Timotheos,
Good comments and observations!
I would add simply a few observations concerning verse 6 to give your comments supporting context. The text says that God "will render to each one accoring to his deeds." I fear that many pass over Paul's experession as if kata ta erga autou means "on the basis of his deeds." Such is not the meaning, however. Rather, the phrase is better translated "in keeping with his deeds." The point that Paul as the Bible throughout consistently makes is that God's judgment will be just and right. No one will be able to object that God's verdict will be wrong, unfair, or unjust. Furthermore, the point Paul makes is one he reinforces in 2:13. Who are those people who will be justified in the Last Day? Only those who are properly called doers of the Law.
We would be quite wrong, as some unfortunately are, to handle the passage as if it says that God "will render to each one on the basis of his deeds." Even if commentators don't translate the phrase this way, many comment upon the passage in such a way that their minds are clearly clouded with the notion that this is what Paul's phrase means. Much of the current dispute that many have with the so-called NPP is grounded in their flawed assumption that kata ta erga autou means on the basis of his works.
The point I am making is that judgment in keeping with our works in the Last Day is not in the slightest way contrary to our present reception of God's Last Day verdict; presently we receive justification by faith. In the Last Day God's justifying verdict will not be on the basis of our works but will be in keeping with our works. Then, God's verdict of justification, fully grounded in the accomplishment in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and not at all in our works, will nonetheless be in keeping with our works which God's grace brings forth so that not one of us will be able to boast that we received God's acquittal on the basis of anything we have done.
Paulos
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Comments on Romans 2:1-11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Doesn't this interpretation of v.7 assume this individual has faith in Christ? Since the text doesn't make any reference to faith, it makes better sense that the verse refers to unbelievers.
In other words, Paul is saying that if someone could persevere in always seeking after glory and honor, he would be saved. However, no one seeks God (Rom. 3). Since perfect obedience to God is unattainable, the Jews are in the same fix at the Gentiles. In this interpretation, Paul ties this phrase in Romans 3 back to Romans 2.
In his NICNT volume, Douglas Moo writes, "The context strongly suggests that Paul is not directly describing Christians in vv. 7 and 10....Paul sets forth the biblical conditions for attaining eternal life apart from Christ" (142).
Daniel,
Yes, you're right. The interpretation Timotheos and I have expressed does assume that "those who by patience in well-doing seek glory and honor and immoratality" (Romans 2:7)and "everyone who does good" (2:10) are believers and not unbelievers. But our assumption is entirely warranted by the text and by the gospel Paul preaches, for no one except those who believe are capable of doing the things of which Paul speaks.
You are also right that the passage does not mention "faith" or "belief" or "believing" with any of the pist- stem words. However, to assume that "belief" is not present is to assume that it can only be present wherethe pist- stem words occur. This, of course, would be to commit the word fallacy of supposing that a particular concept is tied to a particular word. But as Tom Schreiner and I demonstrate in chapter 3 of The Race Set Before Us and elsewhere throughout the book, belief takes on a host of various forms. Sometimes it looks like doing good. Sometimes it looks like forgiving someone who has sinned against you. At other times it looks like repentance. It manifests itself in a variety of forms. The forms of 2:7 and 2:10 are forms of faith.
Who are those who do the things of which Paul speaks? Is it not only
believers who do these things? Yes. It is only believers who do these things.
To adopt Douglas Moo's understanding of the passage (which is also the view of John Murray, and several other Reformed commentators), one has to insert into the text a hypothetical marker, for the text has no conditional or suppositional markers in it. There is no ei or ean or conditional participle or indefinite relative clause. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Paul means to say that "if you do these things perfectly you will have eternal life." Moo's interpretation, in my humble opinion, does severe injury to the text and to the ubiquitous biblical fact that we will in fact be judged according to our deeds.
To adopt Douglas Moo's understanding of the passage is to drive a wedge between belief and perseverance in belief. I is a view that is fearful of falling into "salvation by works" or "works righteousness." But the fear is not founded in the text. The fear is entirely founded in one's incapability to address the text for what it says and to integrate it rightly within Paul's argument and within Paul's gospel.
I trust this is helpful, despite its brevity.
Paulos
Thanks for your response. By the way, your book on perseverance was very helpful to me. Last semester I used it as a resource while teaching through a high-school Sunday school class on Hebrews. Great insights. I believe that your approach does more justice to the warnings in Scripture.
I still have a couple of questions concerning this section in Romans. At this point in his argument, Paul has yet to mention the righteousness that comes by faith (3:21-26). So Paul's audience has yet to know how God can righteously forgive sin. Jesus' work on the cross must be the final basis for any favorable verdict at the final judgment; however,Paul has yet to bring this up.
I'm concerned the "believers" interpretation that you present might open the door possibly for salvation outside of faith in Christ.
Doesn't Moo's interpretation heightens the contrast found in 3:21? By that, I mean the phrase "but now."
By the way, I do believe that in Moo's NICNT commentary he also states that at the final judgment we will be judged by our deeds. Only that Christ's work guarantees a favorable verdict for the true believer. This is how he reconciles the differences in the term "justification" between James and Paul.
I appreciate your insights. I enjoy being able to run these ideas past you.
Daniel,
The fact that in his argument in Romans 1:18-3:20 Paul has not yet mentioned "righteousness of God" and its relationship to faith/faithfulness surely does not mean that even his first readers were ignorant of how one becomes justified before God.
If we are going to use the argument that Paul hasn't mentioned this issue yet, then we have exactly the same problem with the whole of Romans 2. In particular, doesn't the same problem exist for the following verses? "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. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 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?" (Romans 2:25-27). Do these verses suggest that there is salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ? I think not. Paul is not talking about how one becomes righteous before God; he is, nontheless, characterizing ones who are righteous before God. By gospel definition, of course, they are people of faith. But, by gospel definition, they are also people of persevering obedience. To say this is not to compromise the basis of justification in the slightest, which regrettably is the phantom that frightens Douglas Moo and other commentators to adopt their inventive reading of a straightforward passage.
Take another look at our discussion of this passage in The Race Set Before Us on pages 164-167. Also, take a look at Tom Schreiner's commentary on Romans and his essay on Romans 2.
Yes, Douglas Moo does affirm that judgment will be according to our deeds. However, he has done two things. First, he has driven a wedge between faith and obedience/perseverance. Second he has nullified, at least muted, the urgency of Romans 2:6 by rendering Romans 2:7-10 as hypothetical, which it most assuredly is not, except for those readers who follow Martin Luther too closely, who bifurcate the Bible into two pieces: Law and Gospel. :)
Paulos
Paulos,
Thanks for this dialogue. What a great idea for a blog. I hope that you don't think that I'm just trying to argue with you. I really want to understand your position and have a better grasp on the text.
I tend to disagree with your statement that Moo has "driven a wedge between faith and obedience." I think that he would feel misrepresented by that statement. Please reexamine the section in his NICNT commentary on 1:5 (51-53). He writes, "Obedience always involves faith, and faith always involves obedience. They should not be equated, compartmentalized, or made into separate stages of Christian experience."
Concerning Romans 2:1-11, I don't think that it is a fear of works salvation that motivates Moo's interpretation, since in the long run he holds a view of perseverance that is very similiar to yours. I would argue that it's the context that leads me to believing that Paul is not refering to Christians in v. 7 and 10. We must consider how this pericope fits into the bigger picture of Paul's argument. After condemning the sin of humanity as a whole in ch. 1, Paul turns to confront the unbelieving Jewish hypocrite for failing to match up to his own standard. The Jews felt that God was righteous in his wrath toward the Gentiles for their idolatry, and yet they didn't want to examine their own disobedience to God's law.
In your book, you write, "But in the midst of his prosecution of disobedient possessors of the law, he reaffirms God's thoroughly impartial principle of justice that holds out hope for all who do the things that the law requires, but 'not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be declared righteous'(Rom. 2:13)."
Here lies the problem. No one does God's law. Not the Gentiles. Not the Jews. Another way of righteousness apart from the law is needed.
About this offer of salvation in vv. 7 and 10, I personally wouldn't use the terms "hypothetical" or "fictional" to describe the modified Lutheran position that I hold. I think that it's actually a genuine standard of God's judgment. It's just that without the work of Christ no one could meet up to it.
I take it that you don't share Moo's Lutheran view of OT law. Here probably lies the root of our differences. Perhaps you would be willing to discuss in a post the role of the OT law in relation to the gospel. That would be helpful in order for me to understand your prospective.
Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel,
I don't regard your questions as merely argumentative. I do understand your intentions are right and good.
I respectfully disagree, of course, with both Douglas Moo's view and the one you are proposing. I noticed that you did not address my comments on Romans 2:25ff, how the problem you think exists in Romans 2:7-10 also exists for these verses in 2:25ff.
I wrote my dissertation for Douglas Moo. I discovered, in the course of my research and writing, that he and I do have some notable differences. Because I know Douglas Moo's view quite well, having worked closely with him, I would say, without hesitation, that he holds his view on Romans 2:7ff because he thinks that the view I hold is, as you suggested earlier with these words, "I'm concerned the 'believers' interpretation that you present might open the door possibly for salvation outside of faith in Christ." In my dissertation work with him, Douglas Moo expressed quite clearly his fear that my work was dangerously close to advancing the concept works righteousness. His concerns reflected how pervasively Lutheran is his understanding of Paul's whole theology.
The statement in The Race Set Before Us makes exactly the case that I believe Paul is making. Gentiles, who do not have the Law, testify against Jews who do have the Law, for the Gentiles, of whom Paul speaks, actually do the things required by the Law, even though they do not have the Law. Paul is talking about Christian Gentiles. If not, of whom does he speak? Against your claim--"No one does God's law. Not the Gentiles."--Paul is arguing that the Gentiles of whom he is speaking do what the Law requires. It seems to me that, if we're going to be loyal to the text, we do have to explain how this can be.
I am satisfied that my understanding of the passage does real justice to the passage. Until demonstrated otherwise, I will continue to believe as I do. Douglas Moo's view is simply not convincing, despite the fact that once upon a time, I did hold his view.
There is a fair amount of overlap between Moo's view of the OT Law and mine. However, you're right. My view is not Lutheran. I wrote my dissertation on the Law in Galatians 3:1-14 for Douglas Moo.
Thanks for your questions and dialogue. Dialogue keeps us clear and on the right path.
Paulos
Daniel,
Sorry about the delay on responding here, but I have been occupied with posting new comments on chapter two. Though I am just a biblical-theologian in training, I too would like to point out the comments that Paulos notices, namely when you write: "Here lies the problem. No one does God's law. Not the Gentiles. Not the Jews. Another way of righteousness apart from the law is needed." In a sense we agree with this for this is a point that Paul is driving at, but he does give hints along the way that there is a new creature a new man, who is a member of the new covenant, who though is uncircumcised in the flesh, he is circumcised of the heart, and because of this he keeps the very righteous requirements of the Law. So, I would suggest, that your absolute statement quoted above should be tempered by Paul's argument in 2:25-29. I have also posted comments on that section of Paul's argument just moments ago, so you could read those as well.
Thank you for taking an interst in our blog. As you can tell Paulos is the Jedi-Master here, but I will comment when I can, that is if I have something to say. Grace to you!
Jedi-Master,
Why don't you think that your interpretation opens the door for inclusivism? Couldn't it be argued based on your exegesis that some people, who never even heard of Christ, were justified at the final judgment on the basis of their persistence in seeking God?
I'm glad that you brought up 2:12-16. We must address one major interpretative question in this text. Who are the "Gentiles that do by nature things required by the law"?
We only have three options.
1. Good Gentiles, who aren't believers in Christ, that are justified by doing the law.
2. Gentile Christians who do the law by an obedient faith in Christ.
3. Moral Gentiles, who follow some aspects of the law since they have a conscience, and yet they are not saved.
I think that we both would agree that option 1 is false. I take it that you hold that option 2 is correct. However, I would argue that position 3 best meets the demands of the text.
Here Paul is shaming the Jewish unbeliever for the hypocrisy. They think that they have an edge at the judgment since they possess God's law. However, Paul refutes this thinking in two ways. First, possessing the law isn't God's standard at the judgment; instead, it's obedience to the law. Secondly, the possession of the law will not give the Jews any advantage at the judgment since the Gentiles instinctly have a conscience that somewhat resembles God's moral law.
V. 15 is the kicker for me. It pushes me toward option 3. Notice that their conscience is both accusing and defending them. That's why no one completely does the law. Hence, the conclusion in v. 16. God will judge all of men's secrets. No one, based on the Mosaic law or God's moral law, will receive a favorable verdict at the final judgment (3:19-20).
Once again, thanks for the dialogue.
Daniel
Daniel,
You stated, Why don't you think that your interpretation opens the door for inclusivism? Couldn't it be argued based on your exegesis that some people, who never even heard of Christ, were justified at the final judgment on the basis of their persistence in seeking God?
What you say about my exegesis applies equally to Paul's own words. Both he and I are powerless to stop anyone from twisting our words to endorse such a view.
If anyone were to argue on the basis of my exegesis that some people, who never even heard of Christ, were justified at the final judgment on the basis of their persistence in seeking God, that person would be twisting my exegesis to do so. I have repeatedly insisted that Paul is not talking about the basis of justification any more than he is talking about the basis of being acquitted in final judgment. The basis in both cases is exactly the same. The basis is the propitiating sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25-26).
In Romans 2 Paul is not speaking about the basis of justification, which is acquittal in the Day of Judgment. As I have said before, Paul is speaking about whom God will justify not about on what basis God will justify them. God will justify those who persevere in doing good. No one should read the previous statement as saying God will justify people on the basis of their doing good. I affirm the former, which is what Paul is affirming throughout Romans 2. I deny the latter, which Paul also denies.
Paulos
Thanks Paulos,
I got you. That makes sense. I should have reread your post on the section. You had already said that. I just forgot it.
What about verse 15? Why you think that it makes better sense to understand that this is Gentile Christian?
Doesn't language like "by nature" and "their conscience accusing them" point toward an unbeliever? I saw your explanation on another post, but it didn't seem very convincing. Paul's language doesn't sound like a Christian wrestling guilt in light of God's judgment of our secrets. This seems to run contrary to the later assurances found in Romans 5 and 8.
This understanding is clearly reflected in the NASB and more recently in the NLT. I don't know Greek so you'll have to help me here. My limited understanding of Greek also makes me somewhat skeptical of some commentators. Since it seems like people try to prove almost anything by appealing to the Greek. I probably just need to learn.
"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" (NASB).
"Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right and wrong. They demonstate that God's law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right" (NLT).
Daniel
Daniel,
Here is my translation of Romans 2:14-16.
"For when the Gentiles who by nature do not have the Law do the things required by the Law, these who do not have the Law are a Law to themselves, in that they show the work required by the Law written in their hearts, with their conscience testifying, and their thoughts now accusing and now defending them, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of humans according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus."
Yes, as I indicated in my comments (http://crosstalking.blogspot.com/2005/04/comments-on-romans-212-16.html), verse 15 is difficult. Yet, it is just as difficult for the interpretation you are defending.
As for the remainder of your comments, review my comments here http://crosstalking.blogspot.com/2005/04/comments-on-romans-212-16.html. I show there that phusei does not attach to "do the things of the Law," but to "who do not have the Law." There, I stated, The expression "by nature" can hardly refer to something that is common to everyone, to all humans, including Jews. If so, Paul's point would be lost.
Paulos
Post a Comment