Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 2:27
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
27. uncircumcision which is by nature ] Better, the uncircumcision, &c.; a phrase not easy to explain exactly. Perhaps (though the Gr. of the two passages is not quite parallel) we may illustrate by Gal 2:15: “Jews by nature,” Jews born and bred. Here thus the sense would be “Gentiles born and bred, with no physical succession to Jewish privilege.”
if it fulfil ] Lit. fulfilling; as e.g. Cornelius did in the sense pointed out above.
judge ] criticize and condemn. Perhaps the phrase arises from the solemn words of the Saviour Himself, Mat 12:41-42. A stronger Gr. verb is used in that passage, however.
by the letter and circumcision ] The phrase is a verbal paradox. The “letter and circumcision” are properly the means to a knowledge of the law, to obligation to it, and obedience under it; here they are, by paradox, the means to the wilful breaking of it, and not mere obstacles overcome by the transgressor. “ The letter ” is the “letter of the law” of circumcision: q. d., “thou usest thy literal circumcision as a means to transgression,” a salve to thy conscience.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which is by nature – Which is the natural state of man; his condition before he is admitted to any of the unique rites of the Jewish religion.
If it fulfil the law – If they who are uncircumcised keep the Law.
Judge thee – Condemn thee as guilty. As we say, the conduct of such a man condemns us. He acts so much more consistently and uprightly than we do, that we see our guilt. For a similar mode of expression, see Mat 12:41-42.
Who by the letter … – The translation here is certainly not happily expressed. It is difficult to ascertain its meaning. The evident meaning of the original is, Shall not a pagan man who has none of your external privileges, if he keeps the law, condemn you who are Jews; who, although you have the letter and circumcision, are nevertheless transgressors of the law?
The letter – The word letter properly means the mark or character from which syllables and words are formed. It is also used in the sense of writing of any kind Luk 16:6-7; Act 28:21; Gal 6:11, particularly the writings of Moses, denoting, by way of eminence, the letter, or the writing; Rom 7:6; 2Ti 3:15.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 27. And shall not uncircumcision, which is by nature] And shall not the Gentile, who is , according to the custom of his country – who is, by birth, not obliged to be circumcised.
If it fulfil the law] If such a person act according to the spirit and design of the law; judge condemn thee, who, whilst thou dost enjoy the letter, the written law, and bearest in thy body the proof of the circumcision which it requires, dost transgress that law?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Uncircumcision which is by nature; a periphrasis of the Gentiles, who want circumcision, or are by nature without it.
Fulfil the law; here is another word; before it was keep, but now it is fulfil the law: though the word be varied, yet the sense is the same: see Jam 2:8.
Judge thee; i.e. rise up in judgment against thee; or else, shall he not do it by his example? as in Mat 12:41,42, the men of Nineveh, and the queen of Sheba, shall judge the Israelites. The meaning is, the obedient Gentile shall condemn the disobedient Jew.
By the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law; i.e. the outward literal circumcision; or, by the letter understand the law; see 2Co 3:6. The sense is, by means of the law and circumcision, and resting in them, as pledges of the love of God, {so Rom 2:17} they are the more secure and bold in sinning against God; it is to them an occasion of transgression.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25-29. For circumcisionthatis, One’s being within the covenant of which circumcision was theoutward sign and seal.
verily profiteth, if thoukeep the lawif the inward reality correspond to the outwardsign.
but if, &c.thatis, “Otherwise, thou art no better than the uncircumcisedheathen.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature,…. That is, the Gentiles, who are by nature uncircumcised; for as circumcision was by the command of God, and performed by the art of men, uncircumcision is by nature, and what men naturally have. Now
if it, such persons,
fulfil the law in Christ, they will
judge thee, the circumcision: and condemn, as Noah condemned the old world, Heb 11:7, and the men of Nineveh and the queen of the south will condemn the men of that generation, in which Christ lived,
Mt 12:41.
Who by the letter and circumcision transgress the law; that is, either by the law, which is “the letter”, and “by circumcision”, or “by circumcision which is in the letter”, Ro 2:29, sin being increased by the prohibitions of the moral law, and the rituals of the ceremonial law, and the more so by a dependence upon an obedience to either of them, or both, for justification.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If it fulfill the law ( ). Present active participle (conditional use of the participle) of , to finish, continually fulfilling to the end (as would be necessary).
Judge thee (—). Unusual position of (thee) so far from the verb .
With the letter and circumcision ( ). means here accompanied by, with the advantage of.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law judge thee (Kai krinei he A phuseos; akrobustia ton nomon telousa se) Will not the physically (by nature) uncircumcised who carries out the law judge you?; This is, in effect, an affirmative statement that those who keep or regard the law, actually condemn by their lives those who have the written law and the token of it, which is circumcision. The moral and ethical conduct of uncircumcised was of a higher plane than that of the circumcised, the Jews, and in such condemned the behavior of the Jews, Mat 12:41-42.
2) Who by the letter and circumcision, (ton dia grammatos kai peritomes) Who through the letter and circumcision, or who have the correct form of the law and are circumcised; Those of Ninevah who as Gentile heathen repented at the preaching of Jonah, the uncircumcised, shall rise up in judgment as an example of Gods just condemnation on the Jews who lived impenitent, Luk 13:3-5; Mat 12:41-42.
3) Dost transgress the law, (parabaten nomon) (exist as) a transgressor of (the) law? in rejecting salvation that is taught to come to one by faith, even in the law, Act 2:36-38; Act 10:43; Rom 3:19-21; Rom 3:28; Rom 3:31; Rom 10:3-4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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)
(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 Rom 4:11, δἰ ἀκροβυστίας — in uncircumcision, and in Rom 8:25, δἰ ῦπομονὢς — 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, Luk 23:38, — 2. What is written, a bond or contract, Luk 16:6; — 3. In the plural, letters, epistles, Act 28:21; — 4. The written law, as here, and in the plural, the Old Testament Scriptures, 2Ti 3:15; — 5. What is conveyed by writing, learning, Joh 7:15; Act 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 2Co 3:6. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(27) Judge thee.Comp. Mat. 12:41-42, The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, et seq. The idea is that of putting to shame by contrast.
By the letter.The preposition here marks the condition or circumstance under which the action is done, and might be paraphrased, with all the advantages of the written Law and of circumcision.
Here, again, the sentence may not be a question, but an affirmation.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
27. By the letter and circumcision By here has the force of in possession of. The letter is the law. Possessing the law and circumcision the Jew is still a transgressor.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And will not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law?’
Then logically if someone was naturally uncircumcised because he was not a Jew, but fully fulfilled the Law, would he not be in a position to act as judge on those who had the letter of the Law and circumcision, but were transgressors of the Law? Thus the tables would be turned. It would not be the Jew who on behalf of God judged the Gentile (which was the Jewish viewpoint), but the Gentile who on behalf of a righteous God judged the Jew, in spite of the Jew having the Law and being circumcised. Paul’s whole point is that circumcision in itself does not put a person in a position of special privilege unless he ‘does what the Law says’.
It should be noted that, although he does not cite the fact here, Paul’s position is supported by the Old Testament where on a number of occasions the Scriptures emphasise that it is not outward circumcision that is important, but the circumcision of the heart (which is not strictly physical circumcision). See, for example, Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6; Jer 4:4; Jer 9:26 where the command to circumcise the heart suggests that their physical circumcision is not enough for them to be truly in the covenant. What is required is a work in the heart, wrought by God.
With regard to the uncircumcised judging the circumcised compare Jesus’ words in Mat 12:41-42; ‘the men of Nineveh will stand up in judgment with this generation and will condemn it’, for they had truly repented, unlike Israel. They were the uncircumcised who would judge the circumcised.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 2:27. And shall not uncircumcision, &c. The Apostle here supposes that a heathen may be an honest, sober, good, kind, benevolent and holy man through the secret influences of the Spirit of God: for were it impossible for the Gentiles in any sense to fulfil the law of love, it would not be supposable that he should do it; and then the Apostle’s argument would be without any foundation. And that he does not here speak of a Heathen converted, or to be converted to Christianity, is manifest from the whole context. Hence it appears, that it was the Apostle’s sentiment that a man under the Heathen dispensation might do the will of God by the secret influences of the Holy Spirit, and through the alone merits of Jesus Christ be saved for ever,not indeed by his works: it is of grace that he is saved. See chap. Rom 3:20. The following words, judge thee, look back as far as the first verse: whosoever thou art that judgest. This judging, as Mr. Locke observes, relates to the unkind erroneous sentiments of the Jews concerning the uncircumcised Gentiles; judging them utterly unworthy of the favour of God, and disqualified from being his people. But here the Apostle, with great force and truth, retorts the censure upon them. “Shall a virtuous and pious Heathen condemn you, wicked Jews, as unworthy of God’s favour, and disqualified from being any longer his people?” That this is the Apostle’s meaning, appears from the next verse; For he is not a Jew, &c.; and in the following dialogue, concerning the rejection of the Jews, he supposes that the Jews would take this to be his sense; nor could any Jew in those days, acquainted with St. Paul’s principles, miss of understanding him thus. In ch. Rom 14:3-4 the word judge is used in the same sense. See Locke, and the note on Rom 2:15.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 2:27 is regarded by most modern expositors, including Rckert, Reiche (undecidedly), Kllner, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Philippi, Lachmann, Ewald and Mehring, as a continuation of the question , so that is again understood before . But the sequence of thought is brought out much more forcibly, if we take Rom 2:27 as affirmative , as the reply to the question contained in Rom 2:26 (as is done by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Bengel, Wetstein and others; now also by Tholuck, de Wette, van Hengel, Th. Schott, Hofmann). In this case the placing first conveys a strong emphasis; and , as often in classic authors (Thiersch, 354, 5 b.; Khner, a [712] Xen. Mem. ii. 10, 2) is the simple and , which annexes the answer to the interrogative discourse as if in continuation, and thus assumes its affirmation as self-evident (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 880). And the natural uncircumcision, if it fulfils the law, shall judge , i.e. exhibit in thy full desert of punishment (namely, comparatione sui , as Grotius aptly remarks [713] ), thee, who , etc. Compare, on the idea, Mat 12:41 ; the thought of the actual direct judgment on the last day, according to 1Co 6:2 , is alien to the passage, although the practical indirect judgment, which is meant, belongs to the future judgment-day.
.] The uncircumcision by nature, i.e. the (persons in question) uncircumcised in virtue of their Gentile birth. This , which is neither, with Koppe and Olshausen, to be connected with . . , nor, with Mehring, to be taken as equivalent to , is in itself superfluous, but serves to heighten the contrast . . . The idea, that this is a , must (in opposition to Philippi) have been indicated in the text, and it would have no place in the connection of our passage; see Rom 2:29 , where it first comes in.
. . . . ] who with letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law . denotes the surrounding circumstances amidst which, i.e. here according to the context: in spite of which the transgression takes place. [714] Compare Rom 4:11 , Rom 14:20 ; Winer, p. 355 [E. T. 475]. Others take as instrumental, and that either : . (Oecumenius; comp Umbreit) or: “ occasione legis ,” (Beza, Estius, and others; comp Benecke), or : “who transgressest the law, and art exhibited as such by the letter,” etc. (Kllner). But the former explanations introduce a foreign idea into the connection; and against Kllner’s view it may be urged that his declarative rendering weakens quite unnecessarily the force of the contrast of the two members of the verse. For the most natural and most abrupt contrast to the uncircumcised person who keeps the law is he, who transgresses the law notwithstanding letter and circumcision , and is consequently all the more culpable, because he offends against written divine direction ( .) and theocratic obligation ( .)
[712] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[713] Not so, that God in judging will apply the Gentile obedience of the law as a standard for estimating the Jewish transgression of it (Th. Schott), which is gratuitously introduced. The standard of judgment remains the law of God (ver. 12 f.); but the example of the Gentile, who has fulfilled it, exposes and practically condemns the Jew who has transgressed it.
[714] Th. Schott arbitrarily: who with the possession of the law and circumcision does not cease to be a transgressor and to pass for such .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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?
Ver. 27. Judge thee ] Men’s guilt is increased by their obligations, as was Solomon’s in departing from Gad, who had appeared unto him twice, 1Ki 11:9 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
27. ] I prefer with De Wette (and Erasm.), Luth., Bengel, Wetst., Knapp, and Meyer, to regard this verse not as a continuation of the question, but as a separate emphatic assertion, and as leading the way to the next verse.
, ‘shall rise up in judgment against,’ judge indirectly by his example. See Mat 12:41-42 , where is used in a sense precisely similar.
. ] ‘he, who remains in his natural state of uncircumcision.’ . is contrasted with . . . below. The position of decides for this rendering and against joining it with , which would require , .
. . ] such is the supposition that an uncircumcised man could fully act up to the (moral) requirements of the law. It is not . .; because . is used in the widest abstract sense: no distinction is made between one and another uncircumcised person, but some one man is taken as an example of . So that the omission of the art. does not give a new hypothetic sense, ‘ if it fulfil the law ,’ but merely restates the hypothesis: fulfilling (as it does, as we have supposed) the law .
. ] Here again the position of . , between and , sufficiently shews that, as above, it is a qualification of . Bp. Middleton (it appears, Gr. Art. in loc. and compare his ref.) would take . ( ), ‘ thee who art a professor of the law and a circumcised person ,’ and understand after , shall adjudge thee to be a transgressor of the law . But this appears exceedingly forced, and inconsistent with the position of . , which if it had been thus emphatic, would certainly have been placed either before, or immediately after . We may well imagine that such an interpretation would not have been thought of, except to serve the supposed canon, that, ‘if were immediately the article of , depending on it could not be anarthrous.’ See above on . . Rom 2:25 , and on Rom 2:13 .
. . . ] (see reff.) is here used of the state in which the man is when he does the act, regarded at the medium through which the act is done. It is rightly rendered by in E. V. [though this gives too much the idea of the state being the instrument by means of which] (not, ‘ in spite of ,’ as Kllner and al.).
] ‘litera scripta,’ the written word : here in a more general sense than in Rom 2:29 , where it is pressed to a contrast with : thee, who in a state of external conformity with the written law and of circumcision, art yet a transgressor of the law.
In Rom 2:28-29 , supply the ellipses thus: in Rom 2:28 , fill up the subjects from the predicates, ( ) , ( ) ( ); in Rom 2:29 , fill up the predicates from the subjects, ( ), ( ). Thus the real Jew only , and the real circumcision only , are expressed in both verses. This is the arrangement of Beza, Estius, Rckert, De Wette: Erasm., Luther, Meyer, Fritzsche, take , and . ., as the predicates in Rom 2:29 ; but the latter gives a very vapid sense, besides that the opposition of , and is, as De W. observes, also vapid.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
not. Supplied from Rom 2:26.
by. App-104.
the letter = that which is written. Greek. gramma, i.e. ta dikaiomata of Rom 2:26.
dost transgress = art a transgressor. Greek. parabates, as Rom 2:25.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
27.] I prefer with De Wette (and Erasm.), Luth., Bengel, Wetst., Knapp, and Meyer, to regard this verse not as a continuation of the question, but as a separate emphatic assertion, and as leading the way to the next verse.
, shall rise up in judgment against, judge indirectly by his example. See Mat 12:41-42, where is used in a sense precisely similar.
.] he, who remains in his natural state of uncircumcision. . is contrasted with . . . below. The position of decides for this rendering and against joining it with , which would require , .
. .] such is the supposition-that an uncircumcised man could fully act up to the (moral) requirements of the law. It is not . .; because . is used in the widest abstract sense: no distinction is made between one and another uncircumcised person, but some one man is taken as an example of . So that the omission of the art. does not give a new hypothetic sense, if it fulfil the law, but merely restates the hypothesis: fulfilling (as it does, as we have supposed) the law.
. ] Here again the position of . , between and , sufficiently shews that, as above, it is a qualification of . Bp. Middleton (it appears, Gr. Art. in loc. and compare his ref.) would take . (), thee who art a professor of the law and a circumcised person, and understand after ,-shall adjudge thee to be a transgressor of the law. But this appears exceedingly forced, and inconsistent with the position of . , which if it had been thus emphatic, would certainly have been placed either before, or immediately after . We may well imagine that such an interpretation would not have been thought of, except to serve the supposed canon, that, if were immediately the article of , depending on it could not be anarthrous. See above on . . Rom 2:25, and on Rom 2:13.
. . .] (see reff.) is here used of the state in which the man is when he does the act, regarded at the medium through which the act is done. It is rightly rendered by in E. V. [though this gives too much the idea of the state being the instrument by means of which] (not, in spite of, as Kllner and al.).
] litera scripta, the written word: here in a more general sense than in Rom 2:29, where it is pressed to a contrast with : thee, who in a state of external conformity with the written law and of circumcision, art yet a transgressor of the law.
In Rom 2:28-29, supply the ellipses thus: in Rom 2:28, fill up the subjects from the predicates,- () , () (); in Rom 2:29, fill up the predicates from the subjects,- ( ), ( ). Thus the real Jew only, and the real circumcision only, are expressed in both verses. This is the arrangement of Beza, Estius, Rckert, De Wette: Erasm., Luther, Meyer, Fritzsche, take , and . ., as the predicates in Rom 2:29; but the latter gives a very vapid sense, besides that the opposition of , and is, as De W. observes, also vapid.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 2:27. , shall judge) Those, whom thou now judgest, will in their turn judge thee at the day of judgment, Rom 2:16. Mat 12:41; 1Co 6:2-3.-, keeping (if it fulfil): a word of large meaning. Therefore , if, Rom 2:26, has a conditional meaning, and does not positively assert.-, thee), who art its judge [the self-constituted judge of the uncircumcised].-) the article does not properly belong to , but is used as .- [by, or] with) Thou hast the letter, but thou even abusest it; there is an antithesis between by nature, and with the letter; then follows a Hendiadys, by the letter and circumcision. Concerning the letter and spirit, see ch. Rom 7:6.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 2:27
Rom 2:27
and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature,-[The persons in question uncircumcised in virtue of their Gentile birth.]
if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?-If the uncircumcision, who were not under the law and to whom it was not given, with fewer advantages, keep it, they condemn the circumcision, who, with better advantages and with the seal of circumcision, fail to keep the law-just as the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with that generation because it refused to hear the One greater than Solomon. (Mat 12:42). The interpretation given to verses 13-16 harmonizes with these verses.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
uncircumcision the uncircumcision, i.e. the Gentiles.
breaking the law Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
if it fulfil: Rom 8:4, Rom 13:10, Mat 3:15, Mat 5:17-20, Act 13:22, Gal 5:14
judge: Eze 16:48-52, Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42, Heb 11:3
by the: Rom 2:20, Rom 2:29, Rom 7:6-8, 2Co 3:6
Reciprocal: Eze 16:52 – which hast Luk 10:14 – General Luk 11:31 – rise Act 28:2 – showed Rom 2:1 – whosoever Rom 2:14 – do by
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:27
Rom 2:27. Uncircumcision and cir-cumsion are used to mean the Gentiles and Jews. By nature (see verse 14) means the Gentile did by nature what the Jew did not do, though he had the written law that showed him plainly what his duty was. By this better example of the Gentile, he judged (condemned) the Jew in his transgression of the law that had been given to him by letter (had been written in words).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 2:27. And shall not the uncircumcision. As in Rom 2:23, the main question here is whether the verse is interrogative or affirmative. Here, however, the original is more decisively in favor of the affirmative than in the previous instance. We would then render: And the uncircumcision, etc. shall judge thee, etc.
Which is by nature; i.e., the Gentile; by nature = by natural birth.
If it fulfil the law; lit, fulfilling the law, but it introduces the condition more fully stated in Rom 2:26.
Shall judge. This verb stands in emphatic position. (Comp. Mat 12:41-42, and similar passages.) The reference is not to the direct, but to the indirect, judgment of the last day, when the conduct of the Gentile will, by comparison, show the true moral attitude of the sinning Jew.
Who with the letter and circumcision, etc. With refers to the circumstances in which the action takes place; here according to the context: in spite of which the transgression takes place (Meyer). Letter points to the law as written by God; there is no implied opposition to spirit. Circumcision points to the covenant obligation of the Jew to keep the law. Hence the aggravated guilt of one who in such circumstances is a transgressor of this law
for that the Mosaic law is meant is plain enough. The absence of the article here (in the original) ought to be conclusive against the notion that Paul omits the article only when he means law in general
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? [The Gentile, remaining as he was by nature, uncircumcised, if he fulfilled the law, shall, in his turn, judge the Jew, who was so ready to judge him (Rom 2:1), who, with a written law and circumcision, was yet a transgressor. The judging referred to is probably the indirect judging of comparison. On the day of judgment, the Gentile, with his poor advantages, will condemn, by his superior conduct, the lawlessness of the Jew. Comp. Mat 11:21-22; Luk 11:31-32]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
27. Truly that which is uncircumcision by nature, keeping the law, will condemn thee who, through the letter of the circumcision, art a transgressor of the law. From this clear statement of the Holy Ghost we see how God will put the non-ritualistic holy Quakers on the witness block in the Day of Judgment to testify against the millions who have received the ordinances and lived unworthily.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
2:27 And shall not {s} uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the {t} letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
(s) He who is uncircumcised by nature and race.
(t) Paul often contrasts the letter against the Spirit: but in this place, the circumcision which is according to the letter is the cutting off of the foreskin, but the circumcision of the Spirit is the circumcision of the heart, that is to say, the spiritual result of the ceremony is true holiness and righteousness, by which the people of God are known from profane and heathen men.