The use of the term "law" in Romans 2:27

With you so far.

I see no textual support for this position. You appear to be going beyond what Paul actually writes. We know for certain that the critique he levels at the Jew is not levelled at all Jews (Paul describes himself as "blameless" in respect to the Law).

And more importantly, there is no evidence at all that Paul is critiquing the idea that Jews can be justified by obedience to the Law. He makes that argument elsewhere, and how this all works together needs to be carefully nuanced.

But you must be reading something into the chapter 2 text - there is no evidence at all that Paul is critiquing the notion of being justified by the Law of Moses in this text.

 

What utter falsehood.

You have a short memory - you (like so many) simply misrepresent my position. You are either lying, or you have a short memory. I will be charitable and assume the latter. Perhaps its been some time, but I have repeatedly explained how final justification by works coheres perfectly with the centrality of the cross, and how the "saving works" are not "my" works, but rather the works of the Holy Spirit.

These debates always go the same way - I see it on other boards as well. When a poster (such as me) argues that final salvation is based on Spirit-produced works, we are misrepresented as arguing that "we save ourselves".

 

OK, give us actual text - actual words that Paul writes in Romans 2 - that supports this notion that Paul is critiquing the Jew for believing that he can be justified by following the Law of Moses.

There are no such words, but I will be interested in seeing what you come up with.

 

I cannot speak for others but I certainly have never stated that Paul is saying that there can be success "outward personal obedience to the law".

It is indeed clear that Paul beleives that there is indeed an "obeying of the law" that can, and is, achieved:

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

No doubt you will try to argue that, despite the wording, Paul does not believe that these Gentiles can indeed "do by nature the things required by the law". Of course, this is what you need to do to preserve your position.

You seem to be arguing thus:

1. In verses 1-5 and 17-24, we have Paul critiquing someone who is failing at "keeping the law";

2. Therefore, one cannot "keep the law".

The problem with this is obvious - you cannot simply assume that Paul's critique is universal.

Now before you misrepresent me, I will underscore that I agree that no one can be successful through outward personal obedience to the law. But that does not mean that there is a "non-outward obeying of the law" that will result in success. I suggest that this is what Paul is indeed saying, as I will argue in a follow-on post.

 

In Romans 2, Paul writes about the “law” being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is 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 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, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law” is written on the hearts of Gentile human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law” on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers). For reasons spelled out in detail elsewhere, the word “instinctively” is arguably a misleading translation – a better translation of the relevant fragment of verse 14 would be:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

Note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart” concept:

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

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart” language to describe something that will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers.

Note also this famous text from Deuteronomy 30:

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.See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess

This is the very same text that Paul directly quotes in Romans 10 in relation to matters of law – so let’s not pretend Paul does not have the Deuteronomy text in mind as he dictates his letter to the church at Rome. This Deuteronomy text is smack-dab in the middle of a treatment of God’s promised future renewal of his covenant with Israel. So to the extent that we believe that Jesus’ work comprises the renewal of the covenant (and while I think that this is so, there is no space to argue for it in this post), this text is fulfilled for the Jew + Gentile church, and not just the nation of Israel
precisely because the church is the “true Israel”.

What is the point of all this? In both the Jeremiah text and the Deuteronomy text, we have images of the “law” being written on the heart of the believer, enabling obedience to that law.

Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likely than use “law written on the heart” language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament. Therefore, it is most reasonable to conclude that Paul does indeed believe that this “law written on the heart” can indeed be obeyed.

To be frank, the only reason why the position of Dr. Walter has so much traction, and is so widely accepted, is Old Testament ignorance. Once we see that Paul is picking up a covenant renewal theme, from texts like Jeremiah, Deuteronomy and indeed others, we need to take that seriously. And when we do, we realize that Paul is connecting into a theme whereby God indeed makes it possible for people to obey such a law. Dr. Walter’s position requires us to see obedience as “impossible”. Yet that is clearly not Paul’s intent, unless it is an incredible co-incidence that Paul uses the language of law written on the heart in a manner entirely inconsistent with its Old Testament use – where the believer (at the time of covenant renewal) is indeed enabled to obey the law.

Not at likely for a Biblically literate Pharisee like Saul of Tarsus.

 

I suggest that you do not want to turn this into a context of "who can read and who cannot" - I suspect that it will not turn out at all to your liking.

In any event, why are you talking about 1 Timothy 4:2 - you are committing the mistake of arbitrarily importing material from another letter. In any event, the fact that both in Romans, and in Timothy, hypocrites are on the table does not change the relevant point. And that is there is nothing in Romans 2 that suggests that people cannot be "justified" by the good deeds their lives manifest.

No one is saying that there are not hypocrites. Or that, at several places in Romans 2, Paul criticizes them. But there is no basis for taking a critique directed at hypocrites and suggesting that all people are subject to that critique.

Your logic is clearly not correct. Yes, these verses are addressed to hypocrites. But there is simply no basis for then presuming that Paul cannot talk about other things in Romans 2! Where is this mysterious rule that Paul cannot take his argument in different directions?

No one is suggesting that those identified in verses 1 to 5 are necessarily going to be saved. But there is simply no textual evidence that would lead to the conclusion that they are necessarily going to ultimately be lost. Let's not commit the further fundamental error of arguing as follows:

1. There is no statement that the person in verses 1 to 5 can be saved.
2. Therefore, the person in verses 1 to 5 cannot be saved.

That would be incorrect logic.

 

You lie.

You know full well that what you are saying about the belief I hold is, in fact, a misrepresentation of my belief.

 

I have already explained in detail why it is clear that verse 14-15 apply to believers - Paul is drawing on a recurrent Old Testament image of how the law gets written on the heart of the "true" Israel at the time of covenant renewal.

And the time of covenant renewal is the time of Jesus' work. And the true Israel is the Jew + Gentile church.

What part of the above would you dispute?

Well I dare you to find one word that says that they cannot. In any event, the Biblical texts are more subtle than you suppose. As I have shown, Paul is drawing on an Old Testament theme about how, at the time of covenant renewal, the "law" will be written on the hearts of "true Israel" so that they can "do this law". I am sorry but it is there clear as day in Deuteronomy 30 (which we otherwise know Paul has on his mind since he quotes it in Romans 10).

Your view on this has to quash this connection to the clear Old Testament promise that, at the time of covenant renewal, the law will be written on the hearts of the true people of God, enabling them to follow it.

 

If I understand you correctly, This is true. It's like being born TO good works. It is now our nature, that the works we do are Good. Likewise we saved ESTABLISH THE LAW.

The Law could never save, but condemned, and no one born, of woman and man, could live without breaking the LAW. We are told this by Peter in Acts 15:10. Neither he nor any that made covenant with God could keep the Law. So Peter agrees with Paul to let the Gentiles alone, and quit trying to bring them to Bondage of the Law or Moses, and under the Law of Circumcision, and all other rituals not to be practiced by the Heathen.

Moses can testify to both Laws, which could bring death to the Covenant people. One by not having faith in the flesh, so get rid of it and then the other impossible to keep.

Today, we in these bodies continue to sin, but God sees the BLOOD. The Curse of the Law to God's People cannot apply to us today, so let no one try and put a YOKE on our neck. As Paul says in Philippians 3: 9 to the Saints in Christ Jesus, that through His faith we come to the righteousness which is of God by faith.

 

I think it is very reasonable to read this statement as a "here is what will happen to you if you stay on the path you're on" kind of statement.

But this is not really the key issue. Even if you are right about the certain fate of this hypocrite, this does not mean that some will not be saved by "persistence in doing good" as per verse 7.

I agree, but this is not a good argument for suggesting that there will not be those who will indeed be saved as per the content of verses 6-13. You are basing your position on a demonstrably incorrect pre-supposition - that if an author is talking A, he cannot then widen his scope of treatment before then again returning to A.

You have Paul in the decidedly odd position of saying that there will be those given eternal life according to their deeds and yet having us believe that the number of such persons will be, yes, ZERO.

Highly odd, I suggest.

 

I agree that Paul believes that the Law of Moses - the written code given to Jews and only Jews - cannot "save". This is why I have tried to use the word "law" with quotation marks - suggesting that Paul has a "second" law in mind.

In short, here is what I believe Paul is saying:

1. The written code of the Law of Moses can save no one who is not otherwise regenerated by the Spirit of God;

2. There is a mysterious "second law" that gets written on the heart of Jew and Gentile believer alike. This law can be obeyed and must be obeyed if final salvation is to be achieved.

Paul's concept of "law" is complex precisely

Again - Paul refers to a law that is written on the heart that is obeyed by Gentile believers. Your position falls with the fact that there is an Old Testament promise that, at the time of covenant renewal - which is clearly what the work of Christ accomplishes - the law will be written on the heart so that, yes, it can be obeyed:

if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 11 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. 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live

I suggest this is exceedingly damaging to your position. It is inconceivable that a sophisticated, Biblically literate Pharisee like Paul would use "law written on the heart" language as he does in Romans 2 and not be tying into the promise that, at covenant renewal, the people of God will indeed be able to obey that law, just as the Deuteronomy text spells out.