What "law" is Romans 2:26 talking about?

[Komentaja]

Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?


What law is Paul referring to? In context Paul mentions gentiles have some law written inside of them. On one hand the context makes it sound like its the law of Moses (as its a law jews HAVE and gentiles DONT) but that interpretation doesn't really make much sense as no gentile really has any idea about the dietary laws circumcision and so on that would INCLUDE in "keeping the righteous requirements of the law" so maybe this is something different? Its tricky as circumcision IS part of the law, so how could the gentile keep the righteous requirements of the law, but NOT be circumcised?


I know Paul refers to many "laws" in his writings, sometimes its the law of Christ, sometimes, Moses, sometimes the law of "sin and death" etc. But I believe this law here may be talking about something like the 10 commandments, perhaps? Give your opinions friends, I didn't post the context of the verse but im sure you guys can look it up and you probably already know it! PS: no comments about no one keeping the law etc. i know i know Paul concludes with that in Romans 3. But this thread is about what LAW Paul had in mind here.

 

[Komentaja]

This same mystery is also in the verse where Paul writes: 1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

How can it be nothing if circumcision IS a commandment of God? So this again, leads me to believe this is talking about maybe the "moral law" and not the "ceremonial law". I know the Old Testament doesn't separate laws like that, but verses like these lead me to believe there is such a separation. So the commandments would be something like the 10 commandments here. What say ye?

 

[JaumeJ]

Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?


What law is Paul referring to? In context Paul mentions gentiles have some law written inside of them. On one hand the context makes it sound like its the law of Moses (as its a law jews HAVE and gentiles DONT) but that interpretation doesn't really make much sense as no gentile really has any idea about the dietary laws circumcision and so on that would INCLUDE in "keeping the righteous requirements of the law" so maybe this is something different? Its tricky as circumcision IS part of the law, so how could the gentile keep the righteous requirements of the law, but NOT be circumcised?


I know Paul refers to many "laws" in his writings, sometimes its the law of Christ, sometimes, Moses, sometimes the law of "sin and death" etc. But I believe this law here may be talking about something like the 10 commandments, perhaps? Give your opinions friends, I didn't post the context of the verse but im sure you guys can look it up and you probably already know it! PS: no comments about no one keeping the law etc. i know i know Paul concludes with that in Romans 3. But this thread is about what LAW Paul had in mind here.

I believe Jesus is making reference to righteousness of the law, but not all of the laws. It is written upon the hearts of all who come to believe Him. As He told the hypocrites, the law should be applied only if it contains mercy, justice, etc.

Why would anhyone not obey His explanation of how the law is to be treated? Love and mercy.....

 

[MessengerofTruth]

This same mystery is also in the verse where Paul writes: 1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

How can it be nothing if circumcision IS a commandment of God? So this again, leads me to believe this is talking about maybe the "moral law" and not the "ceremonial law". I know the Old Testament doesn't separate laws like that, but verses like these lead me to believe there is such a separation. So the commandments would be something like the 10 commandments here. What say ye?

Circumcision stands for the work of circumcision in our heart when GOD actually writes His Law in our hearts. This is why it is no longer relevant as a literal law to obey just as we no longer sacrifice because this has been fulfilled in Christ. Just my understanding on this and look forward to reading others responses.

 

[Mem]

So this again, leads me to believe this is talking about maybe the "moral law" and not the "ceremonial law".

I know the Old Testament doesn't separate laws like that, but verses like these lead me to believe there is such a separation. So the commandments would be something like the 10 commandments here. What say ye?

If we separate the OT designation of the law from the NT perspective, I think we can make the distinction of a difference between death and life, respectively. The former law is of sin (which is of our own) and death which have been dealt with by the latter which is of righteousness (and that not of our own) and life (also not of our own). I think this is an accurate way to look at them considering Jesus' death is, legally (the justice qualified?), "not of His own,'' which is the mercy applied. Justice and mercy meet.

Galatians 5 tells us that the acts of the flesh are obvious, immorality, impurity, debauchery, etc and the fruits (production, also acts?) of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. and against such things there is no law (Galatians 5: 22-3). Could we perhaps designate this as the "law of faith and love"?
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love (Galatians 5:6)."

Circumcision results in a more sensitive organ and, in regard to the heart, this is speaking of a more empathic sensitivity, imo. Afterall, what is said of Jesus but that He is able to sympathize with our weaknesses?

And this is how "The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14).

I think, if we crucify our (own) flesh, or sense of justice (the desiree for instant gratification) (and not, although we rather tend toward it, crucify our neighbor), for the sake of mercy (exercising faith that our Lord is competent to work (expressed through love) and/or judge Himself), we then fulfill this "law of righteousness" which follows after the example of Christ.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? What law is Paul referring to?

The Ten Commandments.

 

[Komentaja]

The Ten Commandments.

Thanks brother. That is what I had in mind as well, I believe its the 10 commandments, its something that most unsaved people would even agree with, like adultery, stealing, murder etc is wrong. But it definitely could not have been the entire 613 mitzvot which included circumcision, animal sacrifices, dietary laws, not mixing fabrics and so on, as gentiles do not have a CLUE about these, nor are they written in their hearts.

I have a follow up question for you: Is there somewhere in the Bible where the "10 commandments" are set apart from "the laws/ordinances/etc" ? Like they are mentioned in a separate way or something? I remember once reading that in the Ark you had the BOOK OF THE LAW, one entity, and then another entity which was the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but I cant remember where I read it

 

[Magenta]

Romans 13:10

 

[Seeker47]

Thanks brother. That is what I had in mind as well, I believe its the 10 commandments, its something that most unsaved people would even agree with, like adultery, stealing, murder etc is wrong. But it definitely could not have been the entire 613 mitzvot which included circumcision, animal sacrifices, dietary laws, not mixing fabrics and so on, as gentiles do not have a CLUE about these, nor are they written in their hearts.

I have a follow up question for you: Is there somewhere in the Bible where the "10 commandments" are set apart from "the laws/ordinances/etc" ? Like they are mentioned in a separate way or something? I remember once reading that in the Ark you had the BOOK OF THE LAW, one entity, and then another entity which was the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but I cant remember where I read it

Yes there is. The Commandments were given directly to God's people by God himself from the top of a mountain in fire, smoke and earth quake. He then physically wrote them in stone for his people and commanded them to keep them forever. All other "laws/ordinances/etc." flow from them. The Decalogue is the bedrock.

 

[ResidentAlien]

It's clear from the context he's talking about the written code, the Tanakh, the Old Testament. But trying to figure out what "law" he's talking about completely misses the whole point. Paul's point is that it's not those who have the outward signs of a relationship with God but those whose hearts are right before Him, and who do His will.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?


What law is Paul referring to? In context Paul mentions gentiles have some law written inside of them. On one hand the context makes it sound like its the law of Moses (as its a law jews HAVE and gentiles DONT) but that interpretation doesn't really make much sense as no gentile really has any idea about the dietary laws circumcision and so on that would INCLUDE in "keeping the righteous requirements of the law" so maybe this is something different? Its tricky as circumcision IS part of the law, so how could the gentile keep the righteous requirements of the law, but NOT be circumcised?


I know Paul refers to many "laws" in his writings, sometimes its the law of Christ, sometimes, Moses, sometimes the law of "sin and death" etc. But I believe this law here may be talking about something like the 10 commandments, perhaps? Give your opinions friends, I didn't post the context of the verse but im sure you guys can look it up and you probably already know it! PS: no comments about no one keeping the law etc. i know i know Paul concludes with that in Romans 3. But this thread is about what LAW Paul had in mind here.

The Gentiles have a circumcised heart. - Verse 29.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I have a follow up question for you: Is there somewhere in the Bible where the "10 commandments" are set apart from "the laws/ordinances/etc" ?

Yes, the Ten Commandments are distinct from all the others as follows:
1. They were written on tablets of stone twice by the finger of God (Jesus).
2. They were placed in the Ark of the Covenant by God's command.
3. They were later on found in the Ark of the Covenant while all other contents had disappeared.
4. They are now is Heaven since that is where the Ark was taken before the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.
5. They were integrated into the Law of Love by Paul (Romans 13).

 

[studentoftheword]

Paul is talking about the 613 laws as that was what the Jews had to keep ----not just the 10 commandments ------I believe as he is confronting Jews -------

in this verse 21 ----we see Paul giving examples -----which are from the 10 Commandments ----but the Jews were to keep all 613 and they even added their own rules to keep ---like washing your hand before eating -------

Romans 2 NIV
21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?

22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]

 

[Komentaja]

2. They were placed in the Ark of the Covenant by God's command.
3. They were later on found in the Ark of the Covenant while all other contents had disappeared.
4. They are now is Heaven since that is where the Ark was taken before the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.
.

If I may, do you happen to have Bible verses for these parts I left in the quote? Parts 2. 3. and 4.

 

[Edify]

4. They are now is Heaven since that is where the Ark was taken before the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

So, how come God did not judge the Babylonians like He did the Philistines?
I don't believe it was taken because there was no such judgment during that time.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?


What law is Paul referring to? In context Paul mentions gentiles have some law written inside of them. On one hand the context makes it sound like its the law of Moses (as its a law jews HAVE and gentiles DONT) but that interpretation doesn't really make much sense as no gentile really has any idea about the dietary laws circumcision and so on that would INCLUDE in "keeping the righteous requirements of the law" so maybe this is something different? Its tricky as circumcision IS part of the law, so how could the gentile keep the righteous requirements of the law, but NOT be circumcised?


I know Paul refers to many "laws" in his writings, sometimes it’s the law of Christ, sometimes, Moses, sometimes the law of "sin and death" etc. But I believe this law here may be talking about something like the 10 commandments, perhaps? Give your opinions friends, I didn't post the context of the verse but im sure you guys can look it up and you probably already know it! PS: no comments about no one keeping the law etc. i know i know Paul concludes with that in Romans 3. But this thread is about what LAW Paul had in mind here.

This is what he’s talking about the point he’s making he’s comparing Jew and gentile saying it doesn’t matter if your a Jew or a gentile if you’ve done th things the law said to do or if you haven’t don’t those things is what matters regarding judgement and sin

“For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:

and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

(for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:12-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That whole chapter is really about hypocracy and judging people guilty who sin when we ourselves have also sinned in some other way and claim justification freely for ourselves but not for those we judge and condemn

“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

a person that doesn’t commit adultery but is a liar ll always judge adultery as a terrible sin needing to be corrected but lying ? That’s just something we all do the liar will conclude

a thief , he says those lord and adulterers I’ll be held to account unless they repent !!

But a thief that’s not that big of a deal Jesus accepts thieves and is willing to forgive

liars thieves and adulterers they say “ I’d never kill anyone or sweet and false testimony that’s the stuff that’s really going to be judged , but me ? My sins are all forgiven but boy howdie if I kill and sweet false testimony I need to repent

sinners judging sinners is hypocracy whether they were under the law as a Jew or not as a gentile doesn’t have any significance whatsoever a liar calling a thief a sinner Ike denying thier own sin is hypocracy Paul’s main point there I. All he’s saying is that everyone is going to face the exact same judgement so we better start forgiving and not judging other sinners we need mercy so we need to be merciful towards others mistakes and shortcomings or we won’t have any mercy ourselves

 

[Nehemiah6]

So, how come God did not judge the Babylonians like He did the Philistines?

The Bible says that God did judge Babylon.

 

[Edify]

The Bible says that God did judge Babylon.

When the philistines did it, scriptures told the complete story about it. During the Babylonian occupation, absolutely nothing is written.
That interpretation would be eisogesis.
Something that significant would have been written.

 

[Moses_Young]

So, how come God did not judge the Babylonians like He did the Philistines?
I don't believe it was taken because there was no such judgment during that time.

Weren't the Babylonians obeying God (to a degree) by enslaving Israel as God had summoned Nebuchadnezzar, whereas with the Philistines, their actions against Israel were more out of their own desires? I'm not really sure about this - just putting it out there for comment.

 

[Seeker47]

Weren't the Babylonians obeying God (to a degree) by enslaving Israel as God had summoned Nebuchadnezzar, whereas with the Philistines, their actions against Israel were more out of their own desires? I'm not really sure about this - just putting it out there for comment.

I believe you are correct. The Babylonian Empire did fall to the Median/Persian Empire but were more incorporated than destroyed.