Drew said:
mondar said:
Of course Judaism seeks justification by the Mosaic Law. God will impartially judge both unsaved Jew, and pagan Gentile on the basis of works.
He will indeed. But what mondar seems to screen out is what the result of that judgement will be -
eternal life.
Quite an inflammatory statement. Rather then address what I am saying you use emotional terms like "screen out" as though I ignore evidence. While such Rhetoric might emotionally rally the faithful works oriented people, it does nothing to promote the discussion. I think you jump to accusations too fast. I am not screening out anything.
Nevertheless, when verses 5-6 are read together in context, we can see that the judgment of Chapter 2 relates to wrath, not blessing.
5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
What works are in verse 5 that verse 6 is referring to? The righteous judgment of God treasures up wrath for a day of wrath when God will judge every man according to his works.
When we get to verses 7-11 Paul is simply speaking about God as an impartial judge. He is not opening up the discussion to the possibility of a future justification by works. Notice Pauls conclusion in verses 7-11....
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
Verse 11 is the application of verses 7-10. Paul is telling us what verses 7-10 mean.
The entire issue of a future justification is based not upon these verses, it is based upon verse 13. Their is where the future passive indicative of ?????????????? (will be justified) is found. When Paul gets to that point in his argument he is referring to the Mosaic Law. (I will not repeat arguments that verse 13 is about the Mosaic law here---please refer to my previous post.)
Drew said:
mondar said:
The context is a contrast between unsaved hypocritical Jews, and pagan Gentiles. The Jews seek justification by the Law of Moses, the pagan Gentiles seek justification by their own works and become as verse 14 says... "a law unto themselves."
This is not correct. Look at the wider context:
14For 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, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,
The error of exegesis here is that it avoids what I stated in my previous post. Verses 14 and 15 is a parenthetical thought. The ASV even inserts a parenthesis into the text. While that is an editors insertion, it is correct.
14 (
for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
Notice how verse 14 begins.... it begins with a comment "
for the Gentiles." This is a contrast with verses 12-13 which speak of the Jews and the Mosaic Law.
(more on verses 14-15 later--- It does not refer to the New Covenant)
Notice the connection of the context from before the parenthetical though and after....
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish [u]without the law]:[/u] and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
**** Notice the term "hearers of the law" ----- a very awkward term for a universal law that is not codified and cannot be read.
**** Also notice the contrast in these verses set up between the hearers of the law, and those not under the law (IE Gentiles)... Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law, but are under the universal law.
**** Finally notice the connection to the verses after the parenthetical thought of verses 14-15.
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of
a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent,
being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal,
dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery,
dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest
in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
Drew said:
The person familar with the Old Testament will know what this allusion to the Law being written on the heart is all about - it is about what will happen to God's people, not pagan Gentiles seeking salvation by their own works:
Paul is actually saying just the opposite as what Drew is suggesting. Paul is actually not talking about the people of God, but he is talking about Pagan Gentiles. Again, as I have said above, notice the way verse 14 begins....
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law...Paul is suggesting that even pagan, unregenerate Gentiles do some of the things in the Mosaic Law. Even Gentiles know it is wrong to steal, or commit adultery. As such they practice some of the Law. Does this save them? Certainly not! What Paul is talking about in the parenthetical thought is the guilt of the Jews! Think about it! The unregenerate unsaved Jew claims that he will be justified because he hears the law but what good will that do him, even the unregenerate unsaved Gentiles (the context here flows from chapter 1) by nature are practicing some things in the law.
---This relates not to the new covenant that is for "Israel and Judah" but refers to creation. In the original "image of God" in man at creation, the law was written on mans heart. It was marred in the fall, but part of that image remains. Enough remains in a pagan Gentile that he will keep part of the Mosaic Law by nature.
Drew said:
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
This is, of course, about believers, not pagan Gentiles.
This does not pertain to Romans 2. I would certainly not disagree that this passage from Deuteronomy is about believers. It is slick the way Drew makes it look like a passage from Romans 2. Notice he does not give the full reference. Just a warning to unsuspecting readers.
Drew said:
And this:
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, " I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
This quote from Jeremiah 33 is certainly about the new covenant. While the heart language of Romans 2 might sound related to the New Covenant, it is not. I have addressed this above. It is related to the heart condition of man during creation. At creation, God wrote the law upon Adams heart. In verses 14-15 notice the connection to "conscience."
the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,
Conscience began at creation.
Drew said:
It is clear that Paul here is talking about the saved Gentile enabled by God to do good. Paul is not, as mondar appears to be asserting, talking about the pagan Gentile seeking justification by works apart from God.
I am asserting exactly what Drew says I am because that is the context. Paul is not talking about the saved Gentile in verse 13, he is talking about the unsaved Jew and the Mosaic Law.
Please excuse the long post, but it takes more time to correct errors then to state erroneous views. Hopefully the reader will not just join in some emotional argumentation about the contribution of works man can contribute to his final justification. Please be driven to consider the text and the context.
