The Apostate Gospel of works

[Andre]

The term "nature" (Gr. phusis) as used by Paul in the book of Romans repudiates Andre's forced interpretation of Romans 2:14-15 to mean these are Christians who by nature of a regenerated heart obey the law of God.

1. The context repudiates it as "phusis" is used both before and after to things which have to do with human nature according to the natural birth (Rom. 1:26; 2:27).

No. As my last post shows, desptite the wording of some translations such as the NIV (used immediately below) we can read this verse:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,

....as a statement about how Gentiles who are not born into the people governed by the Law of Moses can still "do the law".

This does not repudiate my assertion that these are Christian Gentiles.

You appeal to a very restrictive sense of "birth" here, choosing to believe that Paul is speaking about Gentiles being born with an innate sense of "the law", when it is also possible that Paul is referring to the Gentiles who are not born into a society governed by the Law of Moses.

Now the way that the NIV has been translated (as well as some other translations) clearly adopts your position on this since these translations suggest that Gentiles "instinctively" do the things of the Law (or do the things of the law "by nature"). Well, there is scholarly disagreement about how to translate this verse. From the NET Bible commentary:

Some (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:135-37) take the phrase φύσει (fusei, “by nature”) to go with the preceding “do not have the law,” thus: “the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature,” that is, by virtue of not being born Jewish.

 

[Andre]

To other readers of this thread:

Is there any reader of this thread that is willing to take up for Andre and show me where my exposition of Romans 2:10-24 is in error concerning the identity of "the law"?

Is there any reader of this thread that agrees with Andre that "the law" in Romans 2:10-24 is not the Jewish Law?

Is there any reader of this thread that agrees with Andre that the "law" which the Gentile does have in Romans 2:14-15 is not the law written upon the conscience?

Is there anyone out there who can defend Andre's interpretation of "the law" to be anything other than Jewish law?

I can tell that you one prominent theologian, NT Wright, fully "agrees" with my position here.

In fact, even though I have not stated so to this point, my views on the matter of interpreting Romans 2 are substantially informed by the views of NT Wright. The ideas I am presenting are substantially his, not mine.

So let's be clear here - there is at least one prominent New Testament scholar who would "agree" with me on all these issues.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Some (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:135-37) take the phrase φύσει (fusei, “by nature”) to go with the preceding “do not have the law,” thus: “the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature,” that is, by virtue of not being born Jewish. :

Fine! But that still does not define what law they do have in verse 12 unless it is the law written on their conscience in verse 15. Verse 14 tells us what law they do not have but only verse 15 tells us what law they do have. We know that "the law" which will judge the Jews in verse 12 but we do no know the law that the Gentile has "sinned" against in verse 12 and will perish by in verse 12 if it is not the law written on their conscience in verse 15.

The law in stone and the law in conscience have the same Author - God. They have the same design - reveal sin and righteousness - "their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" Here is the agreement with the law and the things that pertain to the law of Moses. The Law of Moses hangs entirely on two commandments or two principles and so does the law written in conscience.

 

[Andre]

I give the following absolute proofs from the context that the words “the law” used in Romans 2:12-29 is the Jewish law:

A. PROOF #1: Romans 2:12 provides only two possible options to be judged by in the day of judgment by God. People who have sinned “without law” will be judged “without law” and people who have sinned “in the law” will be judged “by the law.” Either “the law” in question is the Jewish law or the Jewish law will not be used in the day of Judgement.

No. In verse 12, Paul refers to how Gentiles who "sin" will perish without specifically being judged by the Law of Moses:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law,...


It appears that we agree that the "Law" here is the Law of Moses. But, the fact that the Gentile will not be judged by the Law of Moses does not mean he will not be subject to judgement by some other "law". And, in fact, it is clear that Paul believes that this is precisely what will happen - the Gentile will indeed be judged by something closely related to, but not exactly the same as the written code of the Law of Moses:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus

Two things:

(1) It is clear that the "law" the Gentile "does" is not the Law of Moses - Paul takes great pains to state that this is a "law unto themselves" and that the Gentiles do not "have" the Law (of Moses);

(2) It is also clear that this second "law" will, despite what you claim, indeed be the standard applied to the Gentile at the coming judgement.

 

[Andre]

Fine! But that still does not define what law they do have in verse 12 unless it is the law written on their conscience in verse 15.

The "law" they do not "have" in verse 12 is the Law of Moses - in verse 12, Paul is saying that even though the Gentile who does not have the Law of Moses, he will still be judged. And will perish if he is found to be a sinner.

Verse 14 tells us what law they do not have but only verse 15 tells us what law they do have.

I disagree about verse 14. Here is verse 14. It rather clearly identifies a "law" that the Gentile does have - the "law unto themselves":

For 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,

But I certainly agree that verse 14 tells us that the Gentile does not "have" the Law of Moses. And I certainly agree that v15 further amplifies the fact that the Gentile "does have" a law.

We know that "the law" which will judge the Jews in verse 12 but we do no know the law that the Gentile has "sinned" against in verse 12 and will perish by in verse 12 if it is not the law written on their conscience in verse 15.

I agree, but as I have just argued in recent posts, Paul is not saying that all Gentiles will perish in verse 12. He must be read as suggesting that only those Gentiles who "sin" in the sense of being "hearers and not doers" will perish:

For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

I know that verse 12 says Gentiles will perish. But I suggest that verses 13 and 14 make it clear that Paul can only mean that some Gentiles will perish. Others, in keeping with stuff in verses 6-11 will, be found to be "seeking glory, honour, and immortality, and be therefore given eternal life. That is, although there will be Gentiles who do perish as per 12, there will be those who "do the law" and will be justified (verse 13 and verse 14).

 

[Andre]

I believe that two reasons why so many see Romans 2 as describing a "justification by works" that is only hypothetical are these:

(1) They believe that Romans 1 to 3 is really only talking about the idea that all are sinners, so they "dismiss" any statements about people being justified by good deeds.

(2) Cognate with (1), they miss that Romans 1 to 4 has a strong implicit covenant renewal theme, and miss the allusions about how covenant renewal will mean that people "can indeed keep the law". Here is one such text from Deuteronomy that Paul quotes later in the letter (chapter 10):

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.

I hope to significantly explore the implications of the covenant theme for Romans 2 later.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I know that verse 12 says Gentiles will perish. But I suggest that verses 13 and 14 make it clear that Paul can only mean that some Gentiles will perish. Others, in keeping with stuff in verses 6-11 will, be found to be "seeking glory, honour, and immortality, and be therefore given eternal life. That is, although there will be Gentiles who do perish as per 12, there will be those who "do the law" and will be justified (verse 13 and verse 14).

If only some of the Gentiles perish in verse 12 then only some of the Jews perish by the Mosaic law in verse 12!!!!!! Hence, some Jews will be justified under the Mosaic Law?????????

There are TWO laws in verse 12 - the law the Gentiles have "sinned" and shall "perish" by and the Law of Moses they are without and which they have sinned and perish without.

You cannot have SOME of the Gentiles perishing in verse 12 by the law they sinned against without also having only SOME of the Jews perish in verse 12 by the law they sinned against.

Paul says "ALL" have sinned against the law they are distinctively under (Moses, conscience) not "some"


Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

 

[Dr. Walter]

The "law" they do not "have" in verse 12 is the Law of Moses - in verse 12, Paul is saying that even though the Gentile who does not have the Law of Moses, he will still be judged. And will perish if he is found to be a sinner.



I disagree about verse 14. Here is verse 14. It rather clearly identifies a "law" that the Gentile does have - the "law unto themselves":

For 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,

But I certainly agree that verse 14 tells us that the Gentile does not "have" the Law of Moses. And I certainly agree that v15 further amplifies the fact that the Gentile "does have" a law.

Paul denies that merely "some" have sinned but demands ALL Gentiles have sinned against the law they are under:

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;


I agree, but as I have just argued in recent posts, Paul is not saying that all Gentiles will perish in verse 12. He must be read as suggesting that only those Gentiles who "sin" in the sense of being "hearers and not doers" will perish:

For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

I know that verse 12 says Gentiles will perish. But I suggest that verses 13 and 14 make it clear that Paul can only mean that some Gentiles will perish. Others, in keeping with stuff in verses 6-11 will, be found to be "seeking glory, honour, and immortality, and be therefore given eternal life. That is, although there will be Gentiles who do perish as per 12, there will be those who "do the law" and will be justified (verse 13 and verse 14).

You are entirely missing the point in verse 12. Verse 12 demands that the Gentiles have sinned and will perish and therefore they have violated some kind of law and will perish under that law in verse 12. Verse 12 tells us which law they have not sinned against - MOSAIC LAW but it does not tell us which law they HAVE SINNED against but still inferrs there is such a law as they cannot be charged with sin if there wasn't.

Secondly, you cannot interpret verse 12 to apply to only SOME gentiles under the law they have sinned unless:

1. There are Gentiles WITHOUT SIN under any law
2. There are Jews "in the law" of Moses that have not sinned against it.
3. You can no more justify Gentiles without sin against their law than you can Jews without sin against the Mosaic law

Thirdly, Paul contradicts your "some" theory and says that "ALL" Gentiles have "sinned" (v. 12) against that law they are under in Romans 3:9

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe that two reasons why so many see Romans 2 as describing a "justification by works" that is only hypothetical are these:

(1) They believe that Romans 1 to 3 is really only talking about the idea that all are sinners, so they "dismiss" any statements about people being justified by good deeds.

(2) Cognate with (1), they miss that Romans 1 to 4 has a strong implicit covenant renewal theme, and miss the allusions about how covenant renewal will mean that people "can indeed keep the law". Here is one such text from Deuteronomy that Paul quotes later in the letter (chapter 10):

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.

I hope to significantly explore the implications of the covenant theme for Romans 2 later.

Paul plainly tells you his purpose for Romans 1:18-3:20 and it is to prove that both Gentiles and Jews are under sin not under grace:

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all [not just "some"] under sin;

His teaching on grace does not begin until Romans 3:21. Those in Romans 2:6-10 are explicitly HYPOCRITS (Rom. 2:1-5; 17-29) who believe they will be justified "UNDER LAW" in the day of judgment. Paul merely sets forth the criteria of judgement "UNDER LAW". He does not describe or explain justification "UNDER GRACE" until Romans 3:21.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The "law" they do not "have" in verse 12 is the Law of Moses - in verse 12, Paul is saying that even though the Gentile who does not have the Law of Moses, he will still be judged. And will perish if he is found to be a sinner.

There are TWO laws in verse 12 not one. Paul tells us they have "SINNED" in verse 12 against law but not the Mosaic law. Paul tells us they will "PERISH" in verse 12 but not by the Mosaic law.

The terms "sinned" and "perish" infer there is another law - the law written on their conscience - this is the law that God will call upon as a WITNESS against them in the day of judgement as it "beareth witness" to every deed they have done willfully. This is the law unto themselves apart from the Jewish law.

Moreover, ALL the Gentiles have sinned under this "law unto themselves" not just "SOME" as Paul explicitly says so in Romans 3:9 just as ALL the Jews have sinned against the Jewish law in verse 12 and not just SOME as Paul explicitly says so in Romans 3:9:

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

 

[quantumfaith]

This morning, in worship, according to Andy (Stanley) the Law can do only 1 thing. Condemn.

 

[Andre]

If only some of the Gentiles perish in verse 12 then only some of the Jews perish by the Mosaic law in verse 12!!!!!!

Indeed. But I must emphasize this: as per my argument, verses 13 and 14 force us to read Paul as suggesting that some Gentiles (and some Jews for that matter) will indeed be justified.

Hence, some Jews will be justified under the Mosaic Law?????????

Indeed. And here I must "confess" that I need to re-work some things I may have written in earlier posts. I have probably made the statement "a Jew cannot be justified by the Law of Moses", or something like it.

I should have probably said something more careful and qualified like this: If, in the time before Christ when the Law of Moses was in force, a Jew attempts to do the works of the Law of Moses in a manner which seeks to restrict justification to Jews, that Jew will not be justified. But if a Jew has faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then that Jew will indeed be justified by the works of the Law of Moses at the great coming Romans 2 judgement.

Paul's real critique of the Jew was always that they sought to limit God's family to Jews.

So yes, a Jew can indeed be justified by the Law of Moses if he does not "do it by works" - Paul's code for referring to the Jew who sees the Law as a charter of ethnic privielege.

I am sure you, and others, will not like this. Fair enough. Make your cases. But note what I am not saying: I am not saying that the Jew (who lived while the Law was in force) can be justified apart from faith in God. He has to follow Abraham - believe in God, in order to be empowered to keep the Law of Moses to the degree needed for ultimate justification.

In defence of this admittedly non-mainstream position, I appeal to this text from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Note how Paul can be read as suggesting that there is indeed a sense in which the Jew would have been accorded "righteousness" if he had pursued his law - the Law of Moses - "by faith". But instead, they pursued it "by works" - in a manner that sought to limit salvation to Jews.

Here in Romans 9, Paul is clearly talking about the majority of Jews. But I see no reason to say that Paul does not believe that some Jews will indeed be judged against the Law of Moses and "pass".

These are Jews who follow the Law of Moses "by faith".

 

[Andre]

There are TWO laws in verse 12 - the law the Gentiles have "sinned" and shall "perish" by and the Law of Moses they are without and which they have sinned and perish without.

Well I basically agree, even though I think you may wish to rephrase the last bit. But this does not pose a problem for the position I am embracing.

You cannot have SOME of the Gentiles perishing in verse 12 by the law they sinned against without also having only SOME of the Jews perish in verse 12 by the law they sinned against.

I agree - see my previous post.

Paul says "ALL" have sinned against the law they are distinctively under (Moses, conscience) not "some"

Indeed, no one, least of all me is suggesting that anyone is sinless. But the fact that each human has sinned does not means that person cannot be found, at the coming judgement, to have been, in Paul's words:

seeking for glory and honor and immortality,

This a massively complex issue. But one thing is clear. The person in Romans 3 is clearly the person in their "pre-conversion" state. Romans 8 makes it clear that the believer escapes the Romans 3 state. Therefore, one cannot use Romans 3 to say that people cannot be justified at the end by "good deeds".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

QF: This morning, in worship, according to Andy (Stanley) the Law can do only 1 thing. Condemn.

HP: Andy (Stanley) needs to spend some time with King David. :thumbs:

Ps 1:1 ¶ Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 ¶ The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

 

[quantumfaith]

HP: Andy (Stanley) needs to spend some time with King David. :thumbs:

Ps 1:1 ¶ Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 ¶ The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Good point, perhaps I should have elaborated, the theme of His current series titled "Losing your religion" is about how "religions" of all flavors have attempted over the millenia to "fix" ourselves and/or curry favor with whatever "god" we worship. But yes, I am certain that Andy would agree with you that there is indeed value in honoring and meditating on the Law of God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am sure you, and others, will not like this. Fair enough. Make your cases. But note what I am not saying: I am not saying that the Jew (who lived while the Law was in force) can be justified apart from faith in God.

Nor could he be justified WITH the law or by the law as the law is NOT OF FAITH:

Gal. 3:12 And the law is not of faith:

It is not now of faith, it was not then of faith nor can it ever be of faith. Indeed, Paul's argument is that both Jew and Gentiles are justified on the SAME BASIS and that necessarily EXCLUDES the law and its works altogether at ANY TIME according to Romans 3:19-20.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him

Therefore, before Moses during the time of Abraham it was not of faith any more than during Moses or after Moses it was ever of faith.

Romans 9:30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

The argument of Paul is that the Jews must be justified on the same grounds as the Gentiles and the Gentiles are justified without the law, not with it, without the works of the law, not with it, and therefore the Jews cannot be justified by either the Law or the works of the law.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;.

The law is not contrary to faith EXCEPT when it comes to including the law as a way for obtaining righteousness. In regard to justification the law plays no role whatsoever in obtaining righteousness. It is either/or but not both law and faith when it comes to obtaining righteousness.

You are taking what Paul contrasts in regard to obtaining righteousness and making them partners in justification. If they were partners in obtaining justification then, they would have to be now. If they were partners in obtaining justification for the Jew, they would have to be for the Gentile also.

You are making TWO different gospels of salvation, one under the law for the Jew and one for Gentiles when the Bible repeatedly denies there has ever been more than one gospel before Moses or after Moses (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2).

 

[DHK]

You are making TWO different gospels of salvation, one under the law for the Jew and one for Gentiles when the Bible repeatedly denies there has ever been more than one gospel before Moses or after Moses (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2).

And that seems to summarize the truth of the matter.
And perhaps should best summarize this thread. It is now 30 pages long, and needs to be closed. Please feel free to start another.