This Jew found comfort, Paul would point out, on the fact of the Law and the special relationship the Jew had with God (v17). The moralistic Jew would boast in this relationship and in the knowledge of God's will regarding morality because the Jew received instruction from the very Law itself.

The problem was that although they had all these things, they ignored the fact that God required the teachers to be holy on the inside as well as being an example on the outside. Paul fires off a list of questions to this moralist Jew who is standing on the law: You preach against stealing, he asks, do you steal? You tell others to commit adultery do you commit adultery? You abhor idols do you rob temples? He points out that the Jew who boasts in the law dishonors God by transgressing the Law!

It's not too hard to draw a parallel with our own churches if but for a moment. Do our own churches boast in our position in Christ to the point of ignoring the hypocrisy in our churches? Do we rely on our special role and ignore the inner reality of our lives?   We can even bring to the light those churches who are of Christ only by name and who justify any of their actions and inactions by their position before the word of God. Like an authority in the matters of God they may attest to such a positional standing before God and ignore the reality that they are committing the same things they profess against.

This is not the conclusion that Paul is drawing in this passage, of course, as if the only purpose of him writing this is to tell the moralist Jew to stop his hypocrisy. No, Paul's conclusion comes to a climax a bit later, but for now he is illustrating that this hypocrisy isn't only giving God a bad reputation but is in effect resulting in blasphemy at the lips and actions of the Gentiles.

Paul quotes a passage from Isaiah 52, poetic in genre, which focuses on the captivity of Israel as being for "no reason". We of course know that Israel went into captivity because of their constant sin, and yet that is not the current focus of the poetry passage in Isaiah. The focus of the writer in this poem is to illustrate how the wicked that hold the Israelite captives blaspheme God and taunt Him because His people are wearing iron chains on their hands. He subsequently goes on to point out how His people will know Him when He says, "Here I am" still speaking poetically. Why? Because news will come over the mountain tops bringing good news that "Our God Reigns!"   That is the future reality the prophet is saying, but currently, under captivity and in weakness the nations laugh and taunt.

Paul draws a parallel to those happenings by illustrating that the Jew in a spiritual bondage of his heart is justifying the blasphemy at the lips of the Gentiles. How does Paul illustrate this but in the very symbol of the circumcision.

The circumcision, given to Abraham and his children, was to be the sign of being set apart for God. Paul points out that if a Jew who is circumcised on the outside foreskin lives a life that is contrary to the law, his actions illustrate that the foreskin of his heart is yet to be circumcised. The Jew ignoring the written code and claiming to be on God's side is making God out to be a point of derision to those around.

Paul also uses a contrast to illustrate his point. He puts forward a question: if one who is uncircumcised physically goes on to keep an unwritten code does his uncircumcision prove to be a circumcision? In other words, if the Gentile does what the Jew should be doing is he then a Jew by the Spirit instead of by the flesh?

Now tread carefully here. Some of us may excitedly jump to the conclusion that we Gentiles—our hearts circumcised by God—are now the Jews in this new age, a nation of priests and for whom all the previous promises of Israel currently apply. Tread very carefully and make sure to follow the thought flow of the passage. In the same way that Paul uses a hypothetical to illustrate a point elsewhere, he may be using it here as well. Or, if you will, Paul may be using a contrast not to prove the point of a new Jew but rather to prove the point of the Jew's condemnation? Where would we possibly find a clue to the idea that Paul is not making a point of change of the Jewish nation?

Note that in the very first verse of chapter three, the next verse in this section underneath the same thought flow is this: "what advantage does the Jew have or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way! (3:1)"

If there was a change of the Israelite nation is Paul here now speaking to the new Israel? What advantage does the New Israel have or what is the value of circumcision of the heart? Especially when we see the answer to the questions posited.

No, Paul wasn't describing a new Israel and a change of relational rewards. Paul was illustrating the point of the Jews being just as guilty as the Gentiles and in bondage of the sin that enslaved the Gentiles. In the next chapter, Paul states the point clearly and we will see that next time.

-r