Romans 2:17-29 and a glaring omission

Eoghan · #1 (**permalink**) 10-26-2009, 07:54 PM

When Paul is attacking Jewish pride/arrogance and showing them convicted of sin under the law - why does he not refer to the sacrificial system.

When I reflect on it why does he not treat this elsewhere (in Romans) in detail?

Vytautas · #2 (**permalink**) 10-26-2009, 08:13 PM

The type of law that Paul uses is the moral law and not ceremonial, since he refers to some the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the Jew could not be faulted in their keeping of the ceremonial law at the time. The letter to the Hebrews deals with the sacrificial system specifically.

Nathan Riese · #3 (**permalink**) 10-26-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vytautas

They type of law that Paul uses is the moral law and not ceremonial, since he refers to some the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the Jew could not be faulted in their keeping of the ceremonial law at the time. The letter to the Hebrews deals with the sacrificial system specifically.

I agree. It seems that Paul is strictly speaking about the moral law.

23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.

There is a level of hypocrisy that Paul is referring to here. "While you preach against stealing, do you steal?"

The sacrificial system is not as applicable to the point of his message as the moral law is.

Richard Tallach · #4 (**permalink**) 10-26-2009, 08:38 PM

Because the ceremonial law revealed the Gospel remedy for breach of the moral law, just as Mosaic penology (in the judicial or civil law) revealed God's wrath against sin - the soul that sinneth it shall die.

The Mosaic moral law, and any moral principles in the ceremonials and the judicials is a restatement of the law which Adam kept until he sinned, and is the law which binds all men.

Unbelievers among the Jewish people could sometimes be very zealous for the ceremonials and neglect the morals - which moral law was the true and fundamental law. The prophets sometimes castigise the people for being hypocritically zealous for ceremonies but neglecting morals.

The judicials and ceremonials, to the extent that we are not talking of the eternal moral principles embedded within them, were added at the time of Moses because of transgressions.

The ceremonial law taught the Jews about how their sins could be forgiven.

The Mosaic penology (in the judicials) taught the Jews about God's hatred for sin, and what happened to those who did not have a sacrifice (the shedding of the blood of an animal) for sin. The offender's blood had to be shed.

If everything was treated in detail everywhere or anywhere in the Bible, it would be even larger. Paul or someone else deals with the ceremonials - and judicials - in the Book of Hebrews, for a start.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:19-26, ESV)

Eoghan · #5 (**permalink**) 10-27-2009, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Because the ceremonial law revealed the Gospel remedy for breach of the moral law, just as Mosaic penology (in the judicial or civil law) revealed God's wrath against sin - the soul that sinneth it shall die.

The Mosaic moral law, and any moral principles in the ceremonials and the judicials is a restatement of the law which Adam kept until he sinned, and is the law which binds all men.

Unbelievers among the Jewish people could sometimes be very zealous for the ceremonials and neglect the morals - which moral law was the true and fundamental law. The prophets sometimes castigise the people for being hypocritically zealous for ceremonies but neglecting morals.

The judicials and ceremonials, to the extent that we are not talking of the eternal moral principles embedded within them, were added at the time of Moses because of transgressions.

The ceremonial law taught the Jews about how their sins could be forgiven.

The Mosaic penology (in the judicials) taught the Jews about God's hatred for sin, and what happened to those who did not have a sacrifice (the shedding of the blood of an animal) for sin. The offender's blood had to be shed.

If everything was treated in detail everywhere or anywhere in the Bible, it would be even larger. Paul or someone else deals with the ceremonials - and judicials - in the Book of Hebrews, for a start.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:19-26, ESV)

This was pretty much my own thinking. The moral law convicts and this is the purpose of this section of the letter, convicting the Jew and the Gentile of sin. I am just a little surprised that Paul does not deal with it more fully later?