I do not have much to offer by way of comments.
I wonder if you may have meant something different from what you stated in the following sentence. "Now that Paul has shown that the Law, Israel’s boast, works against Israel, because Israel has not fulfilled its appointed purpose, Paul shows that circumcision of the flesh, another great marker of Israel, is not profitable for Israel because of transgression. I mean to focus on the underlined portion. I wonder if you didn't mean ". . . because Israel has not done what it was commanded. . . ." The reason I raise this is that it seems to me that Israel did actually fulfill its God-appointed purpose even by her disobedience. This, it seems to me, is precisely what Paul shows in the next chapter, Romans 3:1-8. The words fulfilled and appointed purpose suggest typological or prophetic function.
I believe you are right to point out similarity between Paul's words and those of Hosea, as you say, "In fact, for transgressors, circumcision is of no value, because the transgression makes the one with fleshly circumcision to be as uncircumcision. This seems to be similar to what the Lord says through Hosea, that ‘my people’ will become ‘not my people’ (Hosea 1:9)."
I offer the following comment with Daniel in mind (a discussion partner) and in anticipation of Paul's discussion of being declared righteous, particularly of Abraham in Romans 4. The verse is 26, "Therefore, if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?" For Daniel's sake, I want to point out the significance of this verse for confirming my interpretation of Romans 2:13. As I argued on that verse, Paul does not say that "the doers of the Law will be justified" on the basis of their doing the Law, but instead, Paul is characterizing whom the Lord will justify in the Last Day. So, in 2:26, Paul does not argue that "the uncircumcised man" who "keeps the righteous requiresments of the Law" will be reckoned as circumcised on the basis of his keeping the righteous requirements of the Law. Paul is not speaking of the basis of God's reckoning the "uncircumcised" man as "circumcised." Yet, Paul's use of reckon is of the same conceptual domain as justify, as it is in Romans 4 when he says that God reckoned Abraham's faith for righteousness. In other words, the circumcision that counts with God is of a piece with righteousness that counts with God. Neither is instrinsic to the human; both are gifts from God.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Comments on Romans 2:25-29
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
How does this understanding of 2:13 affect our reading of Galatians? I'm thinking especially of sections like 2:16.
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" (NIV)
This passage seems to fly in the face of your interpretation. I know that we kind of went over that, but I guess I'm asking a larger question of the role of the law in your theology. Do you really believe that Paul thought that someone can be justified by doing the law?
Daniel,
You asked, Do you really believe that Paul thought that someone can be justified by doing the law?
Is it safe for me to assume that you mean the following: Do you really believe that Paul thought that it is possible for someone to be justified before God on the basis of obeying the Law?
First, I'm curious why you asked this question. If you would explain, I would appreciate it, for I am wondering what I might have said that would have prompted your question.
Now, if my paraphrase is what you are asking, the simple and short answer is, no, not at all. I believe that I have consistently argued against the notion that anyone could be justified before God on the basis of obeying the Law.
The Law of Moses had many functions assigned to it by the one who gave it, namely, God. One of its functions was most definitely not to provide the basis upon which anyone who would obey the Law would be justified (Rom 3:20).
Positively, the Law does function to make people knowledgeable of sin (Rom 3:20). The Law also served to increase transgression (Rom 5:20). Also, the Law had the function of distinguishing boundaries that separate sinful humans from God and from his people (Eph 2:11ff). The Law was given, not for the righteous, but for the ungodly and sinners (1 Tim 1:8ff). The Law was also given to foreshadow the one who was to come and all that he would bring to pass, namely Messiah (Matt 5:17).
Without making an effort to be exhaustive, these are several of the Law's God-authorized functions.
Paulos
Paulos,
Thanks for your comments on the Law. I find myself for the most part in agreement. I started thinking about this because of your comments on 2:26. In my understanding of the text, "keeping the law" is not actually possible due to our sinful corruption. I would argue that this position fits the best in Paul's theology as a whole. I base this primarily on Galatians and that passage in 1 Timothy that you previously mentioned.
Thus, the purpose of this section (1:18-3:20)is not to tell the Jews that some Gentiles are actually keeping the law, but to demonstrate that God is righteous in His wrath toward all of humanity--both Jew and Gentile.
Do you feel that there is any tension between Rom. 2:13 and Gal. 2:16? If so, how is this tension resolved? Are you making a distinction between "observing the Law" and "doing the Law"?
Once again, for the most part, I find myself agreeing with your theology, but not necessarily the nitty gritty details of your exegesis.
Thanks for the dialogue,
Daniel
Daniel,
You said, In my understanding of the text, "keeping the law" is not actually possible due to our sinful corruption.
I agree. Humans, whether Jews "under the Law" or Gentiles "not having the Law," apart from God's redeeming grace, cannot "keep the Law" or "do the Law." The only way that those Gentiles "who by nature do not have the Law" nonetheless "do the things required by the Law" (Rom 2:14-15) is that they have received the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the gospel. There is no other way that they could be so described by Paul.
Yes, the overall thrust of Romans 1:18-3:20 is to prosecute all humanity, Gentiles and Jews alike, as under the righteous wrath of God apart from Jesus Christ. Yet, in order to prosecute God's case against the Jews for boasting in having the Law and circumcision as guarantees of right standing with God, Paul appeals to the phenomenon of Gentiles who have neither the Law (yet they "do the things required by the Law," 2:14) nor circumcision (yet the "uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law," 2:26). If my interpretation of Romans 2 is incorrect, then, frankly, I do not understand what Paul is arguing or saying, for surely he is not arguing from a merely hypothetical situation but a real situation.
You also asked, Do you feel that there is any tension between Rom. 2:13 and Gal. 2:16? If so, how is this tension resolved? Are you making a distinction between "observing the Law" and "doing the Law"?
No, I see no tension between Romans 2:13 and Galatians 2:16, as if the two passages were speaking of the same thing. Romans 2:13 is speaking of those who are called "doers of the Law" by virtue of being recipients of grace. Indeed, we readers have to infer this, but we have both minds and the Spirit to do just this, for, if we know Paul's gospel, we know that there is no other way that anyone can "do the things required by the Law," and this is even more certain for those who "by nature do not have the Law." The passage does not speak of "doing the Law" in order to receive a right standing before God. To read the passage as if it argued this is to misread the passage, for if words mean anything, Paul's words in Romans 2:13 do not mean this. Galatians 2:16, on the other hand, affirms that justification does not come "on the basis of deeds required by the Law." The only tension one might find between the two passages, in my estimation, is in one's mind to the degree that one has not adequately resolved the fact that the two passages speak of two very different realities.
No, I do not make a distinction between "observing the Law" and "doing the Law" as descriptions in themselves. There is, of course, a distinction between Jews who have the Law either "not doing the Law" or "doing the Law" and Gentiles who "do not have the Law by nature" nonetheless "doing the things required by the Law." This distinction is a matter of knowledge primarily. The Gentiles, of whom Paul speaks in Romans 2:14-15, do not have the Law but do the things required by the Law, not because they have been taught the Law from childhood but because they have the Spirit who alone enables them to "do the things required by the Law."
Thanks for the questions and exchange. Such questions compel us to be clearer in our thinking and sharper in our expression.
Paulos
Is this how you handle Romans 8:4 as well? I have in the mind the phrase "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, do do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Daniel,
You asked, Is this how you handle Romans 8:4 as well? I have in the mind the phrase "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, do do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Romans 8:4 is similar but not the same. It is the Spirit that brings about the fulfillment in us, but the translation you have posted is not how I would translate the passage. Here is my translation of Romans 8:3-4. "For that which the Law could not do, in that it was powerless through the flesh, God did by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirements of the Law may be fulfilled in us, in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
The verb Paul uses in 8:4 (pleroo) is not the same verb as he uses in 2:14 (poieo). In 8:4 he is not speaking of "doing the righteous requirements of the Law." Instead, his category is different. He is speaking of "fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law." In 2:14 his category is doing what the Law required in terms of commandments. In 8:4 his category is fulfilling what the Law foreshadowed, that is, typologically. We Christians, then, are the Last Days people in whom the Law has found its fulfillment prophetically/typologically speaking. The Law, in other words, has reached its goal in God's Son who "condemned sin in the flesh" with the purpose that "the righteous requirements of the Law" might find their prophetic/typological fulfillment in us, the people who belong to Jesus Christ and to whom he has given the Spirit who governs our behavior.
Paulos
Daniel,
Here is an online article by a man named Tim Gallant (No relation to me, the true Timotheos). He has written something similar to what Paulos and I are seeing. It may be helpful for you since it is a bit more detailed.
http://www.rabbisaul.com/doersoflaw.htm
Blessings!
Timotheos
Timotheos,
Thanks for placing the link. I forgot about Tim Gallant's commentary on the passage until you reminded me. I went back to read it again. It's a great discussion.
Paulos
Post a Comment