Angus Harley

It is impossible to read old-school Dispensational Theology (DT) without it impressing on us that God’s Old Covenant people, Israel, have continued on to be the apple of his eye in the New Covenant era. So, when confronted with texts such as Galatians 6:15-16 and Romans 2:28-29, the confident, dismissive, rejoinder of DT is, ‘Of course it is Israel of the flesh that God refers to!’ I’m personally glad that in the world of academia DT is shrinking rapidly; but it will take some decades for that to take effect in the ordinary assembly, unfortunately.

There should be no hesitancy in the reader of Romans 2 to conclude that the true Jew Paul refers to in Romans 2:28-29, in context refers to Gentiles of faith. Here’s the quote in its context:

“25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

No partiality

Paul lays down principles of God’s expectations on Judgment Day in 2:1-11. God will impartially judge all men- Jew and Gentile- according to a simple standard: doing good.

Paul has already shown that the pagan Gentiles fall at the first hurdle (1:18ff.).  These pagan Gentiles do not have the Law of Moses, but nevertheless are aware of the witness of God to them in creation. The pagans also have an inner spiritual compass as to what God expects of them in terms of worship and proper living. Paul holds out no hope for the pagan Gentiles in regard of their lifestyle and spirituality.

This leaves the non-pagan Gentile group. It is traditionally equated with the Jews, and in that respect we would be mostly correct, but not entirely. For in chapter 2, Paul is also saying there is a different type of Gentile- an obedient Gentile- but more on this later. V11 gives the only neutral statement about specifically the Jews in context, namely, on Judgement Day, God will deal with them, and with the Greeks, in a fair, objective, and impartial manner.

Jewish disobedience

The last third of the chapter is taken up with the sheer disobedience of the Jews of the flesh:

“17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written. 25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

In basic terms, Paul is arguing as plainly, boldly, and pointedly as one possibly could, that the Jews of the flesh were of the same nature, ultimately, as the pagan Gentiles of the flesh!

In Ephesians 2:1-3, he makes the same point:

“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

Gentiles of faith

The exception, in Romans 2, to these disobedient Jews is Gentiles! But how can this be? Weren’t the Gentiles condemned in 1:18ff.? Yes, they were, but only as pagan Gentiles. There are Gentiles who believe and they are not condemned. Doesn’t Paul in 1:1-17 make that very point and celebrate it? Isn’t the book of Romans about an assembly consisting of Jews and Gentiles? Wasn’t Paul the apostle to the Gentiles?

Let’s go back and look at the middle third of chapter 2:

“12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers [of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

This text is mistakenly rendered to say that pagan Gentiles have the requirements of God’s Mosaic Law on their hearts, for they have a form of the Law put in their hearts as his creatures. I have argued in another place that Paul invariably, in these verses, contrasts Gentiles who do not possess the Mosaic Law with the Jews who do have it. To say that the Gentiles do possess an internal form of the Mosaic Law flies in the face of Paul’s explicit contrast, therefore. Nor is there a slither of biblical evidence for a prelapsarian ‘law’ of any kind. If there were, according to Paul, why did he not explicitly state so in 1:18ff., or anywhere else in his writings?[1]

The Gentiles of Romans 2:14-16 are New Covenant Gentiles- those who have believed in Christ Jesus and his Gospel. We have already met them (1:1-17)! Paul’s use of these Gentiles is to humiliate the Jews of the flesh, to show them that the Gentiles that they dismiss as ‘filthy animals’ were favored spiritually in God’s eyes! Not, of course, the pagan version of the Greeks, but the faith model of the Gentiles. This accounts for the explicitly New Covenant language of the requirements of the law of God being written on the heart (2:15; Jer.31:31-34; 2 Cor.3). This is then explained, by Paul, as revealed in the vital and crucial form of these Gentiles publicly- not individually and internally- bearing witness to, or accusing and defending, one another. Read again 1:18ff.: what marks out these Gentiles? Firstly, disobedience to God. Secondly, devouring one another. Not love to God; not love to one another. The Gentiles of 2:15-16 do love God- they obey- and do love one another- they reprove and encourage one another. Take, dear reader, all of Paul’s epistles- written for the Christian ‘public’ to reprove and rebuke according ‘his’ Gospel.

A common objection to this argument is that it implies a form of double-justification: one in our lives, by faith, and one on Judgment Day, for Paul says, “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified” (v13). However, a cursory reading of the text shows that Paul is referring to the Jewish understanding of the Mosaic Law and its relevance to justification. Paul is not addressing his own Gospel account of justification by faith. The Mosaic Law required, for its form of justification, entire and complete obedience. God’s Gospel does not. How could it? The Gentiles did not have the Law. And, so, their righteousness is from a different place:

“5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved…. 20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,

“I was found by those who did not seek Me,

I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”

21 But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” ” (10:5-9, 20-21)

There is no double-justification. Only one justification, by faith in Jesus Christ (3:21-23). What does mark out the believer in the Gospel, however, is this: if he is indeed a recipient of, and believer in, that Gospel, he will act in a godly manner according to the Gospel ethic, one which expects believers to hold one another to account, as all believers will be held to account by Paul’s Gospel on Judgment Day.

True Jews

This brings us to the true Jews of 2:28-29. Bearing the name “Jew” meant nothing in itself (v17). Nor was possession of the Law able to bale out the Jews. They could not keep it. And, circumcision was a dead-end for the Jews as well (2:17-26). ‘Jew’, ‘Law’, ‘circumcision’, the big three, all cast down and thrown out.

Paul then says this:

“28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

Paul speaks negatively, first of all, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.” Jewishness has nothing to do with being a Jew outwardly, in the flesh. Nada! Therefore, circumcision is valueless. Then there is the positive assertion of the same truth, Paul was fully aware of Jews who would argue that circumcision did have value if mixed with faith; and being a Jew of the flesh, outwardly, did have value, if mixed with faith. So, Paul destroys these options by pointing us to the only true form of circumcision, and to the only proper form of being a Jew, “29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

It is quickly asserted by DT that Paul is not excluding Jews, here, from being those of the faith. This is not accurate to Paul’s point, however. The Jews of the flesh, en masse, are rejected in the context. They are contrasted, in context, exclusively to Gentiles of the faith, circumcised Gentiles. Jews of the faith are not, at this point, mentioned. Indeed, it would defeat Paul’s ‘apologetic’ to insert them here, for his aim is to use Gentiles of the faith to expose Jews of the Law. This is one reason why Paul later has to clarify that God has not entirely thrown away Jews (Rom.9-11). Even so, it is plain, from context, that the New Covenant and its order is not based on the Mosaic Law, circumcision, being a Jew, or keeping the Mosaic commandments; but is entirely internal, Spiritual, and is to the end of keeping the commandments of the New Covenant law of Christ.

Paul makes the same point in Philippians 3:2-3:


“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh”.

Traditionally, the Gentiles were the dogs (Matt.15:26, 27), and the Jews the circumcision. Paul reverses this order, dismissing the Jews as the circumcision, and at the same time removing the value of fleshly circumcision or being a Jew outwardly.

DT, in a typical reductionistic and non-contextual fashion, imposes the rule that the assembly is never called ‘Israel’ and that this is what really counts. Even if the assembly were never called ‘Israel’, to think that this was ‘the’ marker for being a spiritual ‘Israelite’ is utterly preposterous by the contents of Paul’s theology. Almost every conceivable OT Jewish term, salvific model, and blessing is re-purposed in the New Covenant, via Christ and his redemption, for the sake of the assembly, including ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision’. It is ridiculous to the extreme to think that any Jew would be okay with Gentiles being called ‘circumcision’ and ‘Jew’, just as long as they were not called ‘Israel’!

But, seemingly as to silence DTers, Paul writes:

“15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

Outside of saying, ‘Hey, Dispensationalists, the assembly is the true Israel of God, but Jews and Gentiles of the flesh are not!’, how plainer could Paul be?

Closing words

As an ex-pat, I have never understood the American voracious appetite for all things ‘millennial’. I realize where it comes from, however, and it is in great measure due to the shadow that DT cast over American evangelicalism. That day is over in the scholarly sphere, and will result in it diminishing in ordinary assemblies. There is no need for anyone, therefore, to hesitate concerning taking Paul’s words a face value.

Another issue immediately comes to the fore, however, and it does not specifically relate to merely DT. How is one, then, to interpret Romans 9:6: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”? It seems to me that, even Israel-centric elements control exegesis here, so that brothers mistakenly read this as saying that the sum of all elect Israelites of the flesh are the true Israel of God. What say ye? Let’s talk about it, brother. Amen!

[1] Angus Harley, “Some comments on phusei in Romans 2:14”, All Things New Covenant, May 9, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/05/09/some-comments-on-phusei-in-romans-214/?fbclid=IwAR16RmvfpB3R8Y3cjpJCB3aa1sYxKaruvD3bRL57tegWfrjqGoUT2orKySs; “Some more comments on Romans 2:14,” All Things New Covenant, May 10, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/05/10/some-more-comments-on-romans-214/; “The New Covenant Gentiles of Romans 2:14-15,” All Things New Covenant, May 13, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/05/13/the-new-covenant-gentiles-of-romans-214-15/;
“Romans 2:14: how do the Gentiles “do the things of the Law”?, All Things New Covenant, May 21, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/05/21/romans-214-how-do-gentiles-do-the-things-of-the-law/.