7/20/10

On Mythical Gentiles

Those of you who know me know that I enjoy having a tough question or two in my back pocket that I'll pull out in a group setting as fodder for discussion and debate. Here's one that a few of us at GA were mulling over:

"Who are the Gentiles in Rom. 2:14ff who "do what the law requires" and whose "uncircumcision is counted as circumcision"?

If Paul's statement in 2:13 that "the doers of the law will be justified" is referring to a hypothetical, covenant-of-works scenario that is not in fact normative, then to whom is he referring in the very next verse where he says (and I'm summarizing), "For the Gentiles, who don't have the law but fulfill its demands anyway, demonstrate the works of the law written on their hearts, and their uncircumcision now counts as superior to Jewish circumcision"?
.
In other words, if the point Paul is making in v. 13 is hypothetical, then how does appealing to the mythical Gentiles of vv. 14ff make his argument any stronger? It'd be like me saying, "You should totally teleport to work instead of driving, like my friend Steve does. Oh by the way, Steve isn't real, I just made him up."

But on the other hand, if the Gentiles he appeals to in order to demonstrate his point are real and not mythical, then v. 13 can't be hypothetical, can it?

Thoughts?
Posted by Jason Stellman at 10:42 PM
Labels:

14 comments:

  1. Doug Moo gives three historically proposed alternatives for the identity of these Gentiles:

    "1. Gentiles who fulfill the law and are saved apart from explicit faith in Christ;

    2. Gentiles who do some part of the law but who are not saved;

    3. Gentile Christians who fulfill the law by virtue of their relationship to Christ." (p.148f. NICNT commentary)

    Guess which one he defends.
    ReplyDelete
  2. There is some interesting commentary of the passage from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops here although it does not directly address the identify of these gentiles.

    I also found this explanation that NT Wright provides.

    Paul’s view, to anticipate the later argument, is that those who are in Christ, who are indwelt by the Spirit, do in fact ‘do the law,’ even though, in the case of Gentiles, they have never heard it. The law, in Paul’s view, pointed to that fullness of life and obedience to God which comes about in the Messiah; those who attain that fullness of life and obedience are therefore ‘doing the Torah’ in the senses that, to Paul, really matter.

    I think the general idea is that the 'Gentiles' he talks about are Gentile Christians.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Paige,

    Since I'm in CA I don't have access to Moo on Romans (which I love, by the way). I'm curious how he deals with v. 13, "the doers of the law will be justified." Does he treat that as hypothetical, or as normative?
    ReplyDelete
  4. Moo takes the "hypothetical" view of verse 13 and the "natural law" view of verse 14. (You can check out his Romans commentary on google books.)
    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm....

    I'm curious how Moo connects the dots then. It seems that Paul's beginning v. 14 with "FOR the Gentiles" indicates that he is continuing his line of thought from v. 13, "the doers of the law will be justified." He then begins to illustrate exactly who he is talking about, namely, Gentiles who do the law (whatever that means) even though they haven't been born with it like the Jews were.

    So I'm curious what place a discourse on natural law would play in Paul's discussion there. I'll check Google books, but I'm still interested in what you all think.
    ReplyDelete
  7. JJS-
    I think (following Moo) that we don't want to put too much weight on v.13 as controlling v.14-15. Rather, the larger discussion in the section is about the Jewish assumption of salvation-via-association, and the Gentiles are brought in to the argument here to underscore the reality that possession of the law isn't worth a pin if you aren't bothering to DO it. (So Moo is really connecting the dots with v.12a. Those who see these Gentiles as Gentile Christians connect the dots with v.13.)

    The Gentiles here don't come across as squeaky clean or anything -- their consciences mostly condemn them, after all (v.15) -- but as often seems to be the case, they sometimes manage to do things righter than the ones who had the special rev in the first place.
    ReplyDelete
  8. The allusions to the new covenant promise in Jeremiah are important:

    [νομους μου] … επι καρδιας αυτων γραψω αυτους – LXX Jeremiah 38:33b

    το εργον του νομου γραπτον εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων – Romans 2:15a

    as well as the parallels with vv. 25-29.

    and the contrast between the way the gentiles are described in ch. 1 (negatively) versus ch. 2 (positively)

    lead me to think Paul is describing Gentile Christians.

    There's no reason why Rom. 2:13 needs to be hypothetical. It makes better sense to take it as vindicatory of all true Christians at the final judgment, which is perfectly consistent with the Reformed doctrine of sola fide - unless, of course, you're over-reacting to various movements abroad.

    Smectymnuus
    ReplyDelete
  9. Paige,

    I think (following Moo) that we don't want to put too much weight on v.13 as controlling v.14-15.

    I guess I (tentatively) disagree. Paul says something about the doers of the law, then uses the word "for," and then immediately goes on to describe people who appear to fall into the exact category he just talked about. Grammatically and contextually, then, vv. 14ff describe the principle given in v. 13.

    Rather, the larger discussion in the section is about the Jewish assumption of salvation-via-association, and the Gentiles are brought in to the argument here to underscore the reality that possession of the law isn't worth a pin if you aren't bothering to DO it.

    Yes, and obeying the law is precisely what Paul says the Gentiles DO. In other words, I agree that the larger discussion is about the futility of boasting in possessing the law if you're not obeying it. But Paul's whole ironic twist hinges on the fact that the reason the Gentiles put the Jews to shame is that, though they don't possess the written law, the nonetheless do what the written law requires (because it is written on their hearts).
    ReplyDelete
  10. JJS-
    But Paul's whole ironic twist hinges on the fact that the reason the Gentiles put the Jews to shame is that, though they don't possess the written law, the nonetheless do what the written law requires (because it is written on their hearts).

    I agree about the irony -- but I don't think that it is conclusive here that what is "written on the heart" is the written, i.e., special revelation of the law, which becomes part of the believer via the Spirit. The "written on the heart" phrase throws us, I think; it's a familiar reference because of Jer. 31. But note that Paul is also talking here about "conscience" (v.15), which is a Greek concept, not a Hebrew one. And it's ambiguous here whether the Gentiles in question come out particularly well on the day of judgment. This isn't Romans 8 yet: Paul is gradually building towards that part; it would be odd for him to show his whole hand here, without finishing his case against all of humanity. Right now he is just working on his accusation of the Jews.

    So, see, I am not reading here a stunning contrast between "lost" Jews and "saved" Gentiles; I am reading the deeper irony that Gentiles in general put the Jews to shame because their behavior can be more moral than that of the people of God. (Which is one of Zrim's familiar refrains, come to think of it.) If you could assume for a moment that the Jer. 31 allusion is a false lead, can you see how this passage might be about conscience and natural law instead?
    ReplyDelete
  11. Paige,

    I agree that Rom. 2 is not yet Rom. 8 (although Paul may be anticipating where he is going beforehand). But what would you say if we could find some actual Gentiles in the NT who fit the description I'm seeing in Rom. 2?

    In other words, can you think of any NT Gentiles who (1) don't possess the Torah, but who (2) seem to evidence its work in their lives to the point where the God of Israel takes notice?
    ReplyDelete
  12. JJS-
    The reason I don't think Paul is anticipating (or foreshadowing) Rom. 8 here is that he is laying down his foundational argument brick by brick, and mentioning "Rom. 8 Gentiles" at this point would be a non sequitur. (Rom. 8 isn't even specifically about Gentiles, anyway. I don't think we get his observation that Gentiles are coming into the Kingdom thru Christ in a way that puts Jews to shame till 9:25-26 and 9:30-31, which would make any reference to this group in Ch. 2 truly disconnected from his direct explanation of them.)

    Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any NT mentions of the Gentiles that you describe. The most pagan ones that I can think of were in Lystra, and we know how they turned out. I can't say that the Athenians were particularly noteworthy, though they were more self-possessed. All the other Gentile individuals I can remember (Cornelius, Syro-Phoenician woman, Ethiopian eunuch, etc.) had some contact with direct rev thru the OT Scriptures and Jewish neighbors. Cornelius is commended for his piety, but he has the same access to the Jewish Scriptures as any Jew, just a different response.

    I don't have any sense that Paul is referring to particular, known individuals in Ch. 2, such as Cornelius, but of "Gentiles qua Gentiles," as Moo puts it, which would mostly have been people without any access at all to God's written words. (Which seems to be the point of mentioning them at all.)

    Who were you thinking of?
    ReplyDelete
  13. Paige,

    Stay tuned, I'm planning a post for Monday morning that goes into this.

    I think all that's needed in order to find a concrete example of the Gentiles of Rom. 2 is locating someone who does not have the Jewish scriptures by birthright, but who nonetheless (because of the work of the Spirit in his/her heart) performs the good works that the law demanded of Israel.

    On your "brick-by-brick" argument, I'll have to think about it more and get back to you.
    ReplyDelete
  14. JJS -
    Okay, I'll tune in tomorrow. But I am not sure that your quest for the historical Gentile of Rom. 2 is quite advisable for these reasons:

    1. In the NT we only get a tiny, tiny view of historical individuals who might fit your description, and the pool of Gentiles in the world is, by contrast, HUGE. Unless you can demonstrate that Paul is referring in Rom. 2 to a tiny group rather than the larger, general sweep of Gentiles (the majority of whom would have had no contact with Jews or the Hebrew Scriptures), even finding one individual such as you describe would be kind of irrelevant to the argument Paul is actually making in the text.

    2. I am guessing that you are going to rest your case on Cornelius, who was commended for his piety. Three objections here:

    a) It's not generally advisable to found theological or ecclesiological conclusions on incidents in Acts, which was written for other purposes. Best to support your point from Paul's actual text in his theologically-oriented epistle.

    b) Cornelius' story introduces some big questions about the nature of regeneration. If Cornelius is one who (as you put it) performs the good works that the law demanded of Israel because of the work of the Spirit in his heart, what are we to make of the fact that the Spirit had not "fallen" on him yet whenever he was commended by the Lord (Acts 10:4, cf. 10:44)?

    c) If you are arguing, as you seemed to above, that Paul is referring in Rom. 2 to "Romans 8 Gentiles," i.e., born-again Christian believers, the example of Cornelius would not prove your case, since he wasn't actually a Christian until 10:44.

    But maybe you are thinking of someone else. I'll stay tuned.

    (p.s. -- the "brick by brick" idea is really reinforced by Doug Moo, who has, I think, an especially clear and detailed view of the strategic movement of Paul's thought in the letter. Whenever you get home maybe you can read that enormous commentary again. ;) (I am at an advantage here, or maybe just biased, because I studied Romans with him several years ago, and that experience really made his thinking stick with me.)
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)