j*****7
发帖数: 10575 | 1 2:17你称为犹太人，又倚靠律法，且指着神夸口。
2:18既从律法中受了教训，就晓得神的旨意，也能分别是非（或作也喜爱那美好的事）
2:19又深信自己是给瞎子领路的，是黑暗中人的光，
2:20是蠢笨人的师傅，是小孩子的先生，在律法上有知识和真理的模范。
2:21你既是教导别人，还不教导自己麽。你讲说人不可偷窃，自己还偷窃麽。
2:22你说人不可奸淫，自己还奸淫麽。你厌恶偶像，自己还偷窃庙中之物麽。
2:23你指着律法夸口，自己倒犯律法，玷辱神麽。
2:24神的名在外邦人中，因你们受了亵渎，正如经上所记的。
2:25你若是行律法的割礼固然于你有益。若是犯律法的，你的割礼就算不得割礼。
2:26所以那未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。
2:27然而那本来未受割礼的，若能全守律法，岂不是要审判你这有仪文和割礼竟犯律法
的人麽。
2:28因为外面作犹太人的，不是真犹太人，外面肉身的割礼，也不是真割礼。
2:29惟有里面作的，才是真犹太人。真割礼也是心里的，在乎灵，不在乎仪文。这人的
称赞不是从人来的，乃是从神来的。
2:17 犹太人，客观上的优势在于他们是律法的传承者，主观上他们以此夸口，因为他
们是神的选民
2：18 有了律法，就能更加清楚无误的明白神的旨意，相较那些只有内心律法的外帮人
2：19 并且犹太人深信，他们借着神的律法，可以帮助那些在真理上迷茫的人
2：20 在律法知识上高人一等，是真理的代言人
2：21 可惜在教导别人之余，竟然忘记教导自己
2：22 虽然明白律法并且教导他人，可自己还是犯律法
2：23 虽然他们在律法上自以为义，却在行为上犯律法，亏缺了神的名
2：24 因为犹太人的这种表里不一，神的名在不信的人中间被亵渎
2：25 割礼作为神与犹太人先祖亚伯拉罕立约的凭据，成为犹太人引以为傲的事情。可
是，明知故犯，使得立约的凭据也变得毫无意义
2：26 身体未受割礼的人，如果心中遵行神的律法，缺具有割礼的实际意义
2：27 遵守律法的外帮人，将来要审判那些空有其表，不守律法的犹太人
2：28 信仰的本质，不在于外在的东西
2：29 而是内心。这是神说的
总结：
第一章讲到普遍启示（自然）下人的悖逆，
第二章讲到特殊启示（圣经，律法）下人的悖逆，
接下来，第三章得出结论，所有人都是悖逆的，一个义人都没有 | w******g
发帖数: 10018 | 2 阿门！第一章讲到普遍启示（自然）下人的悖逆，第二章讲到特殊启示（圣经，律法）
下人的悖逆，这个总结好。
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 2:17你称为犹太人，又倚靠律法，且指着神夸口。
: 2:18既从律法中受了教训，就晓得神的旨意，也能分别是非（或作也喜爱那美好的事）
: 2:19又深信自己是给瞎子领路的，是黑暗中人的光，
: 2:20是蠢笨人的师傅，是小孩子的先生，在律法上有知识和真理的模范。
: 2:21你既是教导别人，还不教导自己麽。你讲说人不可偷窃，自己还偷窃麽。
: 2:22你说人不可奸淫，自己还奸淫麽。你厌恶偶像，自己还偷窃庙中之物麽。
: 2:23你指着律法夸口，自己倒犯律法，玷辱神麽。
: 2:24神的名在外邦人中，因你们受了亵渎，正如经上所记的。
: 2:25你若是行律法的割礼固然于你有益。若是犯律法的，你的割礼就算不得割礼。
: 2:26所以那未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。
| R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 3 this is Calvinism version.
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 2:17你称为犹太人，又倚靠律法，且指着神夸口。
: 2:18既从律法中受了教训，就晓得神的旨意，也能分别是非（或作也喜爱那美好的事）
: 2:19又深信自己是给瞎子领路的，是黑暗中人的光，
: 2:20是蠢笨人的师傅，是小孩子的先生，在律法上有知识和真理的模范。
: 2:21你既是教导别人，还不教导自己麽。你讲说人不可偷窃，自己还偷窃麽。
: 2:22你说人不可奸淫，自己还奸淫麽。你厌恶偶像，自己还偷窃庙中之物麽。
: 2:23你指着律法夸口，自己倒犯律法，玷辱神麽。
: 2:24神的名在外邦人中，因你们受了亵渎，正如经上所记的。
: 2:25你若是行律法的割礼固然于你有益。若是犯律法的，你的割礼就算不得割礼。
: 2:26所以那未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。
| r********7
发帖数: 887 | 4 耶稣就是律法的实际，道成肉身，取了人的样式，来到我们里面。
所以我们就是那“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼
麽。”
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 2:17你称为犹太人，又倚靠律法，且指着神夸口。
: 2:18既从律法中受了教训，就晓得神的旨意，也能分别是非（或作也喜爱那美好的事）
: 2:19又深信自己是给瞎子领路的，是黑暗中人的光，
: 2:20是蠢笨人的师傅，是小孩子的先生，在律法上有知识和真理的模范。
: 2:21你既是教导别人，还不教导自己麽。你讲说人不可偷窃，自己还偷窃麽。
: 2:22你说人不可奸淫，自己还奸淫麽。你厌恶偶像，自己还偷窃庙中之物麽。
: 2:23你指着律法夸口，自己倒犯律法，玷辱神麽。
: 2:24神的名在外邦人中，因你们受了亵渎，正如经上所记的。
: 2:25你若是行律法的割礼固然于你有益。若是犯律法的，你的割礼就算不得割礼。
: 2:26所以那未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。
| R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 5 Paul wrote Romans to educate Christian Jews.
to chinese, circumcision is nonsense.
【在 r********7 的大作中提到】
: 耶稣就是律法的实际，道成肉身，取了人的样式，来到我们里面。
: 所以我们就是那“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼
: 麽。”
| R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 6 没有一个义人 is also used by Paul to teach Christian Jews that Jews are as b
ad as gentiles in nature.
but false prophet Augustine and John Calvin use it as a disgrace the humanit
y
【在 R*o 的大作中提到】
: Paul wrote Romans to educate Christian Jews.
: to chinese, circumcision is nonsense.
| j*****7
发帖数: 10575 | 7 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
【在 r********7 的大作中提到】
: 耶稣就是律法的实际，道成肉身，取了人的样式，来到我们里面。
: 所以我们就是那“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼
: 麽。”
| R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 8 创6:9|9挪亚的后代记在下面:挪亚是个义人，在当时的世代是个完全人。挪亚与 神同
行。
彼后2:7|7只搭救了那常为恶人淫行忧伤的义人罗得。
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 9
17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy
boast of God,
"
7. Behold, thou art named a Jew, etc. Some old copies read εἰ δ&#
8050;, though indeed; which, were it generally received, would meet my
approbation; but as the greater part of the manuscripts is opposed to it,
and the sense is not unsuitable, I retain the old reading, especially as it
is only a small difference of one letter.[77]
Having now completed what he meant to say of the Gentiles, he returns to the
Jews; and that he might, with greater force, beat down their great vanity,
he allows them all those privileges, by which they were beyond measure
transported and inflated: and then he shows how insufficient they were for
the attainment of true glory, yea, how they turned to their reproach. Under
the name Jew he includes all the privileges of the nation, which they vainly
pretended were derived from the law and the prophets; and so he comprehends
all the Israelites, all of whom were then, without any difference, called
Jews.
But at what time this name first originated it is uncertain, except that it
arose, no doubt, after the dispersion.[78]
Josephus, in the eleventh book of his Antiquities, thinks that it was taken
from Judas Maccabæus, under whose auspices the liberty and honor of the
people, after having for some time fallen, and been almost buried, revived
again. Though I allow this opinion to be probable, yet, if there be some to
whom it is not satisfactory, I will offer them a conjecture of my own. It
seems, indeed, very likely, that after having been degraded and scattered
through so many disasters, they were not able to retain any certain
distinction as to their tribes; for a census could not have been made at
that time, nor did there exist a regular government, which was necessary to
preserve an order of this kind; and they dwelt scattered and in disorder;
and having been worn out by adversities, they were no doubt less attentive
to the records of their kindred. But though you may not grant these things
to me, yet it cannot be denied but that a danger of this kind was connected
with such disturbed state of things. Whether, then, they meant to provide
for the future, or to remedy an evil already received, they all, I think
assumed the name of that tribe, in which the purity of religion remained the
longest, and which, by a peculiar privilege, excelled all the rest, as from
it the Redeemer was expected to come; for it was their refuge in all
extremities, to console themselves with the expectation of the Messiah.
However this may be, by the name of Jews they avowed themselves to be the
heirs of the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed.
And restest in the law, and gloriest in God, etc. He means not that they
rested in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the
keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the
end for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its
observance, and were inflated on this account only, — because they were
persuaded that the oracles of God belonged to them. In the same way they
gloried in God, not as the Lord commands by his Prophet, — to humble
ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone, (Jeremiah 9:24,) — but being
without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they made him, of whom they were
inwardly destitute, peculiarly their own, and assumed to be his people, for
the purpose of vain ostentation before men. This, then, was not the glorying
of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue.
"
footnote
"
77 Griesbach has since found a majority of MSS. in favor of this reading, and has adopted it. But the difficulty is to find a corresponding clause. There is none, except what begins in Romans 2:21; εἰ δὲ and οὖν do not well respond, except we render the first, though indeed, and the other, yes or nevertheless somewhat in the sense of an adversative. It will admit this meaning in some passages. See Matthew 12:12; Matthew 26:64; Romans 10:14. — Ed.
78 This is not quite correct. They were called Jews even before the captivity, and during the captivity, but most commonly and regularly after it. The words Jews, first occurs in 2 Kings 16:6. See Esther 4:3; Jeremiah 38:19; Daniel 3:8; Ezra 4:12; Nehemiah 2:16. — Ed.
"
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 2:17你称为犹太人，又倚靠律法，且指着神夸口。
: 2:18既从律法中受了教训，就晓得神的旨意，也能分别是非（或作也喜爱那美好的事）
: 2:19又深信自己是给瞎子领路的，是黑暗中人的光，
: 2:20是蠢笨人的师傅，是小孩子的先生，在律法上有知识和真理的模范。
: 2:21你既是教导别人，还不教导自己麽。你讲说人不可偷窃，自己还偷窃麽。
: 2:22你说人不可奸淫，自己还奸淫麽。你厌恶偶像，自己还偷窃庙中之物麽。
: 2:23你指着律法夸口，自己倒犯律法，玷辱神麽。
: 2:24神的名在外邦人中，因你们受了亵渎，正如经上所记的。
: 2:25你若是行律法的割礼固然于你有益。若是犯律法的，你的割礼就算不得割礼。
: 2:26所以那未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 10
"
And knowest his will, and approvest things excellent, etc. He now concedes
to them the knowledge of the divine will, and the approval of things useful;
and this they had attained from the doctrine of the law. But there is a
twofold approval, — one of choice, when we embrace the good we approve; the
other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from evil, but by no
means strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so learned in the
law that they could pass judgment on the conduct of others, but were not
careful to regulate their life according to that judgment. But as Paul
reproves their hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that
excellent things are then only rightly approved (provided our judgment
proceeds from sincerity) when God is attended to; for his will, as it is
revealed in the law, is here appointed as the guide and teacher of what is
to be justly approved.[79]”
footnote 79
"
There are two expositions of the words, δοκιμάζεις τ&#
8048; διαφερόντα, which may be sustained according to what
the words signify in other places. The first word means to prove, or test,
or examine, and also to approve; and the second signifies things which
differ, or things which are excellent. “Thou provest, or, distinguishest
things which differ,” is the rendering of Beza, Pareus, Doddridge, and
Stuart: “Thou approvest things excellent or useful,” is the rendering of
Erasmus, Macknight, and others. The first is the most suitable to the
context, as knowledge, and not approval, is evidently intended, as proved by
the explanatory clause which follows, — “being instructed out of the law.
” — Ed."
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| | | l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 11
19. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
"And believest thyself, etc. More is still granted to them; as though they
had not only what was sufficient for themselves, but also that by which they
could enrich others. He grants, indeed, that they had such abundance of
learning, as that others might have been supplied [80]
"
footnote
"80 Calvin has passed over here several clauses: they are so plain as to
require no remarks, except the two last. “The instructor of the unwise —
insipientium,” ἀφρόνων, of such as were foolish from not
understanding things rightly. “The teacher of the ignorant — imperitorum,
” νηπίων, babes, that is, of such as were ignorant like babes.
But these and the foregoing titles, “the guide of the blind,” and, “light
to those in darkness,” were such as the Jewish doctors assumed, and are
not to be considered as having any great difference in their real meaning.
There seems to be no reason to suppose, with Doddridge and some others, that
“the blind, foolish, ignorant” were the Gentiles, for the Jews did not
assume the office of teaching them. It is to be observed that Paul here
takes the case, not of the common people, but of the learned — the teachers
. "
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 12
20. An instructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of
knowledge and of the truth in the law.
"20. I take what follows, having the form of knowledge, as a reason for the
preceding; and it may be thus explained, — “because thou hast the form of
knowledge.” For they professed to be the teachers of others, because they
seemed to carry in their breasts all the secrets of the law. The word form
is put for model (exemplar — pattern)[81]
for Paul has adopted μόρφωσιν and not τύπον: but he
intended, I think, to point out the conspicuous pomp of their teaching, and
what is commonly called display; and it certainly appears that they were
destitute of that knowledge which they pretended. But Paul, by indirectly
ridiculing the perverted use of the law, intimates, on the other hand, that
right knowledge must be sought from the law, in order that the truth may
have a solid basis.
"
footnote
"
81 The same word occurs only in 2 Timothy 3:5, “μόρφωσιν
εὐσεβείας — the form of godliness.” It is taken
here in a good sense, as meaning a sketch, a delineation, an outline, a
representation, or a summary. Chalmers renders the words thus, — “The
whole summary of knowledge and truth which is in the law.” Some understand
by knowledge what refers to morals or outward conduct, and by truth what is
to be believed. Others regard them as an instance of Hebrewism, two
substantives being put, instead of a substantive and an adjective; the
phrase would then be, “true knowledge.” — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 13
"[82]Though the excellencies (encomia — commendations) which he has
hitherto stated respecting the Jews, were such as might have justly adorned
them, provided the higher ornaments were not wanting; yet as they included
qualifications of a neutral kind, which may be possessed even by the ungodly
and corrupted by abuse, they are by no means sufficient to constitute true
glory. And hence Paul, not satisfied with merely reproving and taunting
their arrogance in trusting in these things alone, employs them for the
purpose of enhancing their disgraceful conduct; for he exposes himself to no
ordinary measure of reproach, who not only renders useless the gifts of God
, which are otherwise valuable and excellent, but by his wickedness vitiates
and contaminates them. And a strange counselor is he, who consults not for
his own good, and is wise only for the benefit of others. He shows then that
the praise which they appropriated to themselves, turned out to their own
disgrace.
Thou who preachest, steal not, etc. He seems to have alluded to a passage in
Psalm 50:16, where God says to the wicked,
“Why dost thou declare my statutes, and takest my covenant in thy mouth?
And thou hatest reform, and hast cast my words behind thee: when thou seest
a thief, thou joinest him, and with adulterers is thy portion.”
And as this reproof was suitable to the Jews in old time, who, relying on
the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way better than if they had no
law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned against us at this day:
and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting of some
extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind of
uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not
then so heedlessly trifle with the Lord, let us remember what sort of
judgment impends over such prattlers, (logodœdalis — word-artificers,)
who make a show of God’s word by mere garrulity.
"
footnote:
"
82 This clause, and those which follow, are commonly put in an
interrogatory form, that is, as questions: but some, as Theophylact, Erasmus
and Luther, have rendered the clauses in the form here adopted. There is no
difference in the meaning.
It is worthy of notice, that the Apostle, after the Hebrew manner,
reverses the order as to the points he mentions; he, as it were, retrogrades
, and begins to do so at Romans 2:21. The passage may be thus rendered, —
17. Seeing then, thou art named a Jew, And reliest on the law, and
gloriest in God,
18. And knowest his will, And decernest things which differ, being taught
by the law,
19. And art confident that thou art A leader to the blind, a light to
those in darkness,
20. An instructor to the foolish, a teacher to babes, Having the form of
knowledge and of truth according to the law:
21. Yet thou, who teachest another, teachest not thyself, Thou, who
preachest, “Steal not,” stealest,
22. Thou, who sayest, “Commit no adultery,” committest adultery, Thou
who detestest idols, committest sacrilege,
23. Thou who gloriest in the law, by transgressing the law dishonorest
God; For the name of God, as it is written, is through you blasphemed by the
Gentiles.
Romans 2:21, and part of the 22nd, refer to what is contained in Romans
19 and the 20th; and the latter part of the 22nd to the 18th verse; and 23rd
to the 17th. The latter part of the 22nd helps us to fix the meaning of the
latter part of the 18th; the man who hated idols and committed sacrilege
proved that he did not exercise his boasted power of making a proper
distinction between right and wrong. Then the man who is said, in Romans 2:
17, to rely on the law and glory in God, is charged, in Romans 2:23, with
the sin of dishonoring God by transgressing the law — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 14
22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit
adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
"
22. Thou who abhorrest idols, etc. He fitly compares sacrilege to idolatry,
as it is a thing of the same kind; for sacrilege is simply a profanation of
the Divine Majesty, a sin not unknown to heathen poets. On this account Ovid
(Metamor. 3,) calls Lycurgus sacrilegious for despising the rites of
Bacchus; and in his Fasti he calls those sacrilegious hands which violated
the majesty of Venus. But as the Gentiles ascribed the majesty of their gods
to idols, they only thought it a sacrilege when any one plundered what was
dedicated to their temples, in which, as they believed, the whole of
religion centered. So at this day, where superstition reigns, and not the
word of God, they acknowledge no other kind of sacrilege than the stealing
of what belongs to churches, as there is no God but in idols, no religion
but in pomp and magnificence.[83]
Now we are here warned, first, not to flatter ourselves and to despise
others, when we have performed only some portions of the law, — and,
secondly, not to glory in having outward idolatry removed, while we care not
to drive away and to eradicate the impiety that lieth hid in our hearts.
"
footnote 83
"
“Sacrilege,” mentioned here, is by some taken literally as meaning
the robbing of God as to the sacrifices he required, and the profanation of
sacred rites; “many examples of which,” says Turrettin, “are recorded by
the Prophets, and also by Josephus, both before and during the last war.”
But some extend its meaning to acts of hypocrisy and ungodliness, by which
God’s honor was profaned, and the glory due to him was denied. The highest
sacrilege, no doubt, is to deprive God of that sincere service and obedience
which he justly requires. “They caused,” says Pareus, “the name and
honor of God to be in various ways blasphemed by their wicked hypocrisy; and
hence they were justly said by the Apostle to be guilty of sacrilege.” He
then adds, “we must notice, that idolatry is not opposed to sacrilege, but
mentioned as a thing closely allied to it. Indeed all idolatry is
sacrilegious. How then can the Monks, Priests, and Jesuits clear themselves
from the charge of sacrilege? for they not only do not detest idolatry,
being in this respect much worse than these hypocrites, but also greedily
seek, like them, sacred offerings, and under the pretense of sanctity devour
widows’ houses, pillage the coffers of kings, and, what is most heinous,
sacrilegiously rob God of his due worship and honor and transfer them to
saints.” Yet the world is so blind as not to see the real character of such
men! — Ed."
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 15
23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law
dishonourest thou God?
"23. Thou who gloriest in the law, etc. Though every transgressor dishonors
God, (for we are all born for this end — to serve him in righteousness and
holiness;) yet he justly imputes in this respect a special fault to the Jews
; for as they avowed God as their Lawgiver, and yet had no care to form
their life according to his rule, they clearly proved that the majesty of
their God was not so regarded by them, but that they easily despised him. In
the same manner do they at this day dishonor Christ, by transgressing the
gospel, who prattle idly about its doctrine, while yet they tread it under
foot by their unbridled and licentious mode of living.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 16
24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it
is written. [76]
"24. For the name of God, etc. I think this quotation is taken from Ezekiel
36:20, rather than from Isaiah 52:5; for in Isaiah there are no reproofs
given to the people, but that chapter in Ezekiel is full of reproofs. But
some think that it is a proof from the less to the greater, according to
this import, “Since the Prophet upbraided, not without cause, the Jews of
his time, that on account of their captivity, the glory and power of God
were ridiculed among the Gentiles, as though he could not have preserved the
people, whom he had taken under his protection, much more are ye a disgrace
and dishonor to God, whose religion, being judged of by your wicked life,
is blasphemed.” This view I do not reject, but I prefer a simpler one, such
as the following, — “We see that all the reproaches cast on the people of
Israel do fall on the name of God; for as they are counted, and are said to
be the people of God, his name is as it were engraven on their foreheads:
it must hence be, that God, whose name they assume, is in a manner defamed
by men, through their wicked conduct.” It was then a monstrous thing, that
they who derived their glory from God should have disgraced his holy name;
for it behoved them surely to requite him in a different manner.[84]"
footnote
"
76 These texts are referred to, Isaiah 52:6; Ezekiel 36:20.
84 On this remarkable passage Haldane has these very appropriate, just,
and striking observations, —
“The Apostle, in these verses, exhibits the most lively image of
hypocrisy. Was there ever a more beautiful veil than that under which the
Jew presents himself? He is a man of confession, of praise, of thanksgiving
— a man, whose trust is in the Law, whose boast is of God, who knows his
will, who approves of things that are excellent, a man who calls himself a
conductor of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor
of the ignorant, a teacher of babes; a man who directs others, who preaches
against theft, against adultery, against idolatry, and to sum up the whole,
a man who glories in the commandments of the Lord. Who would not say that
this is an angel arrayed in human form — a star detached from the firmament
, and brought nearer to enlighten the earth? But observe what is concealed
under this mask. It is a man who is himself untaught; it is a thief, an
adulterer, a sacrilegious person; in one word, a wicked man, who continually
dishonors God by the transgression of his law. Is it possible to imagine a
contrast more monstrous than between these fair appearances and this awful
reality?”
No, certainly; but it is a contrast which still exists, with various
modifications, in many instances. — It ought to be observed, that when the
author calls the Jew “a man of confession, of praise, of thanksgiving,” he
alludes to the import of the word, Jew, in Hebrew, which is derived from a
verb, which includes these ideas: and it is supposed by some, that there is
an allusion in the last words of this chapter, “whose praise,” etc., to
what the name signifies. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 17
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be
a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
"
25. For circumcision indeed profits, etc. He dissipates by anticipation what
the Jews might have objected in opposition to him in the defense of their
own cause: for since circumcision was a symbol of the Lord’s covenant, by
which he had chosen Abraham and his seed as his peculiar people, they seemed
not to have gloried in vain; but as they neglected what the sign signified,
and regarded only the outward form, he gives this answer — That they had
no reason to lay claim to any thing on account of the bare sign. The true
character of circumcision was a spiritual promise, which required faith: the
Jews neglected both, the promise as well as faith. Then foolish was their
confidence. Hence it is, that he omits to state here the main use of
circumcision, and proceeds to expose their gross error, as he does in his
Epistle to the Galatians. And this ought to be carefully noticed; for if he
were explaining the whole character and design of circumcision, it would
have been inconsistent in him not to have made mention of grace and free
promise: but in both instances he spoke according to what the subject he had
in hand required, and therefore he only discussed that part which was
controverted.
They thought that circumcision was of itself sufficient for the purpose of
obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according to such an opinion, he
gives this reply — That if this benefit be expected from circumcision, it
is on this condition, that he who is circumcised, must serve God wholly and
perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same may be also said
of our baptism: when any one confidently relies on the water of baptism
alone, and thinks that he is justified, as though he had obtained holiness
by that ordinance itself, the end of baptism must be adduced as an objection
; which is, that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life: the grace
and promise, which baptism testifies (testificatur) and seals, (obsignat,)
need not in this case to be mentioned; for our business is with those who,
being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not for nor consider
what is material (solidum — substantial) in it. And this very thing you may
observe in Paul — that when he speaks to the faithful of signs, apart from
controversy, he connects them with the efficacy and fulfillment of the
promises which belong to them; but when he contends with the absurd and
unskillful interpreters of signs, he omits all mention of the proper and
true character of signs, and directs his whole discourse against their
perverted interpretation.
Now many, seeing that Paul brings forward circumcision rather than any other
part of the law, suppose that he takes away justification only from
ceremonies: but the matter is far otherwise; for it always happens, that
those who dare to set up their own merits against the righteousness of God,
glory more in outward observances than in real goodness; for no one, who is
seriously touched and moved by the fear of God, will ever dare to raise up
his eyes to heaven, since the more he strives after true righteousness, the
clearer he sees how far he is from it. But as to the Pharisees, who were
satisfied with imitating holiness by an outward disguise, it is no wonder
that they so easily deluded themselves. Hence Paul, after having left the
Jews nothing, but this poor subterfuge of being justified by circumcision,
does now also take from them even this empty pretense.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 18
26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall
not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
"26. If then the uncircumcision, etc. This is a very strong argument. Every
thing is below its end and subordinate to it. Circumcision looks to the law,
and must therefore be inferior to it: it is then a greater thing to keep
the law than circumcision, which was for its sake instituted. It hence
follows, that the uncircumcised, provided he keeps the law, far excels the
Jew with his barren and unprofitable circumcision, if he be a transgressor
of the law: and though he is by nature polluted, he shall yet be so
sanctified by keeping the law, that uncircumcision shall be imputed to him
for circumcision. The word uncircumcision, is to be taken in its proper
sense in the second clause; but in the first, figuratively, for the Gentiles
, the thing for the persons.
It must be added — that no one ought anxiously to inquire what observers of
the law are those of which Paul speaks here, inasmuch no such can be found;
for he simply intended to lay down a supposed case — that if any Gentile
could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value
without circumcision, than the circumcision of the Jew without righteousness
. And hence I refer what follows, And what is by nature uncircumcision shall
judge thee, etc., not to persons, but to the case that is supposed,
according to what is said of the Queen of the south, that she shall come,
etc., (Matthew 12:42,) and of the men of Nineveh, that they shall rise up in
judgment, etc., (Luke 11:32) For the very words of Paul lead us to this
view — “The Gentile,” he says, “being a keeper of the law, shall judge
thee who art a transgressor, though he is uncircumcised, and thou hast the
literal circumcision.”
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 19
的人麽。
27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law,
judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
"27. By the letter and circumcision, etc. A construction [85]which means a
literal circumcision. He does not mean that they violated the law, because
they had the literal circumcision; but because they continued, though they
had the outward rite, to neglect the spiritual worship of God, even piety,
justice, judgment, and truth, which are the chief matters of the law. [86]"
footnote
"
85 Hypallage, substitution, a figure of speech, by which a noun or an
adjective is put in a form different from its obvious import. — Ed
86 The rendering of this clause is rather obscure, “who by the letter
and circumcision dost transgress the law.” The preposition, διὰ,
has no doubt the meaning of ἐν or σύν, as in some other
passages, as in Romans 4:11, δἰ ἀκροβυστίας
— in uncircumcision, and in Romans 8:25, δἰ ῦπομονὢ
ς — in or with patience. Then the version should be, “who, being with
, or having, the letter and circumcision, dost transgress the law.” The “
letter” means the written law. That this is the meaning is evident from the
context. Both Grotius and Macknight give the same construction. It is
better to take “letter,” i.e., the law, and “circumcision” separate,
than to amalgamate them by a rhetorical figure, as is done by Calvin and
others. Hodge justly says, that this is “more suited to the context, as
nothing is said here of spiritual circumcision.”
The word γράμμα, letter, has various meanings — 1. What is
commonly called letter, the character, Luke 23:38, — 2. What is written, a
bond or contract, Luke 16:6; — 3. In the plural, letters, epistles, Acts 28
Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15; — 5. What is conveyed by writing, learning,
John 7:15; Acts 26:24; — and, 6. The outward performance of the law, it
being written, as opposed to what is spiritual or inward, as in the last
verse of this chapter, and in 2 Corinthians 3:6. — Ed
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 20
28. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision
which is outward in the flesh:
"28. For a Jew is not he, etc. The meaning is, that a real Jew is not to be
ascertained, either by natural descent, or by profession, or by an external
symbol; that the circumcision which constitutes a Jew, does not consist in
an outward sign only, but that both are inward. And what he subjoins with
regard to true circumcision, is taken from various passages of Scripture,
and even from its general teaching; for the people are everywhere commanded
to circumcise their hearts, and it is what the Lord promises to do. The fore
-skin was cut off, not indeed as the small corruption of one part, but as
that of the whole nature. Circumcision then signified the mortification of
the whole flesh.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 21
称赞不是从人来的，乃是从神来的。
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but
of God.
"29. What he then adds, in the spirit, not in the letter, understand thus:
He calls the outward rite, without piety, the letter, and the spiritual
design of this rite, the spirit; for the whole importance of signs and rites
depends on what is designed; when the end in view is not regarded, the
letter alone remains, which in itself is useless. And the reason for this
mode of speaking is this, — where the voice of God sounds, all that he
commands, except it be received by men in sincerity of heart, will remain in
the letter, that is, in the dead writing; but when it penetrates into the
heart, it is in a manner transformed into spirit. And there is an allusion
to the difference between the old and the new covenant, which Jeremiah
points out in Jeremiah 31:33; where the Lord declares that his covenant
would be firm and permanent when engraven on the inward parts. Paul had also
the same thing in view in another place, (2 Corinthians 3:6,) where he
compares the law with the gospel, and calls the former “the letter,” which
is not only dead but killeth; and the latter he signalizes with the title
of “spirit.” But extremly gross has been the folly of those who have
deduced a double meaning from the “letter,” and allegories from the “
spirit.”
Whose praise is not from men, etc. As men fix their eyes only on those
things which are visible, he denies that we ought to be satisfied with what
is commendable in the estimation of men, who are often deceived by outward
splendor; but that we ought to be satisfied with the all-seeing eyes of God,
from which the deepest secrets of the heart are not hid. He thus again
summons hypocrites, who soothe themselves with false opinions, to the
tribunal of God.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 第一，“实际”这个词，在召会的系统里面，是什么意思？
: 第二，“未受割礼的，若遵守律法的条例，他虽然未受割礼，岂不算是有割礼麽。”，
: 一定就是指的基督徒么？那么耶稣到来之前，有没有可能存在这样的人呢？
|
|
