Ver. 28 f. The argument of the fore- going verses assumes what is stated here, and what no one will dispute, that what constitutes, the Jew in the true sense of the term, and gives the name of Jew its proper content and dignity, is not anything outward and visible, but something inward and spiritual. And
602
τοῦ Θεοῦ.
τῆς περιτομῆς; 2. πολὺ, κατὰ πάντα τρόπον.
1γαρ om. ΒΡΙ vulg.; ins. NAD°KL Syr.
Ill.
III. τ. Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου, ἢ τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια,
πρῶτον μὲν yap! ὅτι
It is bracketed by Westcott andi
Hort, omitted by Lachmann and Tregelles, inserted by Tischdf.
the same remark applies to circumcision itself. The most natural way to read the Greek seems tome tobe this. ‘‘ Not he who is so outwardly (6 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ| is a Jew (in the true sense), nor is that which is outward, in flesh, the true cir- cumcision; but he who is inwardly a Jew (is the true Jew), and heart circum- cision, in spirit, not in letter (is the true circumcision).” Thus in the first pair of clauses there is not anything, strictly speaking, to be supplied ; the subject is in each case involved in the article. But in the second pair the predicate has in both cases to be supplied from the first— in the one case, Ιουδαῖος; in the other, περιτοµή. Heart circumcision is an idea already familiar to the O.T. From the Book of Deuteronomy (x. 16, for the meaning comp. xxx. 6) it passed to the prophetic writings: Jer. iv. 4. The con- trary expression—uncircumcised in heart and in flesh—is also found: Jer. ix. 26, Ez. xliv. 7. A difficulty is created by the ex- pression ἐν πνεύµατι ov γράµµατι. After νετ. 28 we rather expect ἐν mvevpatt οὐ σαρκί: the circumcision being con- ceived as in one and not another part of man’s nature. Practically it is in this sense most commentators take the words : thus Gifford explains them by ‘a circumcision which does not stop short at outward conformity to the law, but extends to the sphere of the inner life”’. But there is no real correspondence here, such as there is in ἐν mvevpare οὐ σαρκί; and a comparison of 2 Cor. iii., a chapter pervaded by the contrast of πνεῦμα and ypappa, suggests a different rendering. πνεῦμα and γράμμα are not the elements in which, but the powers by which, the circumcision is conceived to be effected. ‘‘ Heart circumcision,” without any qualifying words, expresses completely that contrast to circumcision in the flesh, which is in Paul’s mind; and what he adds in the new words, ἐν πνεύματι ov γράµµατι is the new idea that heart circumcision, which alone de- serves the name of circumcision, is achieved by the Spirit of God, not by the written law. Whether there is such a thing as this heart circumcision, wrought by the Spirit, among the Jews, is not explicitly considered ; but it is not
a- refutation of this interpretation to: point out that πνεῦμα in 2 Cor. is charac- teristically the gift of the New Covenant. For the very conclusion to which Paul wishes to lead is that the New Covenant is as necessary for the Jew as for the Gentile. οὗ 6 ἔπαινος κ.τ.λ. The οὗ. is masculine, and refers to the ideal Jew. The name Ἰουδαῖος (from Judah= praise, Gen. xxix. 35) probably suggested this remark. οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων: the love of praise from each other, and religious. vanity, are Jewish characteristics strongly commented on by our Lord (John v. 44, xii. 42 f.).
CuaPTeR III.—Vers. 1-8. It might easily seem, at this point, as if the Apostle’s argument had proved too much. He has shown that the mere possession of the law does not exempt the Jew from judgment, but that God requires its fulfilment ; he has shown that circumcision in the flesh, seal though it be of the covenant and pledge of its promises, is only of value if it represent inward heart circumcision; he has, it may be argued, reduced the Jew to a position of entire equality with the Gentile. But the consciousness of the Jewish race must protest against such a conclusion. ‘* Salvation is of the Jews”’ is a word of Christ Himself, and the Apostle is obliged to meet this instinctive protest of the ancient people of God. The whole of the difficulties it raises are more elaborately considered in chaps.. ix.-xi.; here it is only discussed so far as to make plain that it does not in- validate the arguments of chap. ii., nor har the development of the Apostle’s. theology. The advantage of the Jew is admitted; it is admitted that his un- belief may even act as a foil to God’s faithfulness, setting it in more glorious relief; but it is insisted, that if God’s character as righteous judge of the world is to be maintained—as it must be —these admissions do not exempt the Jew from that liability to judgment which has just been demonstrated. The details of the interpretation, especially in ver. 7 f., are somewhat perplexed.