John wrote:
>these Gentiles KNOW NOTHING. They have
>heard nothing (v v 13,14) that would cause
>them to even begin to compare with those
>of prominence.
The phrase, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the
doers of the law shall be justified," does not mean that these who did the
law had not heard it. Rather, it simply means that justification before God
is not based upon hearing but upon doing. Back up and look at Rom. 2:6-11.
God renders glory, honor, and peace to every man that WORKETH GOOD, to the
Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
And how does your point at this juncture differ from mine -- except that you seem to ignore the contrast Paul has set up in Romans 2 - between the haves and the have nots. Look at what you just said "does not mean that these who did the law had not heard it. Rather, it simply means that justification before God
is not based upon hearing but upon doing." If justification is not based upon hearing (your very words), then who in the world cares that they ONLY performed based upon what came naturally as I claim the text says ????????? Your comments above agree with me.
There are some who become righteous (work good) because of faith in Jesus
Christ. Although these do not have Torah, they keep Torah because Torah is
written upon their hearts. So by their new nature in Christ, they do the
things contained in the law and are a law unto themselves. They show the
work of the law written upon their hearts.
Here, it seems, confusion abounds. Salvation for the Gentiles is a possible outcome (v v 15,16 ".... their thoughts either accusing or defending ....." There is nothing in these two verses that indicate an uncondtitional salvation from their point of view. There is nothing that would give these Gentiles an confidence. They amy not even know of a judgment day - only that they are taken with notion of serving others (what else could instictive obedience in the absence of law - be?)
In the closing verse of this chapter (Romans 2, I believe we have an application of the prophetical truth found in Jere 31:31-34 ---------- an expressed fact that does give us confidence and explains why it is that nothing can stand in our way of salvation except our own decision to reject so great a salvation. Romans 2:28, 29 do not go to a description of the Gentile as a Christian but, rather, to the Gentile as having fulfilled the ultimate concern of God in Christ -- and that is the condition of the heart. He (the Gentile) has fulfilled the Law without the law and may be saved. As benefactors of the Abrahamic covenant, we will be saved apart from law ( see the parallel? " without the law" (the Romans 2 Gentile) and "apart from obedience to the law" - chapter 3:28? ) ------------ same difference. There is much more to this theology, of course, but on point, I say again, "Same diff."
John wrote:
>You are not the only who goes elsewhere
>in the letter or the biblical message to argue
>the point that this passage could not possibly
>mean what it says.
On the contrary, I believe that the passage means exactly what it says. You
simply seemed to read your own idea into it and caused a reading of it that
contradicts what Paul teaches elsewhere in this same epistle.
Good try, I suppose, but nothing here 'cept your opinion about me.
John wrote:
>I see no contradiction, but more importantly,
>I see the critical importance for the existence
>of these Gentiles in this illustration. Without
>them, Paul's point is without the contrast
>necessary to the making of his point.
I think you mean that without the contrast necessary, he could not make YOUR
point. His point is something other than you think (IMO).
I understand "IMO" and say "thanks" for that. We are the same page in that regard. As far as what I really mean to say -- your version misses the mark. I believe I said what I meant, for once.
If you won't hear me, maybe you would reconsider upon hearing the highly
respected Bishop of Durham, who seems to take the same position as me on
this subject. :-)
Tom Wright considers several viewpoints of Romans 2, including yours, and he
says that your viewpoint "... falls foul of Paul's emphasis on the
universality of human sin, in the overarching theme stated in 1:18 and
concluded in 3:20. ... here he [Paul] is hinting at a theme he will explore
later in the letter, namely that the people in question are Christian
Gentiles (vv. 14-15)."
I do not dismiss Wright entirely or finally. I have considered his thinking and see no reason to change. I see the purpose of the hypothetical "Gentiles" in Romans 2 as esstential to the point being made in chapter two, namely that God is not a respecter of persons -- a very specific purpose. If there is a purpose or theme that extends beyond the specifics of the chapter two, then so be it. I just think it quite clear that those of prominence within the church are being contrasted with
those who, in nearly every way, are their anthithesis.
John
