Comments on Romans 2:17-24

I'm sorry for my delayed response. End of the semester demands have kept me away from the blog. Now that I'm just about finished with scoring and grading, I will try to post responses to each of your last three installments.

Paulos

You asked three 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?

On your first question, I wonder if we actually have to choose among the choices you offer. The Law, as given by God, was external in form and positive in function in that it bore typological significance as it pointed away from itself to the giver of the Law. Thus, the Israelites had true knowledge of God, even if it was not inscribed upon their hearts as it became inscribed upon the hearts of the Gentiles of whom Paul speaks (we know them as Christians). At the same time, it seems to me, that there is likely a sardonic touch in Paul's use of morphosin, for the truth they had in the Law remained external and not inscribed upon their hearts.

Concerning your question about the exile continuing upon the Israelites in a non-geographical but spiritual sense, I concur. I believe the exile endures for the larger part of Israel even today. Surely, after Israelites returned to the land from the Babylonian captivity, Ezra and Nehemiah were quite aware that the exile was enduring, despite their being back in the land. Thus, they recognized that the exile was not fundamentally geographical but spiritual.

As you state the matter, yes, I believe it is helpful and necessary to recognize that Paul's indictments in Romans 2 are not against every individual Israelite without exception but against Israel as a covenant people in distinction from those Gentiles to whom Paul refers (namely, believing Gentiles). Not all who went into exile and remained in exile with Israel were unbelieving and rebellious. Daniel and others are examples. What you say about Romans 2 is true also, in a sense, with regard to Romans 1:18-32. In Romans 1:18-32 Paul is not indicting every person without exception, as if he were indicting us who are Christians. No. Paul is indicting all who are not in Christ.