a parenthetical response that would destroy
any idea that he was against the nation of Israel, which would anticipate any
possible misconceptions in response to his teaching in Romans 2:17-29 by his
opponents, the Judaizers.
The Judaizers originated with the Pharisees and those who adhered to their
teaching and were composed of both believing and unbelieving Jews who taught
strict adherence to the 613 mandates found in the Mosaic Law as well as the oral
traditions of the Rabbis, which are now, documented in the Mishna and the
Talmud. Many of the Judaizers were believers since Acts 6:7, 15:5 and 21:20 state
that many of the priests and Pharisees who were teachers of the Mosaic Law
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation but after salvation they still adhered
to the Mosaic Law rather than the mystery doctrine for the church age that Paul
was teaching. The Judaizers taught that one had to observe and practice the Mosaic
Law in order to get saved whereas Paul taught salvation by grace through faith in
Christ and not through the works of the Mosaic Law (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16).
The Judaizers followed Paul throughout his missionary journey’s seeking to
discredit and destroy his ministry (Acts 13:45; 17:5). Paul denounces their teaching
in the book of Galatians since they taught a “different gospel” according to Gal.
1:6 and “distorted the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7).
Remember, in Romans 2:17-24, Paul addresses his unsaved Jewish audience’s
false security with regards to their racial heritage and their being the recipients of
the Law, both of which they presumptuously believed would guarantee them
entrance into the kingdom of God and protect them from eternal condemnation.
In Romans 2:25-29, Paul addresses the issue of circumcision with his unsaved
Jewish audience and teaches them that circumcision did not automatically
guarantee them entrance into the kingdom of heaven and prevent them from
receiving eternal condemnation either.
There actually was an advantage to being a Jew and possessing the Law and
being circumcised if you exercised faith in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior. The Jews’
rejection of Jesus Christ as their Messiah negated the value of these advantages or
privileges given to them by God. Therefore, Paul’s teaching in Romans 2 might
imply to some that there was absolutely no advantage to being a Jew over the
Gentile and no benefit to circumcision. But if this was what Paul was implying
then this would have called into question the veracity of the Old Testament
Scriptures and the faithfulness of God since the Old Testament Scriptures testifies
that God chose the nation of Israel out of all the nations to be His covenant people
and circumcision was the sign of that covenant.
So then if there was no advantage to being a Jew, then either the Old Testament
Scriptures are not telling the truth or God has been unfaithful to His promises to
Abraham and his descendants.
Therefore, in Romans 3:1-8, Paul clarifies his statements in Romans 2 by
anticipating three objections from his opponents, the Judaizers: (1) Paul anticipates
the objection that he attacked the nation of Israel (Romans 3:1-2). (2) Paul
anticipates the objection that he called into question the faithfulness of God
(Romans 3:3-4). (3) Paul anticipates the objection that he attacked the
righteousness of God (Romans 3:5-8).
In Romans 3:1-8, Paul continues his use of the literary style called “diatribe,”
which he employs in Romans chapter two. This literary style involves the writer
attempting to get his point across by engaging in an imaginary debate with a
student, or opponent. This style involves posing frequent rhetorical questions to
one’s opponent as well as emphatic rejections of possible objections to a line of
argument using me genoito, “may it never be!” and the direct address of one’s
conversation partner or opponent.
At times, the “dialogue” is one-sided, and rhetorical questions are only posed
by the writer, which was the case in Romans 2:1-5 and Romans 2:17-27 in which
Paul destroys his unsaved, self-righteous Jewish audience’s false security in their
racial background, possession of the Law and circumcision and exposes their
hypocrisy. At other times there is a true dialogue as here in Romans 3:1-8 where
Paul presents an imaginary dialogue with the Judaizers, anticipating their
accusations that he was against the Jews by virtue of his teaching in Romans
chapter two.
In Romans 3:1, the apostle Paul asks two direct questions with the first
pertaining to his teaching in Romans 2:17-24 regarding the Jew’s racial heritage
and the second is related to his teaching in Romans 2:25-29 regarding
circumcision.
Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of
circumcision? (NASB95)
“Then” is the “inferential” use of the post-positive conjunction oun, which
introduces an inference from Paul’s teaching in the preceding paragraph in Romans
2:17-24. The conjunction oun introduces a direct question that addresses the
objection that if the Jews are just as worthy of eternal condemnation as the
Gentiles since the Jews’ racial heritage and circumcision cannot save them, then
what advantage is there to being a Jew?
“What” is the nominative neuter singular adjectival use of the interrogative
pronoun tis, which is used as adjectivally asking an identifying direct question,
functioning as a predicate nominative.
“Advantage” is the articular nominative neuter singular form of the adjective
perissos, which pertains to causing a decided or distinct advantage and functions as
a substantive and the subject. The adjective perissos pertains to the advantage that
the Jew has over the Gentile and it also speaks of the Jew’s pre-eminence. The
definite article transforms the adjective into a noun and indicates that the word
functions as the subject of this direct question.
“Has” does not translate a Greek word but is added by the translators in order to
make for a smoother translation.
The apostle Paul omits the third person singular present active indicative form
of the verb eimi deliberately since he is employing the figure of ellipsis in order to
emphasize the remaining words in the question. Thus, Paul omits the verb eimi in
order to emphasize the direct question as what “is” the advantage “of being” a Jew
when circumcision, the Law and the Jew’s racial heritage can not save them from
eternal condemnation and gain them entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
The present tense is “stative” and the active voice is “stative” emphasizing the
advantage of “existing in the state of being” a Jew. The indicative mood is
“interrogative” since it is used with the interrogative particle tis, “what” to ask a
direct question that probes for information and expects an assertion to be made and
expects a declarative indicative in the answer.
“The Jew” is the articular genitive masculine singular form of the proper name
Ioudaios, which refers to those members of the human race who are descendants
biologically of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and denotes nationality distinguishing
the Jew from the Gentile. The definite article is not only “anaphoric” indicating
that the proper name Ioudaios was used in the previous verse but also it is
“generic” meaning that it distinguishes the biological descendants of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, the Jews from the Gentiles. The proper name Ioudaios functions
as a “genitive of possession” meaning that the advantage in question “belongs to”
or is “possessed by” the Jew.
“Or” is the “disjunctive” or “alternative” conjunction, that is also called a
“particle of separation” e, which introduces a concept that is related to the previous
concept of being a Jew.
“What” is the nominative neuter singular adjectival use of the interrogative
pronoun tis, which is used adjectively asking an identifying direct question and
functions as a predicate nominative.
“Is” does not translate a Greek word but is added by the translators in order to
make for a smoother translation.
The apostle Paul omits the third person singular present active indicative form
of the verb eimi deliberately since he is employing the figure of ellipsis. The verb
is omitted by Paul purposely so as to draw attention to the question.
The word functions as a copula uniting the subject, which is the noun peritome,
“circumcision” and the predicate nominative, which is the interrogative pronoun
tis, “what.”
The present tense is “stative” and the active voice is “stative” emphasizing the
benefit of “existing in the state of being” circumcised. The indicative mood is
“interrogative” since it is used with the interrogative particle tis, “what” to ask a
direct question that probes for information and expects an assertion to be made and
expects a declarative indicative in the answer.
“The benefit” is the articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun
opheleia, which refers to the state of having acquired an advantage or benefit and
functions as the subject. The definite article preceding the noun opheleia indicates
that the word functions as the subject.
“Circumcision” is the articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun
peritome, which refers to the ritual act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis
that was to be a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological
save them and implied that one was obedient to God. The noun peritome,
“circumcision” functions as a “genitive of possession” meaning that the benefit in
question “belongs to” or is “possessed by” to those who are circumcised.
In Romans 3:2, Paul answers his own question in order to anticipate the
objections of the Judaizers. He only lists one advantage here in Romans 3:2 but
lists others in Romans 9:4-5 since his objective here was to list the primary or chief
advantage as indicated by his use of the adjective proton.
“Great” is the nominative neuter singular form of the adjective polus, which
denotes the extreme degree of value of being a circumcised Jew and is correctly
translated. This word answers both direct questions that appear in Romans 3:1 and
not just one since the concept of being a Jew and circumcised are inextricably tied
to one another because circumcision was the sign of not only God’s covenant with
the descendants of Abraham but also the mark of his being a new racial species.
The adjective polus functions as a substantive since it is used independently of
any noun and it also functions as a “nominative of exclamation” since it lacks a

verb and Paul is obviously emotional and there is a necessity of an exclamation
point in the translation.
“In every respect” is composed of the preposition kata, “in,” which is followed
accusative masculine singular form of the adjective pas, “every” and the
accusative masculine singular form of the noun tropos, “respect.”
The noun tropos refers to the “particulars” or the “various ways” that it is an
advantage to being a Jew. The preposition kata and the adjective pas are employed
in a “distributive” sense emphasizing each individual advantage in a list of
advantages to being a Jew. This prepositional phrase is accurately translated.
Romans 3:2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted
with the oracles of God. (NASB95)
“First of all” is the adverb of degree proton and the particle of affirmation men.
The adverb of degree proton is the neuter form of the adjective protos, the
superlative of pro and denotes the advantage that is of “chief importance” or the
“primary” one. It does not refer to the first in a list of advantages but rather denotes
the one that is of “chief importance” or the “primary one.” Therefore, we will
translate proton, “the primary one.”
The particle men is a particle of affirmation, or we could classify it as emphatic
or intensifying. In Romans 3:2, the particle men is employed as an emphatic
affirmative particle and stands related to the adverb of degree proton and
“emphasizes” that being the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures is the
“primary” advantage or advantage that is of “chief importance” of being a Jew.
“That” is the conjunction hoti, which is employed with the indicative mood of
the verb pisteuo in order to form an “appositional” clause that stands in apposition
to the adverb proton, “primary one” and “identifies” the primary advantage of
being a Jew.
“They were entrusted with” is the third person plural aorist passive indicative
form of the verb pisteuo, which means, “to entrust something to the care of
someone.” The object of the verb pisteuo is the noun logion, “oracles,” which has
as its adjunct the articular form of the noun theos, “of God.”
As we will note, the expression ta logia tou theou, “the oracles of God” refers
to the Old Testament canon. Therefore, in context, the verb refers to the fact that
the primary advantage of being a Jew was that God had “entrusted” the Old
Testament Scriptures “to the care” of the Jews.
The aorist tense of the verb is a “constative” describing in summary fashion, the
action of God entrusted to the Jews the Old Testament canon. The passive voice
indicates the subject, the Jews, receive the action of the verb pisteuo, “to entrust
something to somebody.” It is used with an expressed agency that is identified by
the articular genitive form of the noun theos, “God,” indicating that God is the
ultimate agent who is responsible for entrusting the Old Testament canon to the
Jews. The indicative mood of the verb pisteuo is employed with the conjunction
hoti in order to form an “appositional” clause that identifies the primary advantage
of being a Jew.
“The oracles” is the articular accusative neuter plural form of the noun logion,
which refers to the entire Old Testament canon.
The noun logion only appears four times in the Greek New Testament (Acts
7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11). In Acts 7:38, Stephen uses the
word to describe the Law that God received from Moses and communicated to the
Exodus generation. In Hebrews 5:12, the noun logion is used of the entire
revelation from God, both the Old Testament canon and the revelation given to the
apostles up to the time of 68 A.D. when the book of Hebrews was penned. The
apostle Peter employs the word in relation to the communication of the Word of
God by men with the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher.
There have been various interpretations of the noun logion in Romans 3:2.
Some have maintained it is referring to the Mosaic Law or the Decalogue.
However, if that were the case, Paul would have simply used the noun nomos,
which means, “Law” or the noun nomothesia, “giving of the Law” as he does in
Romans 2 and 9:4. Then, others state that the word refers to the promises of God
given to the patriarchs. However, if that were the case, Paul would have used the
noun epangelia, which means, “promise” as he does in Romans 9:4. Others
contend that logion in Romans 3:2 refers to the promises related to the Messiah.
However, if this were the case then, Paul would have employed the noun diatheke,
“covenant” since the covenants to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob contain Messianic
promises, i.e. “the Seed.” Then, lastly, many interpret logion in Romans 3:2 as
referring to the entire Old Testament canon since Paul in context is speaking of the
primary advantage of being a Jew, which would make it imperative that he
mention the entire revelation from God that the Jews received and not just a
portion of it. This interpretation is correct since as we noted above, he would have
employed nomos or nomothesia with reference to the Law and epangelia with
reference to the promises of God and diatheke when referring to the Messianic
promises as he does in Romans 9:4 when speaking of the privileges given to the
Jews. In fact, in Romans 3:2, the noun logion refers to all three of these, the
covenants, the Law and the promises to the patriarchs, which are all included in the
Old Testament canon of Scripture.
The definite article preceding the noun logion in Romans 3:2 is “monadic”
indicating that these oracles are “unique” or “one of a kind.” The genitive adjunct
tou theou also indicates a “monadic” notion.
“Of God” is articular genitive masculine singular form of the noun theos, which
refers to the Holy Spirit who inspired the human authors of Scripture. The noun
theos functions as a “genitive of agency” indicating the personal agency by whom
the action of entrusting the Old Testament canon to the Jews was accomplished.
The noun theos as a “genitive of agency” along with a comparison of 2 Peter 1:20-
21 indicates that God the Holy Spirit is the personal agency who entrusted to the
Old Testament to the Jews since He inspired the human authors to record with
perfect accuracy God’s complete and connected thought towards man. The definite
article preceding the noun theos indicates that the Holy Spirit is “well-known” to
Paul’s Jewish readership since He is referred to throughout the Old Testament
canon.
Romans 3:2 Great in every respect! Indeed, the primary one that they were
entrusted with the declarations by God. (Author’s translation)
In Romans 3:2, the apostle Paul answers the two questions that he posed to his
readership in Romans 3:1 in anticipation of possible objections from the Judaizers.
In this passage, he teaches that the primary advantage of being a Jew is that God
had entrusted the Jewish people with the Old Testament canon of Scripture.
The Old Testament contains not only the Mosaic Law and Messianic prophecies
but also it records the promises and covenants that God has made with the
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from which, originated the nation of Israel.
In the book of Genesis alone, God reveals to the nation of Israel through Moses
the origins of the universe, the solar system, the atmosphere, life, man, sin, the
total depravity of man, marriage, evil, language, government, culture, the nations,
religion, the chosen people (Israel).
In the Old Testament, the prophets predict the First and Second Advents of
Christ, His crucifixion, resurrection and session at the right hand of the Father as
well as His Messianic Reign in Jerusalem with Israel as head of the nations.

Chapter Five: Paul’s Teaching on Circumcision in Romans Chapter 4
Romans 4:9-10-Abraham Was Justified While Uncircumcised and Not When

Circumcised
In Romans 4:9-10, Paul refutes the Judaizers’ teaching that Abraham was
justified by his obedience to the Law and in particular his obedience to the Lord’s
command to be circumcised. He refutes them by pointing out that Abraham was
declared justified by God when he was uncircumcised and not while he was
circumcised.
Romans 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the
uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM
AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (NASB95)
denotes that what is introduced at this point is the result of an inference from
Paul’s teaching in Romans 4:1-8.
The rhetorical question that is asked at this point anticipates the arguments of
the Judaizers who might infer that justification and the forgiveness of sins were
intended for the Jew only. The reason being is that Paul had just cited examples
from the Old Testament in Romans 4:1-8 to confirm his teaching in Romans 3:21-
31 that justification is by means of faith in Jesus rather than by a meritorious
system of works.
The Old Testament was given to the nation of Israel exclusively and not
Gentiles (Romans 3:2; 9:1-5), thus by citing Old Testament passages, Paul’s
opponents might infer from this that salvation is for the Jew only and not the
Gentile.
“Is” does not appear in the original Greek text of Romans 4:9 but is added by
the translators in order to make for a smoother translation.
The apostle Paul deliberately omits the third person singular present active
indicative form of the verb eimi since he is employing the figure of ellipsis. He
uses the figure in order to draw attention to the rhetorical question in this passage.
Therefore, the figure emphasizes the fact that Abraham was not justified while
circumcised but while uncircumcised.
The verb eimi functions as a copula uniting the subject, which is the articular
nominative form of the noun makarios, “blessing” and the demonstration pronoun
houtos, “this,” which functions as a predicate nominative.
The present tense of the verb is “gnomic” used of a general timeless fact
indicating an eternal spiritual truth or spiritual axiom. Therefore, Paul is asking,
“Then, is this blessing, as an eternal spiritual truth, upon the circumcised and the
uncircumcised also?”
The active voice is “stative” indicating that the subject exists in the state
indicated by the verb eimi. Therefore, the “stative” active voice indicates that the
blessing, “exists in the state of being” upon the circumcised and the uncircumcised.
The indicative mood is “interrogative” meaning that it is asking a question, which
is rhetorical.
The question expects an assertion to be made, which Paul does by quoting
Genesis 15:6 again, which says, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM
AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
“This” is the nominative masculine singular form of the demonstrative pronoun
houtos, which refers to the noun makarios that immediately follows it.
“The blessing” is the articular nominative masculine singular form of the noun
makarismos, which refers to the gift of salvation that produces happiness.
The English word “blessing” accurately reflects the meaning of the noun
makarismos since it denotes a gift from God to the sinner that brings happiness to
the sinner.
The gift of course is the gift of righteousness, which is imputed to the sinner by
the Father, the moment they exercise faith in His Son Jesus Christ, which results in
the Father declaring the sinner justified. Paul employed the singular form of this
word in Romans 4:6.
Here in Romans 4:9, the word once again refers to the gift of salvation that
entails the imputed righteousness and the forgiveness of sins and also produces a
happiness in the sinner who has trusted in Jesus Christ as Savior that is divine
quality. The word functions as a “nominative subject” meaning that it is producing
the action of the verb eimi, which as we noted is omitted due to the figure of
ellipsis and means, “is, as an eternal spiritual truth.” The definite article
preceding the noun makarismos identifies it as the subject and thus making the
demonstrative pronoun houtos, “this” the predicate nominative.
“On” is the preposition epi, which is a marker of the one who experiences
something with the implication of an action by a superior force or agency.
Therefore, the preposition marks out the Jew as those who can “experience” being
declared justified by God as a result of faith in Jesus Christ.
“The circumcised” is the accusative feminine singular form of the noun
peritome, which is a designation for those members of the human race who are
descendants racially of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and members of the nation of
Israel and thus, denotes nationality distinguishing the Jew from the Gentile. It
refers to those individuals who have received the surgical and ritual act of cutting
the foreskin of the male’s penis as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his
biological descendants that they were set apart by God to be His people.
“particle of separation” e, which introduces an “alternative” race of individuals, the
Gentiles, in contrast to another race of people, the Jews, that God has made
salvation available to through faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
“Also” is the conjunction kai, which introduces an “additional” group of people
who can receive salvation through faith in Jesus Christ like the Jews, namely, the
Gentiles.
“On” is the preposition epi, which again is a marker of the one who experiences
something with the implication of an action by a superior force or agency.
Therefore, the preposition marks out the Gentiles as those who can “experience”
being declared justified by God through faith in Jesus Christ.
“The uncircumcised” is the accusative feminine singular form of the noun
akrobustia, which stands in contrast to the noun peritome, “circumcision” and
means, “uncircumcision.” In Romans 4:9, the word akrobustia denotes the state of
being uncircumcised and is a designation for the Gentiles.
“For” is the “explanatory” use of the post-positive conjunction gar, which
introduces a statement in which Paul cites Genesis 15:6 again in order to prevent
his Jewish audience from answering that Abraham was declared justified while he
was circumcised.
“We say” is the first person plural present active indicative form of the verb
lego, which means, “to contend” with emphasis upon the statement to follow that is
a quotation from Genesis 15:6.
In this context, to “contend” means, “to maintain or assert and to strive
earnestly in a debate with another.” Therefore, in Romans 4:9, lego expresses the
idea that Paul and other communicators of the gospel of Jesus Christ “maintained,
asserted and strove earnestly in a debate” with the Jews over whether or not
salvation was through faith in Jesus Christ or by the works of the Law.
The first person plural form of the verb is an “exclusive we” referring to Paul,
the other apostles as well as other communicators of the gospel of salvation
through faith in Jesus Christ such as Titus and Timothy and also includes
Christians in general.
This is a “perfective” present, which is used to emphasize the results of a past
action. Therefore, the “perfective present” of the verb lego in Romans 4:9
emphasizes that even though Genesis 15:6 was written in the past, it still speaks
today and is binding on the hearers. The active voice indicates that Paul, the other
apostles as well as other communicators of the gospel as the subject produce the
action of the verb in communicating that Abraham was justified by faith when he
was uncircumcised. The indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this assertion
as an unqualified statement of fact.
“FAITH” is the articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun pistis,
which in context refers to Abraham’s non-meritorious decision “to place his
absolute confidence in” the preincarnate Christ to deliver on His promise that is
recorded in Genesis 15:6 of a child and numerous progeny despite the fact that
Abraham was childless when he received the promise. The definite article
preceding the noun pistis, “FAITH” indicates that the word functions as a
“nominative subject” meaning that it is receiving the action of the passive verb
logizomai, “IS CREDITED.”
“WAS CREDITED” is the third person singular aorist passive indicative form
of the verb logizomai, which means, “to credit or impute.”
As was the case in Romans 4:3 and 5, the verb logizomai in Romans 4:9 not
only conveys the idea of “crediting something to someone,” but also “regarding a
thing as something.” As was the case in Romans 4:3 and 5, the verb in Romans 4:9
means that God the Father “credited” His righteousness to the spiritual bank
account of Abraham. Each and every member of the human is spiritually bankrupt
since they are sinners by nature and practice (See Romans 1:18-3:20). Therefore,
the word indicates that the Father “credited” His righteousness to Abraham as a
result of exercising faith in the Son of God.
As was the case in Romans 4:3 and 5, the verb logizomai in Romans 4:9 refers
to a “judicial” imputation in which the justice of God the Father “credited” or
“imputed” His righteousness to Abraham who exercised faith in the preincarnate
Christ to deliver on His promise of a child and numerous descendants while
Abraham was yet at the time, childless.
A judicial imputation credits something to the sinner, which does not belong to
him. Divine righteousness did not belong to the sinner, but was imputed to the
sinner when they make a non-meritorious decision to believe in Christ as their
Savior.
The second idea conveyed in the verb logizomai is that of “considering or
regarding or treating a thing as something.” This concept expresses the idea of God
“viewing, holding an opinion of, regarding, treating accordingly” the sinner’s faith
in Jesus Christ as righteousness. Therefore, as was the case in Romans 4:3 and 5,
in Romans 4:9, the verb logizomai not only expresses the idea of “crediting
something to someone” but also “to consider a thing as something else.”
If we put these two ideas together, the verb logizomai means, “to credit and
regard as.” As was the case in Romans 4:3 and 5, in Romans 4:9, the word is used
with the prepositional phrase eis dikaiosunen, “as righteousness.” Together, these
three words indicate that the Lord “credited and regarded” Abraham’s faith in Him
“as righteousness.” Therefore, the verb logizomai not only denotes the doctrine of
imputation but also justification since the latter means that God acknowledges His
righteousness in the sinner as a result of imputing His righteousness to the sinner
when the sinner exercised faith in Jesus Christ.
Remember, the doctrine of “justification” is a judicial act of God whereby He
declares a person to be righteous as a result of crediting or imputing to that person
His righteousness the moment they exercised faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
Consequently, God accepts that person and enters that person into a relationship
with Himself since they now possess His righteousness.
The mechanics of justification are as follows: (1) God condemns the sinner,
which qualifies them to receive His grace. (2) The sinner believes in Jesus Christ
as His Savior. (3) God imputes or credits Christ’s righteousness to the believer. (4)
God declares that person as righteous as a result of acknowledging His Son’s
righteousness in that person.
Justification is God declaring a person to be righteous as a result of
acknowledging or recognizing His righteousness in that person, and which
righteousness He imputed to that person as a result of their faith in His Son, Jesus
Christ.
Justification causes no one to be righteous but rather is the recognition and
declaration by God that one is righteous as He is. To be justified by God through
faith alone in Christ alone means that God can never condemn us for our sins. It
means that a believer can never lose his salvation because of any sin since God,
who is a perfect judge, rendered a perfect decision when he declared righteous the
person, who exercised faith in His Son Jesus Christ! Thus, Paul declares the
following in Romans 8:1.
In Romans 4:9, the verb logizomai is a “constative” aorist describing in
summary fashion the moment the Lord credited righteousness to Abraham and
regarded Abraham’s faith as righteousness. This of course was the result of
Abraham exercising faith in the Son’s promise to give him a child and innumerable
descendants while he was still yet childless.
Abraham’s faith in the preincarnate Son of God’s promise of innumerable
descendants resulted in the Father crediting His righteousness to Abraham. Faith is
non-meritorious. Therefore, Abraham acknowledged he had no merit with God
when he exercised faith in the Lord to deliver on His promise of innumerable
descendants.
The object of Abraham’s faith, the Lord, had merit, which Abraham
acknowledged when he exercised faith in the Lord. Faith in the preincarnate Christ
was the vehicle that God the Father employed to credit to His righteousness to
Abraham’s account resulting in the Father declaring Abraham as righteous, i.e.
justified.
The passive voice means that the subject receives the action of the verb from
either an expressed or unexpressed agency. Therefore, the passive voice means that
Abraham as the subject received the action of being credited divine righteousness
from God the Father as well as having his faith regarded by the Father as
righteousness.

statement of doctrine in the Old Testament Scriptures.
“TO ABRAHAM” is the articular dative masculine singular form of the proper
name Abraam, which refers to the father of the nation of Israel. The word functions
as a “dative of advantage” meaning that Abraham’s faith in the Lord “benefited
him” in that it resulted in his being declared justified by the Lord. The definite
article is used with the indeclinable noun Abraam, “ABRAHAM” in order to show
the case of the noun.
“AS RIGHTEOUSNESS” is composed of the preposition eis, “AS” and the
accusative feminine singular form of the noun dikaiosune, “RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
In Romans 4:9, the noun dikaiosune refers to the righteousness of God in the
sense of His perfect “virtue” and “integrity,” which is imputed to the sinner the
moment they exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. Thus, the word
refers to the God’s perfect integrity in that His character is perfectly sound,
perfectly adhering to His own perfect standards and what He promises to men.
Dikaiosune refers to the Father’s perfect integrity in that His character is
upright, honest, perfectly whole, undiminished, sound, unimpaired and in perfect
condition. The noun refers to the Father’s perfect virtue in that His character is
perfect moral excellence and goodness.
The word functions as the object of the preposition eis. The preposition
expresses “equivalence” meaning that Abraham’s faith in the Lord was credited
and regarded “as tantamount to” or “the equivalent to” divine righteousness. Paul
is not saying that Abraham’s faith is equivalent to God’s righteousness but that
God “treated it as such” or He “considered or regarded it as such” since God the
Father imputes His Son’s righteousness to the sinner the moment they exercise
faith in His Son as their Savior. Therefore, we can see that the preposition eis does
“not” denote purpose or result but rather “equivalence” since Paul explicitly states
that Abraham’s faith in the Lord was credited and regarded as or treated
accordingly as righteousness.
Romans 4:9 Then is, as an eternal spiritual truth, this blessing that
produces a happiness that is divine in quality upon the circumcised, or also
upon the uncircumcised? For we contend, “Faith was credited and regarded
as righteousness for the benefit of Abraham.” (Author’s translation)
In Romans 4:9, Paul rejects the Rabbinical teaching that circumcision justifies
by appealing once again to Genesis 15:6 to support his contention that justification
is by faith apart from observing the Law or observing the ritual of circumcision.
The events of Genesis 15:6 preceded the events of Genesis 17, which record
Abraham receiving circumcision as the sign of the covenant between the Lord and
Abraham. Therefore, Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 here teaches that the Rabbinical
teaching is wrong by virtue of the chronology of events in the book of Genesis.
Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, which confirmed the
doctrine that Paul taught that justification was by faith and not by observing the
Law or circumcision.
Romans 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or
uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. (NASB95)
“How” is the interrogative particle pos, which is used to ask a direct question to
determine how or in what state Abraham was justified. The word functions as a
relative reference to conditions and situations and asks a direct question. It appears
nearly fifty times in the Greek New Testament where it is translated as “where, at
which place, whither, to what place?” The word occurs in both direct and indirect
questions and appears in rhetorical questions, which expect a negative answer.
In Romans 4:10, the interrogative particle pou functions as a relative reference
to conditions and situations and is used to ask a direct question. The word literally
means, “how” but it should be translated idiomatically meaning “under what
condition” since you don’t translate idioms literally but try to expand the
translation in order to reflect the meaning of the idiom.
In Romans 4:10, it is used in a direct question and asks, “In what condition”
was Abraham declared justified by God? Therefore, we will translate pou, “in
what condition.”
denotes that what is introduced at this point is the result of an inference from
Paul’s teaching in Romans 4:9, in which he quotes Genesis 15:6. The obvious
inference based upon Genesis 15:6 is that Abraham was justified while he was
uncircumcised since the events of Genesis 15:6 preceded the events of Genesis 17,
which record Abraham receiving circumcision from the Lord as a sign of the
covenant that the Lord established with Abraham.
“Was it credited” is the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of
the verb logizomai, which means, “to credit” or “impute.” Paul is asking, “how
then was righteousness credited or imputed to Abraham?”
summary fashion the moment the Lord credited righteousness to Abraham. The
passive voice means that the subject receives the action of the verb from either an
expressed or unexpressed agency. Therefore, the passive voice means that
Abraham as the subject received the action of being credited divine righteousness
from the Lord. The indicative mood is “interrogative” since it is used with the
interrogative particle pos, “how?” to ask a direct question that expects an assertion
to be made. The “interrogative” indicative mood of the verb logizomai coupled
with the interrogative particle pos, “how?” form a direct question.
“While he was” is the dative masculine singular present active participle form
of the verb eimi, which means, “to exist in a particular state or condition.”
Therefore, the verb eimi is used at this point in Paul’s question to denote Abraham
“existing in the state or condition of being” circumcised. This verb functions as a
“temporal” participle and in Paul’s question, it asks the readers as to “when”
Abraham was justified.
As a temporal participle, eimi emphasizes contemporaneous time with the
action of the main verb logizomai. Therefore, in this question, it asks if Abraham
was declared justified by the Lord “while simultaneously” or “while at the same
time” being circumcised.
The active voice is “stative” indicates that the subject exists in the state
indicated by the verb. Therefore, in this question, it asks if Abraham “existed in the
state of being circumcised” when he received the imputation of divine
righteousness.
The present tense is a “customary” or “stative” present signifying an “ongoing
state” or “unbroken process.” Therefore, the “stative” present signifies “the state”
of Abraham being circumcised.
The participle form of the eimi also functions as a “dative of time” denoting a
“specific point in time in history when” the Lord imputed His righteousness to
Abraham.
“Circumcised” is composed of the preposition en and the dative feminine
singular form of the noun peritome, which refers to the ritual act of cutting of the
foreskin of the male’s penis and was given as a sign of God’s covenant with
Abraham and his biological descendants that they were set apart by God and yet
was not given to justify or save them. The preposition en is a marker of a particular
point in time when Abraham was circumcised. The word functions as a “dative of
time” indicating a specific point in time when Abraham was circumcised.
“particle of separation” e, which introduces an “alternative” state or condition to
being circumcised, namely, being uncircumcised.
“While” is the preposition en, which functions as a marker of a specific point in
time when Abraham was uncircumcised.
“Uncircumcised” is the dative feminine singular form of the noun akrobustia,
which stands in contrast to the noun peritome, “circumcision” and means,
“uncircumcision” and denotes the state of being uncircumcised. The word
functions as a “dative of time” indicating a specific point in time when Abraham
was uncircumcised.
“Not” is the emphatic negative adverb ou, which “emphatically” rejects that
Abraham, was justified when he was circumcised.
“While” is the preposition en, which is a marker of a specific point in time
when Abraham was circumcised.

“Circumcised” is the dative feminine singular form of the noun peritome,
which once again refers to the ritual act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s
penis and was given as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his biological
save them. The word functions as a “dative of time” indicating the specific point in
time when Abraham was circumcised.
“But” is the adversative use of the conjunction alla, which introduces the
condition of Abraham being uncircumcised that stands in direct contrast to his
being circumcised.
when Abraham was uncircumcised.
“Uncircumcised” is the dative feminine singular form of the noun akrobustia,
which stands in contrast to the noun peritome, “circumcision” and means,
“uncircumcision” and denotes the state of being uncircumcised and is a
designation for the Gentiles. Once again, the word functions as a “dative of time”
indicating a specific point in time when Abraham was uncircumcised.
Romans 4:10 In what condition then, was it credited, at the point of time
when he was circumcised, or when uncircumcised? By no means, when
circumcised but rather, when uncircumcised. (Author’s translation)
The chronology of Genesis demonstrates quite clearly that Abraham was
declared justified by his faith in the Lord before he was commanded by the Lord to
circumcise himself. A comparison of Genesis 12:4, 17:1 and Acts 7:2-5 indicates
that Abraham was saved at least 25 years before he obeyed the Lord’s command to
circumcise himself and his household.
First of all, Genesis 12:4 records Abraham as being 75 years of age when he left
Haran. Acts 7:2-4 indicates Abram received the invitation the first time while in Ur
of the Chaldeans, which is in Mesopotamia. Therefore, it appears that Abraham
was already saved before he left Ur of the Chaldeans since Genesis 12:1-3 records
the Lord entering into a covenant with Abraham, which the Lord wouldn’t do
unless, Abraham was saved. His faith in the Lord was demonstrated by his
obedience to the Lord’s command to leave Ur.
Genesis 15:6 does not record the moment Abraham was saved. Abram’s faith in
the Lord in Genesis 15:6 and the Lord imputing His righteousness to Abram as a
result of his faith is employed by the New Testament writers as the pattern of a
sinner’s justification (Rm. 4).
“Believed” is the verb àman, which is in the “hiphil” (causative) stem
meaning, “to cause to have confidence in, to trust.”
The object of Abram’s faith is the Lord Himself who alone can make this
guarantee to Abram because He sovereign and omnipotent and omniscient.
Although, the New Testament writers employ Genesis 15:6 to teach that
justification is through faith alone in Christ alone, it does “not” mean that Genesis
15:6 records the moment when Abram first got saved.
There at least three reasons for this. First of all, Abram had already obeyed the
Lord’s call to leave Ur and Haran (Acts 7:2-5; Gen. 12:1-5). Secondly, the Lord
had entered into a covenant agreement with him as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3 and
15:4-5, which is something the Lord would never do with an unbeliever. Thirdly,
the perfect tense of the verb àman, “believed” demonstrates that Abram’s faith
did “not” begin after the events recorded in Genesis 15:1-5 since it represents the
state of Abram trusting in the Lord, which flowed from his initial faith in the Lord
the moment he got saved in Ur of the Chaldeans.
Bible Knowledge Commentary, The Old Testament, “Abram’s faith is recorded
here because it is foundational for establishing the Abrahamic covenant. The
Abrahamic Covenant did not give Abram redemption; it was a covenant made with
Abram who had already believed and to whom righteousness had already been
imputed” (page 55, Victor Books).
Now, Genesis 17:1 records that Abraham was 99 years of age when he received
the rite of circumcision from the Lord. Thus, a comparison of Genesis 12:4, 17:1
and Acts 7:2-5 indicates that Abraham was saved at least 25 years before he
obeyed the Lord’s command to circumcise himself and his household.
Romans 4:11-The Two-Fold Purpose of Circumcision
In Romans 4:11, Paul reveals the two-fold purpose of circumcision.

Romans 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might
be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness
might be credited to them. (NASB95)
“And” is the “intensifying” or “emphatic” use of the conjunction kai, which
introduces a statement that is not new in relation to the previous statement in
Romans 4:9-10 but rather is connected to it and in fact explains further this
statement and completes the idea.
“He received” is the third person singular aorist active indicative form of the
verb lambano, which means, “to undergo, experience.”
In Romans 4:11, the verb lambano means, “to experience or undergo some
event or state.” Therefore, the word means that Abraham “had undergone” the
distinguishing mark and surgical procedure of cutting the foreskin of his penis. It
does not mean “to receive” since one does not receive circumcision but rather one
can undergo or experience the surgical procedure. Nor, does the word mean “to
receive” in the sense of obeying the command to be circumcised since the Holy
Spirit would have inspired Paul to use the words in the Greek vocabulary that
would communicate that this was the case. Therefore, in Romans 4:11, the verb
lambano refers to the fact that Abraham had “undergone” the surgical procedure of
circumcision in obedience to the Lord’s command to do so as the distinguishing
mark of the covenant between the Lord and himself that he had entered into
through faith in the Lord.
The aorist tense is a “constative” aorist describing in summary fashion the
moment Abraham had undergone the distinguishing mark and surgical procedure
of circumcision. The active voice indicates that Abraham as the subject
“experienced” the distinguishing mark and surgical procedure of circumcision. The
indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this assertion as an unqualified
statement of fact and revelation from the Holy Spirit.
“The sign” is the accusative neuter singular form of the noun semeion, which
refers to the distinguishing mark upon the organ of procreation among Abraham’s
biological descendants who had entered into the covenant the Lord had established
with Abraham through faith.
In classical Greek, the noun semeion denotes the “mark” or “distinguishing
mark” by which something is known. It was used of a sign foretelling the future,
thus the word might be a “sign from the gods, an omen.” The word often includes
the supernatural and might be described as a miracle. The word was used in a non-
religious sense including the meanings, “signal, boundary, limit, signet of a ring,”
and “birthmark.” Thus, the word concerned itself with a visual sign by which
something is distinguished.
Logicians used the word to mean, “proof” that something was certain and it was
used in the medical field as well meaning, “symptom.”
The translators of the Septuagint recognized semeion as the equivalent to the
Hebrew noun òth, which appears in Genesis 17:11. Thus, like semeion, òth
referred to surgical procedure of circumcision as the “distinguishing mark” of the
people who had entered into the Abrahamic covenant by faith.
In Romans 4:11, the noun semeion identifies circumcision as the
“distinguishing mark” upon the organ of procreation among Abraham’s biological
descendants and members of household who had not only entered into the
covenant with the Lord through faith but also had been declared justified by the
Lord as a result of receiving the imputation of divine righteousness through faith in
the Lord.
The word functions as the “object in an object-complement double accusative
construction” meaning that it receives the action of the verb lambano, “he had
undergone.”
The anarthrous construction of the noun is definite and should be translated
accordingly with the English article “the” in the translation since it forms with the
noun semeion a “monadic” construction.
“Of circumcision” is the genitive feminine singular form of the noun peritome,
which refers to the ritual act and surgical procedure of cutting of the foreskin of the
male’s penis. The word functions as a “genitive of apposition,” or “epexegetical
genitive,” which means that it “identifies” for the reader what the distinguishing
mark is, or “defines” what it is.
“A seal” is the accusative feminine singular form of the noun sphragis, which
means, “confirmation.”
In classical Greek, the noun sphragis appears often denoting a mark or “seal”
upon something or someone. It was used to denote an instrument that makes the
seal as well as the impression or “seal.”
The word was used of a “seal” that secures a letter or book for secrecy as well
as a confirmation of something or someone. In the ancient world a seal would
serve to identify a person’s personal property. A sign points to the existence of that
which it signifies. A seal authenticates, confirms, certifies, or guarantees the
genuineness of that which is signified.
Sphragis appears 16 times in the Greek New Testament.
In Romans 4:11, the noun is used in relation to Abraham undergoing the
surgical procedure of circumcision. The word denotes that the distinguishing mark,
which is circumcision, was “confirmation” of the righteousness that was imputed
to Abraham when he exercised faith in the Lord.
Circumcision confirmed to Abraham that he was regarded and treated by God
as righteous through faith. Circumcision did not bring righteousness, but was the
visible sign to Abraham’s descendants of the righteousness that was imputed to
him by faith.
Also, circumcision was God’s seal of righteousness. Once righteousness has
been imputed to the individual, it is sealed there forever. Therefore, circumcision
was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had while
uncircumcised. In other words, when the Jews circumcised their eight day old baby
boys, it was to remind them of the righteousness that the Lord credited to Abraham
as a result of his faith in the Lord.
Warren Wiersbe writes, “As a sign, it (circumcision) was evidence that he
belonged to God and believed His promise. As a seal, it was a reminder to him that
God had given the promise and would keep it. Circumcision did not add to
Abraham’s salvation; it merely attested to it.” (Wiersbe, W: Bible Exposition
Commentary 1989. Victor)
The noun sphragis, “confirmation” functions as the “complement in an object-
complement double accusative construction.” An object-complement double
accusative is a construction in which one accusative substantive is the direct object
of the verb and other accusative (either a noun, adjective, participle or infinitive)
complements the object in that it predicates something about it. The complement
may be substantival or adjectival. In Romans 4:11, it is the former. This usage
occurs with only with certain kinds of verbs, one of which is lambano. The noun
semeion, “distinguishing mark” functions as the direct object. The noun sphragis
predicates something about this distinguishing mark that is circumcision. Namely,
that it served as “confirmation” of the righteousness that he received through faith
in the Lord. Usually, this construction can be translated with “as,” “to be,” or
“namely” between the two accusatives. We will translate sphragis with the phrase
“as confirmation.”
“Of the righteousness” is the articular genitive feminine singular form of the
noun dikaiosune, which refers to the righteousness of God in the sense of His
perfect “virtue” and “integrity,” which is imputed or credited to the sinner the
moment they exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Dikaiosune refers to the Father’s perfect integrity in that His character is
upright, honest, perfectly whole, undiminished, sound, unimpaired and in perfect
condition. The noun refers to the Father’s perfect virtue in that His character is
perfect moral excellence, goodness, and His conduct is conformed perfectly to His
own perfect standards and what He has promised to men. The noun dikaiosune also
refers to the fact that God always does right by man or treats man fairly.
The noun dikaiosune functions as an “objective genitive” meaning that it
functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head
noun sphragis, “as confirmation.”
The definite preceding the noun dikaiosune, “righteousness” is “monadic”
emphasizing this righteousness is “unique” in that it is God’s righteousness, which
was imputed to Abraham as a result of exercising faith in the Lord.
“Of the faith” is the articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun
pistis, which refers to Abraham’s non-meritorious decision of placing his absolute
“trust” or “confidence in” the Lord. The definite article preceding the noun pistis is
“kataphoric” meaning that it is followed by a phrase that defines it. Also, the
definite article functions as a relative pronoun since the rule of grammar is that
when the article precedes a noun (pistis), and is in turn followed by another article
and a prepositional phrase, it functions as a relative pronoun.
The noun pistis also functions as a “genitive of means” indicating the means or
instrumentality by which the verbal action implicit in the head noun dikaiosune,
“righteousness” is accomplished and answers the question how? Therefore, as a
“genitive of means” the noun pistis indicates that Abraham received the
righteousness of God “by means of” faith. We will translate the articular genitive
form of the noun pistis, “that is by means of faith.”
“Which he had” is the genitive feminine singular form of the definite article
ho, which functions as a “substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e. converts to a

noun) the prepositional phrase en te akrobustia, “while uncircumcised” and thus
we can translate it with the noun phrase “which he had.”
when Abraham was uncircumcised. Once again, we will translate the word,
“when.”
“Uncircumcised” is the articular dative feminine singular form of the noun
akrobustia, which denotes the state of being uncircumcised. The word functions as
a “dative of time” indicating a specific point in time when Abraham was
uncircumcised. We will translate akrobustia, “uncircumcised.”
Therefore, up to this point in our study of Romans 4:11, we can see that the
Lord’s first purpose in commanding Abraham to be circumcised was that
circumcision would be the distinguishing mark that would serve as confirmation of
the divine righteousness he received by means of faith in the Lord.
“So that” is the preposition eis, which is employed with the articular infinitive
form of eimi as a marker of purpose indicating the second purpose in the Lord
commanding Abraham to circumcise himself.
“Might be” is composed of the accusative neuter singular form of the definite
article ho and the present active infinitive form of the verb eimi, which denotes that
Abraham belongs to a particular class of individuals, namely, believers, as
identified by the expression panton ton pisteuonton, “all who believe.”
The present tense is “gnomic” used for a general timeless fact or spiritual
axiom. Therefore, it indicates that the Lord gave Abraham the command to
circumcise himself not only to identify that he received the imputation of divine
righteousness by means of faith but also that he might “an eternal spiritual truth”
be the father of all those who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
The active voice is “stative” signifying that Abraham “exists in the state” of
being father of all those who believe in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.
The articular infinitive form of the verb is governed by the preposition eis and
functions as an infinitive of purpose and is used to indicate the purpose or the goal
of its controlling verb. It answers the question “why” in that it looks ahead to the
anticipated and intended result. Thus, the articular infinitive of purpose eimi
indicates the purpose or the goal of its controlling verb, which is lambano, “he had
undergone.”
The verb lambano was used with the nouns semeion, “the distinguishing
mark,” peritome, “namely, circumcision,” and sphragis, “as confirmation”
indicating that the first purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham to circumcise
himself was that circumcision would be the distinguishing mark on his person that
would serve to identify that he had received the imputation of righteousness
through faith. Therefore, articular infinitive form of the verb eimi along with the
preposition eis denote that another purpose for the Lord commanding Abraham to
circumcise himself was that he might be the father of all those who place their
absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.
“He” is the accusative third person masculine singular form of the intensive
personal pronoun autos, which refers to Abraham. The intensive personal pronoun
autos functions as the “accusative subject” of the infinitive form of the verb eimi.
The intensive personal pronoun autos emphasizes identity and is the demonstrative
force intensified and when used with an articular infinitive, it has the force of
“himself.” The word emphasizes that Abraham is the father of all those who place
their absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be declared justified
by God.
“The father” is the accusative masculine singular form of the noun pater,
which denotes Abraham’s “spiritual fatherhood” of all those who like himself
place their absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to receive the
imputation of divine righteousness and justification from God.
The noun pater functions as a “predicate accusative” which means that it stands
in predicate relation to the accusative intensive personal pronoun autos, “he
himself.” In this construction, the two will be joined by an equative verb, either an
infinitive or participle. Here, the noun pater and the intensive personal pronoun
autos are joined by the infinitive form of the equative verb eimi. As a “predicate
accusative,” the noun pater is making an assertion about the subject, who is
Abraham, namely, that he is the spiritual father of all those who place their
absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to receive the imputation of
divine righteousness and justification from God.
“Of all” is the genitive masculine plural form of the adjective pas, which is
used as a noun without the article and in a distributive sense referring to “each and
every” Gentile who places their confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be
justified. The word functions as a “genitive of subordination” specifying that
which is subordinated to or under the dominion of the head noun. This type of
genitive is related to only certain kinds of noun that lexically imply some kind of
rule or authority such as basileus and archon and pater. Therefore, as a “genitive
of subordination” pas specifies those who place their absolute confidence or trust
in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be declared justified by God are under the
dominion of their spiritual father, Abraham.
“Who believe” is the articular genitive masculine plural present active
participle form of the verb pisteuo, which means to “trust, place complete
confidence in” the Lord Jesus Christ in order to receive the imputation of divine
righteousness and justification from God.
The present tense is “gnomic” used for a general timeless fact or spiritual
axiom. Therefore, it indicates that it is “an eternal spiritual truth” or “spiritual
axiom” that Abraham is the spiritual father over each and every person Gentile
who exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to receive the imputation of
divine righteousness and justification from God.
The present tense is a “gnomic present,” which describes something as true
“any” time and “does” take place. Therefore, it indicates that Abraham becomes
the spiritual father over the person who “does” believe in Jesus Christ in order to
receive righteousness and justification from God.
The active voice refers to the subject performs the action of the verb. Therefore,
it indicates that a Gentile performs the action of exercising absolute confidence or
trust in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to receive the imputation of divine
righteousness and justification from God.
The participle form of the verb pisteuo functions as a “substantive” since the
definite article preceding it functions as a substantiver meaning it converts the
participle into substantive. Therefore, the definite article preceding the participle
functions as a relative pronoun. Therefore, the articular genitive masculine plural
present active participle form of the verb pisteuo should be translated with the
English pronoun, “who does believe.”
“Without being circumcised” is composed of the preposition dia and the
genitive feminine singular form of the noun akrobustia, which stands in contrast
to the noun peritome, “circumcision” and means, “uncircumcision.”
The preposition dia is employed with the genitive form of the akrobustia a
marker of an extent of time indicating the period of time in which a person
exercises faith in Christ.
In Romans 4:11, the word akrobustia denotes the state of being uncircumcised.
The noun akrobustia functions as a “genitive of time” indicating the kind of time
within which the word to which it stands takes place. The “genitive of time”
indicates “kind of time” meaning “time during which” something takes place
whereas as the dative of time emphasize point of time answering the question
“when?” and the accusative of time, which emphasizes extent of time answering
the question “how long?” Therefore, as a “genitive of time” akrobustia indicates
Abraham is the spiritual father of the Gentiles who trust in Jesus Christ as their
Savior “while” in the state of being uncircumcised since he too trusted in Christ
while he was uncircumcised.
“That” is the preposition eis, which is employed with the articular infinitive
form of the verb logizomai as a marker of result indicating that divine
righteousness is imputed to the uncircumcised person, the Gentile “as a result of”
exercising faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.
This is not a marker of purpose but rather result since it is connected to the verb
pisteuo. Thus, the preposition does not denote another purpose for circumcision but
rather it emphasizes the result of placing one’s faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. So
then, the word as a marker of purpose denotes that divine righteousness is credited
to the sinner “as a result of” exercising faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, we will
translate eis, “so that.”
“Righteousness” is the accusative feminine singular form of the noun
dikaiosune, which refers to the righteousness of God in the sense of His perfect
“virtue” and “integrity,” which is imputed or credited to the sinner the moment
they exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.
“Might be credited” is composed of the accusative neuter singular form of the
definite article ho and the aorist passive infinitive form of the verb logizomai,
which means, “to credit or impute.”
The word refers to the imputation of divine righteousness to the sinner as a
result of the sinner exercising faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.
The articular infinitive form of the verb logizomai is employed with the
preposition eis as an “infinitive of result” indicating the outcome produced by the
controlling verb. Therefore, as an “infinitive of result” the verb logizomai indicates
that divine righteousness is imputed to the Gentile “as a result of” exercising faith
in Jesus Christ as Savior.
summary fashion the moment the Lord credits or imputes His Son’s righteousness
to the Gentile sinner as a result of the sinner exercising faith in His Son as a
Savior.
The passive voice means that the subject receives the action of the verb from
either an expressed or unexpressed agency. Therefore, the passive voice means that
the Gentile sinner as the subject receives the action of receiving the action of God
the Father crediting divine righteousness to them as a result of exercising faith in
Jesus Christ as their Savior.
“To them” is the dative third person masculine plural form of the intensive
personal pronoun autos, which refers to its antecedent, namely, masculine plural
form of the articular participle pisteuo, thus, it refers to those Gentiles who place
their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.
This word not only functions as a “dative of indirect object” but also as a
“dative of advantage.” A “dative of indirect object” is that to or for which the
action of the verb is performed and when the verb is in the passive voice, the
indirect object receives the direct object.
Therefore, the intensive personal pronoun autos indicates that the Gentile sinner
receives the action of God the Father crediting His Son’s righteousness to them. As
a “dative of advantage” autos indicates that it is “for the benefit of” the Gentile
sinner that God the Father credits His Son’s righteousness to them when they place
their absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ for justification.
Romans 4:11 In fact, he had undergone the distinguishing mark, namely,
circumcision as confirmation of the righteousness, that is by means of faith,
which he had when uncircumcised in order that he himself might, as an
eternal spiritual truth, be the spiritual father over each and every person who
does believe while uncircumcised so that righteousness might be credited to
them for their benefit. (Author’s translation)
Therefore, in Romans 4:11, we can see that the second purpose in the Lord
commanding Abraham to circumcise himself was so that he might become the
spiritual father of all the Gentiles who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and
like Abraham receive the imputation of divine righteousness through faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ.
In Romans 4:11b, Paul teaches that since Abraham was declared righteous by
God before he was circumcised, it follows that he is the spiritual father of the
uncircumcised who believe in Jesus Christ. Thus, Abraham is not only the spiritual
father of those Jews who trust in Jesus Christ as Savior but also those Gentiles who
trust in the Lord as well.
In His covenant promises to Abraham, the Lord emphasized to Abraham that he
would not only be a progenitor biologically but also one spiritually (Genesis 12:1-
3).
Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country,
and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will
show you. 2 And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and
make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing. 3 And I will bless those
who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the
families of the earth will be blessed.” (NASB95)
The Abrahamic covenant contained three categories of promises: (1) Personal
(2) National (3) Universal and Spiritual.
(1) Personal: “I will bless you and make your name great” (Gen. 12:2), which
refers to the fact that the Lord would make Abraham a famous character with a
great reputation among men and before God. This fame and reputation is expressed
in that Abraham is called a “father of a multitude” in Genesis 17:5, a prince of
God in Genesis 23:6, the man in God’s confidence in Genesis 18:17-19, a prophet
in Genesis 20:7, the servant of God in Psalm 105:6 and the friend of God in 2
Chronicles 20:7 and James 2:23.
(2) National: “I will make you into a great nation” (Gen. 12:2), which refers
to the nation of Israel.
(3) Spiritual and Universal: “And all the peoples on earth will be blessed
through you” (Gen. 12:3) refers to the fact that through Jesus Christ, Abraham
would be a blessing to all mankind (Deut. 28:8-14; Is. 60:3-5, 11, 16) since it is
only through Jesus Christ that one becomes Abraham’s seed and heirs of the
promise (Gal. 3:29; Eph. 2:13, 19).

The phrase “and you shall be a blessing” is “not” a promise since the verb
hayah, “you shall be” is in the “imperative” mood expressing a command and
literally means, “so become a blessing” indicating that Abraham had a
responsibility to walk by faith, which is expressed by obedience to the Lord’s
commands.
The promises “I will bless them that bless you and the one who curses you I
will curse” refers to the fact that the Lord is identifying Himself with the cause of
Abraham and guaranteeing protection for Abraham and his descendants.
In Genesis 17:1-8, the Lord enlarges again upon the covenant He made with
Abraham not only promising him that he would have many descendants but he
would also be the father of many nations, which has been fulfilled in a two-fold
sense: (1) Biological (2) Spiritual.
The promise to make Abraham a father of many nations was fulfilled in a
“biological” sense through Hagar and the Ishmaelites (Gen. 17:20; 21:13; 25:12-
18); through Keturah and the Midianites and others (Gen. 25:1-4); through Isaac
and Rebekah, the Edomites (Gen. 25:23; 36:1-43); through Isaac and Rebekah, the
Israelites (Gen. 12:2; 18:18).
The Lord’s promise to make Abraham a father or progenitor of many nations
was fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled in a “spiritual” sense through those
individuals who exercised faith alone in Christ alone (John 3:1-7; 1 Cor. 12:13;
Gal. 3:15-29). This is how the Lord’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 that in
him “all the families of the earth would be blessed” would be accomplished.
The “Seed” God covenanted with Abraham found its fulfillment uniquely in the
Lord Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16).
The Lord’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:6 that “kings will come forth
from you” is a reference to primarily the kings of Israel (Gen. 35:11; 49:10; 2
Sam. 7:8-16) and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The promise recorded in Genesis 17:7 “I will establish My covenant with him
(Isaac) for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him” indicates that
the Promised Seed, the Savior, Jesus Christ would come through the line of Isaac
rather than Ishmael.
Genesis 17:9-14 records the Lord giving Abraham and his descendants the
ritual of circumcision to observe as a sign to ratify the covenant that He established
with Abraham when he left Haran. Then in Genesis 17:15-22, we saw that the Lord
promised Abraham that his wife Sarah would be the progenitrix or the mother of
numerous nations and kings.
In Genesis 22:15-18, the Lord reconfirms the promises of this covenant and
then enlarges upon them. Every time Abraham made a sacrifice for God the Lord
responded by giving Abraham more: (1) God commanded Abraham to leave his
hometown and as a result God rewarded him with a new one (Gen. 12:1; Heb.
11:8). (2) Abraham offered the best of the land to Lot and separated from Lot and
as a result God rewarded him by giving him more land (Gen. 13:5-18). (3)
Abraham gave up the King of Sodom's reward (Gen. 14:17-24) and God gave
Abraham more wealth (Gen. 15:1-6). (4) God commanded Abraham to sacrifice
Isaac after he waited so long for him to be born (Genesis 22:1-19; Hebrews 11:17-
19) and as a result the Lord rewards Abraham by enlarging upon the previously
made covenant (Gen. 22:15-18). In each case, where Abraham was obedient to
God, God rewarded Abraham with a deeper and more intimate fellowship with
Himself.
The Lord blessed Abraham in the sense that the Lord multiplied his descendants
so that his posterity was great in number both, racially and spiritually. Also, the
Lord blessed Abraham in the sense that the Lord multiplied his possessions and
livestock and prospered him financially.
The phrase “I will bless you” was fulfilled “temporally” according to Genesis
13:14-18; 15:18-21; 24:34-35 and it has been fulfilled “spiritually” according to
Genesis 15:6 and John 8:56.
“Your seed” refers to not only Isaac but also those who like Abraham exercise
faith alone in Christ alone, which would include the church and regenerate Israel
and regenerate Gentiles who lived in dispensations outside of the church age and
ultimately it refers to Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the Scriptures teach that the “seed” of Abraham is four-fold: (1)
Abraham’s biological or racial descendants, which would include: (a) The
Ishmaelites through Hagar (Gen. 17:20; 21:13; 25:12-18) (b) The Midianites and
others through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) (c) The Edomites through Isaac and Rebekah
(Gen. 25:23; 36:1-43). (2) Abraham’s biological or racial descendants the Israelites
of Jews through Sarah and Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob (Genesis 12:2, 7; 18:18;
Rom. 9:6-9). (3) Abraham’s spiritual descendants, which would include those
individuals, both Jew and Gentile racially, who exercised faith alone in Christ
alone (Gal. 3:6-29). (4) The Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16).
The comparative clause “as the stars of the heavens” echoes the Lord’s
promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:5 and is used to compare the Lord’s promise to
Abraham to multiply his descendants with the number of the stars of the universe.
The promise of Genesis 15:4-5 not only pertains to Abram’s “natural” progeny
(cf. Deut. 1:10; 10:22; Heb. 11:12) but according to Romans 4 it refers to his
“spiritual” progeny (cf. Gal. 3:29).
The comparative clause “as the sand which is on the seashore” echoes the
Lord’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 13:10 to multiply his descendants as the
dust of the earth and drives the point home regarding the Lord’s promise to greatly
multiply Abraham’s descendants.

The prophecy that Abram’s descendants would be as the dust of the earth in a
“near” sense was fulfilled in the days of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:20) and will be
fulfilled in a “far” sense during the millennial reign of Christ (see Hosea 1:10).
The Lord’s promise to Abraham that “your seed shall possess the gate of their
enemies” is a prophecy that through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the
great enemy of God and His people would be defeated, namely, Satan, thus
fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 (see Colossians 2:15; Philippians 2:6-11;
Ephesians 1:15-22).
In the ancient world, to “possess the gate” of one’s enemies was to have access
to a walled city and possessing control of the city. The term “enemies” refers to
Satan and the kingdom of darkness who at the present time temporarily rule this
world (Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Jn. 5:19; Rev. 12:10).
The Lord Jesus Christ has defeated Satan with His death and resurrection and at
His Second Advent, He with His church, and the elect angels will imprison Satan
and the fallen angels and assume control over planet earth for a thousand years (see
Revelation 19:1-20:6). In another sense, this prophecy also refers to the fact that
regenerate Israel will be delivered by Jesus Christ from the armies of the hostile
Gentile nations and antichrist during Daniel’s seventieth week and will become
head of the nations during the millennial reign of Christ (see Zechariah 14:16-21).
Genesis 22:18 “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
because you have obeyed My voice.” (NASB95)
“Your seed” is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Lord statement that “in your seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth
will be blessed” echoes the Lord’s promise in Genesis 18:18 and is an enlargement
upon the Lord’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 that in Abraham “all the
families of the earth will be blessed.”
Galatians 3:8-14 reveals that the promise in Genesis 18:18 that “in (Abraham)
all the nations of the earth will be blessed” and the promise in Genesis 22:19 that
“in your Seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” are
references to the fact that Abraham’s descendent, Jesus Christ, would bring
salvation to the Gentile nations through faith in Him.
The Lord states to Abraham that He will bless Abraham because of Abraham’s
obedience to His command to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac, which appears to
indicate that Abrahamic covenant was “conditional” rather than “unconditional.”
The blessings that Abraham received in Genesis 12:1-3 were conditioned on his
obedience to the Lord’s command to leave his country and his father’s house and
go to the land, which the Lord would show him, namely, the land of Canaan.
The “blessings” that Abraham received in Genesis 22:17-18 were conditioned
on his obedience to the Lord’s command to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac. The
“fulfillment” of unconditional covenants does “not” depend on the continued
obedience of the recipient but rather the faithfulness of God who instituted the
covenant.
Abraham failed to operate in faith many times, yet the Lord remained faithful to
the covenant promises He made to Abraham. The Lord was responsible to fulfill
the agreement and Abraham’s part was to obey the Lord’s commands, which
would manifest his faith in the Lord. Therefore, the “blessings” of the covenant
were conditioned upon Abraham’s obedience whereas the “fulfillment” of the
covenant depended upon the faithfulness of God rather than Abraham’s obedience.
The reason why the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional meaning that the
Lord was responsible to fulfill the agreement and not Abraham is that the Lord did
not establish a relationship with Abraham based upon Abraham’s merits but rather
upon His own merit and what He would do for Abraham at the Cross.
Romans 4:12-Abraham is also the Spiritual Father of the Jews Who Trust in Jesus
Christ as Savior
In Romans 4:12, Paul teaches us that Abraham is not only the father of the Jews
racially or biologically but also, he is the spiritual father of those Jews who have
trusted in Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Romans 4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of
the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father
Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. (NASB95)
“And” is the “adjunctive” use of the conjunction kai, which is used to introduce
an “additional” purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham to circumcise himself.
This word actually introduces the third purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham
to circumcise himself.
As we will note, the third purpose was that Abraham might not only be the
progenitor of the Jews racially or biologically but also the spiritual father of those
Jews who trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior. We will translate kai, “In addition.”
Now, Romans 4:12 is “elliptical” meaning that Paul leaves out words but they
are clearly implied and should be supplied from the previous verse.
In Romans 4:11, the prepositional phrase eis to einai auton, “so that he might
be” can be inserted between kai, “and” and patera, “the father” at this point in
Romans 4:12 since Paul is using the figure of ellipsis meaning that the words are
clearly implied but are omitted for emphasis.
In Romans 4:11, Paul employed the preposition eis, “so that.” As we noted this
word was employed with the articular infinitive form of eimi as a marker of
purpose indicating the second purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham to
circumcise himself.

Also, in Romans 4:11, we saw that the phrase “might be” is composed of the
accusative neuter singular form of the definite article ho and the present active
infinitive form of the verb eimi, which denotes that Abraham belongs to a
particular class of individuals, namely, believers, as identified by the expression
panton ton pisteuonton, “all who believe.”
The present tense was “gnomic” used for a general timeless fact or spiritual
axiom. Therefore, it indicated that the Lord gave Abraham the command to
circumcise himself not only to identify that he received the imputation of divine
righteousness by means of faith but also that he might “an eternal spiritual truth”
be the father of all those who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
The active voice was “stative” signifying that Abraham “exists in the state” of
being father of all those who believe in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.
The articular infinitive form of the verb was governed by the preposition eis and
functions as an infinitive of purpose and was used to indicate the purpose or the
goal of its controlling verb. It answered the question “why” in that it looks ahead to
the anticipated and intended result. Thus, the articular infinitive of purpose eimi
indicated the purpose or the goal of its controlling verb, which is lambano, “he
had undergone.”
The verb lambano was used with the nouns semeion, “the distinguishing
mark,” peritome, “namely, circumcision,” and sphragis, “as confirmation”
indicating that the first purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham to circumcise
himself was that circumcision would be the distinguishing mark on his person that
would serve to identify that he had received the imputation of righteousness
through faith.
Therefore, we saw that the articular infinitive form of the verb eimi along with
the preposition eis denote that the Lord commanded Abraham to circumcise
himself so that he might be the father of all those who place their absolute
confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.
Also, in Romans 4:11, we noted that in this purpose clause the word “he” is the
accusative third person masculine singular form of the intensive personal pronoun
autos, and referred of course to Abraham. The intensive personal pronoun autos
functioned as the “accusative subject” of the infinitive form of the verb eimi. The
intensive personal pronoun autos emphasized identity and is the demonstrative
force intensified and when used with an articular infinitive, it has the force of
“himself.” The word emphasized that Abraham is the father of all those who place
their absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be declared justified
by God. Therefore, we translated the word, “he himself.”
So, in Romans 4:12, after the conjunction kai we can insert the prepositional
phrase eis to einai auton, “so that he might be” that appears in Romans 4:11 since
Paul is using the figure of ellipsis meaning that the words are clearly implied but
are omitted for emphasis. As was the case in Romans 4:11, the preposition eis is
employed with the articular infinitive form of eimi as a marker of purpose
indicating the third purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham to circumcise
himself.
The accusative neuter singular form of the definite article ho and the present
active infinitive form of the verb eimi denote that Abraham belongs to a particular
class of individuals. Namely, biological Jews and spiritual Jews as identified by the
expression patera peritomes tois ouk ek peritomes monon alla kai tois stoichousin
tois ichnesin tes en akrobustia pisteos tou patros hemon Abraam, “the father of
circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also
follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while
uncircumcised.”
The present tense of the verb is “gnomic” used for a general timeless fact or
spiritual axiom. Therefore, it indicates that the Lord gave Abraham the command
to circumcise himself in order that he might “an eternal spiritual truth” be not only
the progenitor of the Jews racially or biologically but also the spiritual father of
those Jews who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
The active voice is “stative” signifying that Abraham “exists in the state” of
being not only the father of the Jews racially but also those Jews who believe in
Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.
The articular infinitive form of the verb is governed by the preposition eis and
functions as an infinitive of purpose and is used to indicate the purpose or the goal
of its controlling verb. It answers the question “why” in that it looks ahead to the
anticipated and intended result. Thus, the articular infinitive of purpose eimi
indicates the purpose or the goal of its controlling verb, which appears in Romans
4:11 and is lambano, “he had undergone.”
In Romans 4:11, the verb lambano was used with the nouns semeion, “the
distinguishing mark,” peritome, “namely, circumcision,” and sphragis, “as
confirmation” indicated the first purpose in the Lord commanding Abraham to
circumcise himself.
The first purpose was that circumcision would be the distinguishing mark on his
person that would serve to identify that he had received the imputation of
righteousness through faith. In Romans 4:12, the articular infinitive form of the
verb eimi along with the preposition eis denote that the third purpose in the Lord
commanding Abraham to circumcise himself was that he might be the father of not
only the racial progenitor of the Jews but also the spiritual father of those Jews
who trust in Jesus Christ as Savior as Abraham did.
Lastly, the accusative third person masculine singular form of the intensive
personal pronoun autos should be inserted into verse 12 from verse 11 as well and
refers to Abraham. The intensive personal pronoun autos functions as the
“accusative subject” of the infinitive form of the verb eimi. The intensive personal
pronoun autos emphasizes identity and is the demonstrative force intensified and
when used with an articular infinitive, it has the force of “himself.” The word
emphasizes that Abraham is the father of not only the Jews racially but also of
those Jews who like Abraham place their absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus
Christ in order to be declared justified by God.
“The father” is the accusative masculine singular form of the noun pater,
which denotes that Abraham is the “biological” or “racial father” of the Jews and
that he is the spiritual father of those Jews who trust in Jesus Christ as Savior as
Abraham did.
The word denotes the fact that Abraham was the “prototype” of the racial called
the “Jews,” or in other words, he is the founder of the Jews. As was the case in
Romans 4:11, the noun pater functions as a “predicate accusative” which means
that it stands in predicate relation to the accusative intensive personal pronoun
autos, “he himself,” which is omitted here by Paul due to his use of the figure of
ellipsis.
In this construction, the two will be joined by an equative verb, either an
infinitive or participle. Here, the noun pater and the intensive personal pronoun
autos are joined by the infinitive form of the equative verb eimi, which as we noted
is omitted due to Paul’s use of the figure of ellipsis.
As a “predicate accusative,” the noun pater is making an assertion about the
subject, who is Abraham. The assertion is that he is not only the biological or racial
father of the Jews but also the spiritual father of those Jews who like Abraham
placed their absolute confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to receive the
imputation of divine righteousness and justification from God.
“Of circumcision” is the genitive feminine singular form of the noun peritome,
which is a designation for those members of the human race who are descendants
racially of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and members of the nation of Israel.
Therefore, the word denotes nationality distinguishing the Jew from the Gentile. It
refers to those individuals who have received the surgical and ritual act of cutting
the foreskin of the male’s penis as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his
biological descendants that they were set apart by God to be His people.
In Romans 4:12, the noun peritome functions as a “genitive of subordination”
specifying that which is subordinated to or under the dominion of the head noun.
This type of genitive is related to only certain kinds of noun that lexically imply
some kind of rule or authority such as basileus and archon.
In Romans 4:12, the noun pater implies authority in the sense that Abraham is
the progenitor of the Jewish race. Therefore, as a “genitive of subordination”
peritome specifies that the Jewish race is under the dominion of their progenitor,
Abraham. We will translate peritome, “over the circumcision.”
“Not” is the emphatic negative adverb ou, which is used to deny the reality of
an alleged fact and is the clear cut, point-blank negative, objective, final. It
emphatically negates the idea that Abraham’s fatherhood is limited or relegated to
being the biological or racial progenitor of the Jews. The emphatic negative
particle ou denies the alleged fact of Abraham being a progenitor of only the Jews
in a racial or biological sense. In order to bring out the emphatic nature of the
word, we will translate the word “not…absolutely not.”
“Only” is the accusative neuter singular form of the adverb monon, which is
used to modify the genitive of subordination, peritome, “over the circumcision”
and is used to limit the extent of Abraham’s fatherhood or headship.
“To those who are” is the dative masculine plural form of the definite article
ho, which refers exclusively to the Jews as indicated by the prepositional phrase ek
peritomes monon, “of the circumcision only,” which follows it.
The definite article functions as a “substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e.
converts to a noun) the prepositional phrase ouk ek peritomes monon, “not only of
the circumcision.”
The article functions as a “dative of reference” meaning that the dative
substantive use of the article is that in reference to which something is presented as
true. The substantive use of the article is a reference to those members of the
Jewish race since it is used with the prepositional phrase ek peritomes, “of the
circumcision,” which refers to the Jews. Therefore, here in this portion of Romans
4:12, the substantive use of the article functions as a “dative of reference” indicates
that Abraham is not only the progenitor “with reference to those” from the Jewish
race. We will translate the article “with reference to those.”
“Of the circumcision” is composed of the preposition ek and the genitive
feminine singular form of the noun peritome, which once again functions as a
designation for those members of the human race who are descendants racially of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and members of the nation of Israel. Therefore, the
word denotes nationality distinguishing the Jew from the Gentile.
The preposition ek is a marker of the source from which someone is physically
derived. Thus, it marks those members of the human race whose racial background
is Jewish. The genitive form of the noun peritome functions as a “genitive of
source” indicating that the racial origin of these members of the human race is
Jewish.
“But” is the “ascensive” use of the conjunction alla, which introduces a
statement that stands in contrast with the preceding statement that Abraham is not
only the progenitor of a race called the Jews.
The statement introduced says that Abraham is the spiritual father of those Jews
who exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Abraham did prior to being
circumcised. Therefore, the conjunction alla presents a contrast between Abraham
being the progenitor of the Jewish race with that of his being the spiritual father of
those Jews who trust in Jesus Christ as Savior as Abraham did prior to being
circumcised.
“Also” is the “adjunctive” use of the conjunction kai, which is used to introduce
an additional group of individuals in the human race in which Abraham is the
progenitor of, namely, those Jews who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior as
Abraham did prior to being circumcised.
“Who follow” is the articular dative masculine plural present active participle
form of the verb stoicheo, which means, “to imitate, to conduct oneself in the same
manner as someone else.”
In Romans 4:12, the verb stoicheo means, “to imitate, to conduct oneself in the
same manner as someone else” since it is used with the articular dative form of the
noun ichnos, which as we will note means, “example.” The word means, “to
imitate” the example of Abraham who trusted in the Lord to fulfill His promises of
a child and numerous progeny even though he was childless when he received
these promises from the Lord.
The definite article preceding the verb stoicheo functions as a “substantiver”
meaning it converts the verb to a substantive. Therefore, the definite article
preceding the participle functions as a relative pronoun and should be translated
with the English pronoun, “who.”
The substantival participle stoicheo functions as a “dative of reference”
meaning that the dative substantive use of the word is that in reference to which
something is presented as true. It is a reference to those members of the Jewish
race who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior just as Abraham did prior to being
circumcised as indicated by the following expression tes en akrobustia pisteos tou
patros hemon Abraam, “of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while
uncircumcised.”
Therefore, the substantive participle stoicheo functions as a “dative of
reference” indicating that Abraham is spiritual father “with reference to those”
members of the Jewish race who like Abraham exercise faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
The present tense is a “gnomic present,” which describes something as true
“any” time and “does” take place. Therefore, it indicates that Abraham becomes
the spiritual father over those members of the Jewish race who “at any time”
exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Abraham did prior to being circumcised.
The “gnomic present” says that Abraham “does” become the spiritual father
over those members of the Jewish race who place their absolute confidence in the
Lord Jesus Christ as Savior as Abraham did prior to receiving circumcision.

The active voice indicates that the subject performs the action of the verb.
Therefore, it indicates that those members of the Jewish race perform the action of
imitating the example of Abraham by trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.
“In the steps” is the articular dative neuter plural form of the noun ichnos,
which literally means, “footprint, footstep” and metaphorically, it refers an
example set by someone.
In Romans 4:12, Paul uses the word in a figurative sense referring to the
“example” Abraham who placed his absolute confidence in the Lord to fulfill His
promises to him. The noun ichnos functions as a “dative of rule” specifying the
rule or code of conduct a person follows or the standard of conduct to which he or
she conforms. Therefore, the word denotes that these members of the Jewish race
“conform to the example” of Abraham who trusted in the Lord prior to receiving
circumcision. The definite article preceding the noun ichnos is “monadic,” which is
indicated in that is modified by the genitive adjunct tou patros hemon Abraam,
“our father Abraham.” The “monadic” use of the article points out a unique
object that is in a class or category by itself. Therefore, it emphasizes that the
example of Abraham is unique and in a class by itself in that the Lord rewarded his
faith by making him not only the progenitor of the Jews in a racial sense but also
the progenitor of those Gentiles and Jews who exercise faith in the Lord as he did
while yet uncircumcised.
“Of the faith” is the articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun
pistis, which in context refers to Abraham’s non-meritorious decision “to place his
absolute confidence in” the preincarnate Christ to deliver on His promise of a child
and numerous progeny despite the fact that Abraham was childless when he
received the promise.
The noun pistis functions as a “genitive of production,” which takes place when
the genitive substantive “produces” the noun to which it stands related. The noun
pistis stands related to and produces the noun ichnos, “the example.” Therefore, as
a “genitive of production,” the noun pistis indicates that this example was
“produced by the faith” of Abraham.
The genitive feminine singular form of the article does not immediately precede
the noun pistis but rather precedes the prepositional phrase en akrobustia, “while
uncircumcised” in order to convert the prepositional phrase into a substantive or
noun phrase, thus, the translators translate the article “which he had.”
“Of our father” is composed of the articular genitive masculine singular form
of the noun pater, “father” and the genitive 1st person plural form of the personal
pronoun hemeis, “our.”
The noun pater denotes Abraham is the “racial” or “biological” father or
progenitor of the Jews. The word functions as a “subjective” genitive meaning that
it functions semantically as the subject of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun,
which is pistis, “produced by faith.” The definite article preceding the word is
used with the personal pronoun hemeis, “our” to denote possession.
“Our” is the genitive first person plural form of the personal pronoun hemeis,
which indicates that Paul is identifying with the Jews. This is indicated in that in
context, he is contrasting Abraham being the racial progenitor of the Jews with that
of his being the spiritual progenitor of those Jews who like Abraham trust in the
Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. The word functions as a “possessive” pronoun and a
“genitive of possession.” This indicates that Paul and his fellow Jewish
countryman “belong to” Abraham in that they are his biological or racial
descendants.
“Abraham” is the genitive masculine singular form of the proper name
Abraam, which refers to the prophet of God (Genesis 20:7) whose name means,
“father of a multitude,” whose story is recorded in Genesis 11:27-25:11 and who
was the recipient of covenant promises from God as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3, 6-
9; 13:14-18, 15:6, 18-21; 17; 22:15-18. The word functions as a “genitive of
simple apposition” identifying for the reader the progenitor in view.
“Which he had” is the genitive feminine singular form of the definite article
ho, which functions as a “substantiver” meaning it nominalizes (i.e. converts to a
noun) the prepositional phrase en akrobustia, “while uncircumcised.”
when Abraham was uncircumcised, thus, we will translate the word, “when.”
“Uncircumcised” is the articular dative feminine singular form of the noun
akrobustia, which denotes the state of being uncircumcised. The word functions as
a “dative of time” indicating a specific point in time when Abraham was
uncircumcised.
Romans 4:12 In addition that he himself might, as an eternal spiritual
truth, be the father over the circumcision, not only with reference to those
from the circumcision, absolutely not. But also, with reference to those who do
imitate the example produced by our father Abraham’s faith, which he
exercised when uncircumcised. (Author’s translation)
In Romans 4:1-12, Paul concludes that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the only
one way to be declared justified in the judgment of God. God is the “spiritual”
Father of all who place their trust in His Son Jesus Christ regardless of their racial
background, whether Jew or Gentile.
W.H.G. Thomas writes, “It was not for Gentiles to enter by the Jewish gateway
but for the Jews to enter by the same gateway as the Gentiles. This was indeed a
striking turning of the tables on Jewish exclusiveness” (St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, page 136)]).
Remember, in chapter four, Paul is attempting to demonstrate to his Jewish
audience that the message of his gospel, that justification by means of faith, is not a
new method of salvation since God has always declared men justified by means of
faith in Him. He attempts to answer possible objections, which might be offered by
his Jewish audience as a result of his teaching in Romans chapter three.
In Romans 1:18-3:8, Paul presents the evidence against both Jew and Gentile.
In Romans 3:9, he arraigns the entire human race in the court room of heaven. In
Romans 3:10-17, he indicts them and in Romans 3:18, he presents the motive
behind the human race’s crimes against a holy God. In Romans 3:19-20, he
presents the guilty verdict, declaring that every member of the human race without
exception is worthy of eternal condemnation, having absolutely no merit with God.
In Romans 3:21-31, Paul argues that Jesus Christ received the death penalty on
behalf of the entire human race with His spiritual death satisfying the demands of
God’s holiness, which required that human sin be judged. In this passage, Paul
teaches that the sinner is declared justified by God by means of faith in Jesus
Christ apart from observing the Law, which would exclude human boasting
meaning that no human being has merit with God except for Jesus Christ.
In Romans 4:1-5, Paul presents Abraham as an example from the Mosaic Law
whose story is recorded in the first book of the Law, Genesis. Paul quotes Genesis
15:6, which emphasizes that Abraham was declared justified by means of his faith
in the Lord. Then, in Romans 4:6-8, he presents David as an example from the
Prophets. On the day of Pentecost, Peter attested to the fact that David was not
only a king but also a prophet from God (See Acts 2:29-30). Then, in Romans 4:9-
12, Paul anticipates the arguments of the Judaizers who might infer that
justification and the forgiveness of sins were intended for the Jew only. The reason
being is that he had just cited examples from the Old Testament to confirm his
teaching in Romans 3:21-31 that justification is by means of faith in Jesus rather
than by a meritorious system of works.
The Old Testament was given to the nation of Israel exclusively and not
Gentiles, thus by citing Old Testament passages, Paul’s opponents might infer
from this that salvation is for the Jew only and not the Gentile. Paul’s premise is
that Abraham’s faith was regarded by God as righteousness and in fact, divine
righteousness was credited to him. The question arises, “Was this declaration of
righteousness made before or after Abraham obeyed the Lord’s command to be
circumcised?” The obvious answer is that it was before he observed the ritual of
circumcision.
Abraham became the first Jew when he obeyed the Lord’s command to be
circumcised. Circumcision was to be the sign of the covenant that the Lord made
with Abraham and his progeny, i.e. the nation of Israel. Therefore, Abraham was
saved as a Gentile before he received circumcision.
Abraham was saved several hundred years before Moses received the Law from
the Lord on Mount Sinai. However, some Jews might argue that the Lord gave
Abraham the command to be circumcised, thus identifying him with the nation of
Israel and the Law. But the chronology of events in Genesis as we noted reveals
that Abraham received the righteousness of God well before he obeyed the
command to be circumcised. Thus, in Romans chapter four, Paul presents
incontrovertible evidence from the Old Testament Scriptures that justification by
means of faith has always been the method by which God saves the sinner.
Therefore, in Romans 4, we can see the apostle Paul skillfully continuing to build
his case that the justification of the sinner is by means of faith regardless of your
racial background.

Circumcision Revised October

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Circumcision Revised October

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Circumcision Revised October

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Circumcision

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2

In the Greek New Testament, “circumcision” translates the noun peritome

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 5

Genesis 17 records Abram receiving circumcision as a sign of the covenant that

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 7

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 8

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 9

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 11

Romans 2:25-Disobedience to the Law Negates the Value of Circumcision

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 13

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 14

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 17

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 20

Romans 2:26-Perfect Gentile Obedience without the Ritual of Circumcision is

In Romans 2:26, Paul poses a rhetorical question, which demands a positive

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 22

Romans 2:27-Obedient Gentile Conduct Would Serve As Evidence Against the

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 26

Romans 2:28-Authentic Jewishness and Circumcision are not Based on Externals

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 32

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 33

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 34

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 35

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 36

Romans 2:29-Authentic Jewishness and Circumcision are Based on the Internal

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 39

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 40

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 42

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 44

Romans 3:1-2-The Chief Advantage of Being a Jew: Custodians of the Old

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 48

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 51

Romans 4:9-10-Abraham Was Justified While Uncircumcised and Not When

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 56

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 59

Romans 4:11-The Two-Fold Purpose of Circumcision

In Romans 4:11, Paul reveals the two-fold purpose of circumcision.

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 64

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 69

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 71

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 73

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 78

2012 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 82

You might also like