In vers. 25-29 another Jewish plea for preferential treatment in the judgment is considered. , The μὲν in ver. 25 (περιτομή μὲν yap ὠφελεῖ) implies that this plea has no doubt something in it, but it suggests that there are considerations on the other side which in point of fact make it in- applicable or invalid here. It is these considerations which the Apostle pro- ceeds to explain, with a view to clench- ing the argument that the wrath of God revealed from heaven impends over Jew and Gentile alike.
Ver. 25. περιτομή: the absence of the article suggests that the argument may
51-20.
> , , :ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν.
601
26. ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώµατα τοῦ
νόµου φυλάσσῃ, οὐχὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ eis περιτομὴν λογισθή- ἴσεται; 27. καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόµον Ἱτελοῦσα q Jas. ii. 8.
σὲ τὸν ’ διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόµου. 28. οὐ γὰρτ Ch. iv. 11,
ς 3 - ~ 3 μαι 3 > 4 ς 3 ~ - 3 ‘ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ιουδαῖός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ Φανερῷ ἐν σαρκι
Xiv. 20,
περιτομή: 29. Gd’ 6 ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας
«ἐν πνεύµατι, οὐ γράμματι.
‘be extended to everything of the same -character ascircumcision. ὠφελεῖ: Cir- ‘cumcision was the seal of the covenant, and as such an assurance given to the circumcised man that he belonged to the race which was the heir of God’s pro- ‘mises. That was undeniably a great advantage, just as it is an advantage now to be born a Christian; but if the -actual inheriting of the promises has any moral conditions attached to it (as Paul proceeds to show that it has), then ‘the advantage of circumcision lapses un- Jess these are fulfilled. Now the persons -contemplated here have not fulfilled them. ἐὰν vépov πράσσῃς: the habitual “practice of the law is involved in this ex- pression: as Vaughan says, it is almost like a compound word, ‘‘ if thou be a law ἄοεγ”. Similarly παραβάτης vopov a law-transgressor. The law, of course, is the Mosaic one, but it is regarded simply in its character as law, not as being definitely this law: hence the ab- ‘sence of the article. yéyove: by the ‘very fact becomes and remains.
Ver. 26f. Heretheinference is drawn ‘from the principle laid down in ver. 25. This being so, Paul argues, if the un- circumcision maintain the just require- ments of the law, shall not his uncir- .cumcision be accounted circumcision, sc., because it has really done what circum- -cision pledged the Jew todo? Cf. Gal. ν.3. 7 ἀκροβυστία at the beginning of ‘the verse is equivalent to the Gentiles (ἔθνη of νετ. 14), the abstract being put for the concrete: in ἡ ἀκροβνστία αὐτοῦ, the αὐτοῦ individualises a person who is -conceived as keeping the law, though not circumcised. As he has done what circumcision bound the Jew to do, he will be treated as ifin the Jew’s position : his uncircumcision will be reckoned as circumcision. λογισθήσεται may be merely a logical future, but like the other futures in vers. 12-16 it is pro- bably more correct to refer it to what will take place at the last judgment. The order of the words in ver. 27 indicates that the question is not continued: ‘* and
οὗ 6 ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ δι Cor.iv.s,
thus the uncircumcision shall judge thee,” etc. κρινεῖ is emphatic by position: the Jew, in the case supposed, is so far from being able to assert a superiority to the Gentile that the Gentile hireself will be his condemnation. Cf. Mt. xii. 41 f. ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία should properly convey one idea—‘ those who are by nature uncircumcised ”’. But why should nature be mentioned at all in this connection? It seems arbitrary to say with Hofmann that it is referred to in order to suggest that uncircumcision is what the Gentile is born in, and there- fore involves no guilt. As far as that goes, Jew and Gentile are alike. Hence in spite of the grammatical irregularity, which in any case is not too great for 2 nervous writer like Paul, I prefer to connect ἐκ Φύσεως, as Bustee does (Moods and Tenses, § 427), with τελοῦσα, and to render: ‘the uncircumcision which by nature fulfils the law”: ef. νετ. 14. Tov διὰ γράμματος καὶ περι- Tonys παραβάτην νόµου. The διὰ is that which describes the circumstances under which, or the accompaniment to which, anything is done. The Jew isa law-transgressor, in spite of the facts that he possesses a written revelation ot God’s will, and bears the seal of the covenant, obliging him to the perfor- mance of the law, upon his body. He has an outward standard, which does not vary with his moral condition, like the law written in the pagan’s heart; he has an outward pledge that he belongs to the people of God, toencourage him when he is tempted to indolence or despair; in both these respects he has an immense advantage over the Gentile, yet both are neutralised by this—he is a law-trans- gressor.