Romans 2:17-24

Paulos,
I have finally been able to post. Here are my thoughts on Romans 2:17-24. I am anxious to hear what you think? Also, did you read the most recent comment? What do you think of the thought? I am leaning in that direction. Anyway, here is my translation and comments along with a few questions! Thank you for your patience.

Timotheos

Romans 2:17-24

¹⁷ But if you call yourself ‘Jew’ and you rely on Law and you boast in God ¹⁸ and you know the will and you test the things that matter, because you are instructed by the Law ¹⁹ and you are convinced that you yourselves are a guide to the blind, a light for those in the darkness, ²⁰ an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having the semblance of knowledge and truth in the Law; ²¹ therefore, the one teaching the other, do you not teach yourself? The one preaching, ‘Do not steal’, do you steal? ²² The one saying, ‘Do not commit adultery’, do you commit adultery? The one detesting idols, do you rob temples? ²³ You who boast in the Law, through transgression of the Law, dishonor God. ²⁴ For ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you (Isaiah 52:5; cf. Ezekiel 36:20-23), just as it is written.

Short Comment:

Israel may boast in the Law, but because Israel has transgressed the Law, God is not honored, rather he is dishonored by the one’s who ‘rely on Law’.

Longer Comment:

Israel was chosen by God to be a light to the nations. He chose them not because of their stature, but that he might display his glory through them. Because of this to them belong the Law, which was a guide, it was the very revelation of God. To Israel belonged both election and the Law, the wisdom of God. Because of election and Law, Israel was equipped to teach, to be a light, to guide the blind.

But the Law with its truth, its revelation, its semblance of knowledge, actually speaks against the recipients of the Law, because Israel has transgressed the very Law which it taught. Paul now is pressing home a point which he began in 1:18ff, which is that Israel has disobeyed the command of God just as Adam had. Though Israel was set up to be a type of new Adam, Israel, far from succeeding in this role, actually replayed the very sin of Adam. Though Paul hinted at this in Chapter 1 of his letter, he is now pressing it home. Israel was set apart to be a light to the nations, but instead of being a light, Israel has dishonored God, because the very things Israel was teaching the other nations not to do, Israel was doing. Israel has not fulfilled its appointment. Israel failed to be ‘a light to the nations’. Instead of the nations giving God honor, as Isaiah states, ‘the name of God is blasphemed’.

By mentioning ‘the name of God blasphemed among the nations’, Paul is evoking the exilic tradition in Isaiah and Ezekiel. What Paul seems to be doing (This is how Wright talks about it in his Romans Commentary, 447-448) is saying that Israel’s exile was still continuing, though not in a geographical sense. Paul is introducing this here not only to show Israel’s failure but to set the stage for his discussion later in Chapter 10 where he talks of the gospel (here also he quotes again from Isaiah 52). Paul will do this to show that God’s long-awaited promise of redemption is being fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah, Lord, the faithful one.

With this I now have a few questions:

One- Paul talks about how Israel has in the Law the semblance or form of knowledge (v. 20). Is Paul’s use of ‘external form’ (morphosin) neutral, positive, or polemical? What I am thinking is that morphosin could be polemical, because the Law, though good, did not change the heart, thus it was simply external, yet still good, for it taught truth and knowledge. Is Paul hinting at something here with morphosin that he will later develop in chapters 7 and 8?

Two- What do you think about the reference to the exile still occurring for Israel in a non-geographical sense like Wright argues? It seems persuasive to me.

Three- It seems to me that in this section Paul is not concerned to show that each individual Jew is guilty of all his indictments, rather he is showing that Israel as a covenant people is guilty before God, because they transgressed the very Law they relied on. Is it helpful to make this distinction?