#58. Romans 2:19-20 – The Haughty Implications, Part II
Part II: The Conduct of Humanity
Besides, you have confidence in yourself to be a guide of the blind, a
light of those in darkness, a discipliner of the imprudent, a teacher of
minors, having the form of knowledge and the truth in the law.
A Teacher of Minors
The final “title” which the Jews are charged with seeking to attain is “teacher.” This is their view on the matter – that they, in having the law, should teach from it and expect others to do as they teach.
This, like the
other three points, is not inherently evil. Yahweh did charge the Jewish
nation to be teaching the law. Observe Deut. 31:12-13–
Assemble the people, the men, the women, the little ones and your
sojourner who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn…
And King Jehoshaphat (a good
king, don’t-cha know?) sent out Levites to instruct Judeans in the law. Observe 2 Chron.
17:7-9–
In the third year of his reign he sent for his chief officials and
sons of valor, namely Obadiah and Zechariah and Nethanel and Micaiah to teach
in the cities of Judah. With them were the Levites… [list of names,] and with
them were Elishama and Jehoram the priests. They taught in Judah, and they had
the scroll of the law of Yahweh with them. They went around through all the
cities of Judah and taught the people.
This, at its surface level, expanded the knowledge of the Israelite, and was a worthy goal. Though the Israelite practically had no intimation of the law’s purpose and function (which Paul has already touched upon – 2:12-13 – and will expand upon – 3:20-21, 4:15-16, 5:20, 7:7, 8:3,) it educated them as to righteousness, which brings man ever closer to coming to terms with the core issue (Rom. 1:18.)
Alas, as Paul has already stated, it is not the listeners of the law that are justified through it, but the doers of the law that are justified. An education of the law is well worthy of anyone’s time! But because of the issues established in Rom. 1:18-32, it is impossible to enact such a goal.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the following points made by Paul will conclude that, in fact, the teachers of law supposed that they could teach others, but in fact failed to teach themselves. Such a disposition is seen many times in the Old Testament (Mal. 2:7-8, etc.) but I will withhold discussing this in greater detail until we reach the following verses.
Of
course, only the God of Israel could aptly be considered a teacher. He
alone, as the Righteous One, has the ability to instruct sinners. Observe Ps.
25:8-9–
Good and upright is Yahweh; Therefore, He shall direct sinners in the
way; He shall cause the humble to tread in right judgment, And He shall teach
the humble His way.
And also Is. 48:17–
Thus says Yahweh your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am Yahweh
your Elohim, Who is teaching you to benefit, Positioning you in the way you
shall go.
…Among many others.
Form of Knowledge and Truth
The final haughty notion of the Jews included their belief that they had knowledge and truth in the law. Such a belief is so blatantly out of accord with reality that Paul cannot help but place the word “form” before them.
The term “form,” morphe, in Greek, is often supposed to carry with it some “internal” nature or essence. This claim is radically unfounded, and confusing, to say the least, for it would conflict with Paul’s messaging here. If the Jews, for any reason whatsoever, are said to have the “internal essence of knowledge and truth in the law,” then Paul’s conclusion is invalid, and the way is not clear for him to present the evangel. The evangel itself requires that “not one is just,” and if the unjust magically gain the truth (while acting as hypocritically as they have acted thus far,) then the lines are not firmly drawn in the sand, but blurred and confused.
The term form does not, in fact, refer to “internal” qualities in any way. In every use of the word, it refers to outward appearance. A word study by our brother, A.E. Knoch, firmly clarifies this much (I, too, have conducted such a study, albeit in a more argumentative format.) With the proper definition in mind, Paul’s indictment becomes clear; the Jews appeared as though they had the knowledge and truth in the law. Yet their actions (most notably, the action of killing their righteous Messiah,) indicate that such an appearance is a farce, and love does not truly rest in their hearts. Let’s note each point more closely. The Jew is charged with only appearing to recognize “knowledge.” Knowledge is the Greek word gnosis, and is, by itself, a neutral concept. It literally means the state of “knowing” something. Yet again, this term also is treated as a “negative” concept, as though it is wrong to “know” something. Yet two of the three times in this epistle, “knowledge” is used as a positive. Once it is used in relation to God (11:33,) and once it is used in relation to man (15:14.) Most will point at Romans 2:20 as an indicator that “knowledge is wrong,” yet I contest that it is impossible to even apprehend Romans 2:20 apart from knowing that it is.
Indeed, it is not knowledge itself that is evil, but the misapplication of it that Paul indicts. To know apart from love is worthless (1 Cor. 13:2.) If knowledge is treated as the basis by which one is superior, then it is foolish (1 Cor. 8:1-2.) Yet on the other hand, the treasures of knowledge are in Christ (Col. 2:3.) Knowledge conforms you to a specific doctrine (Rom. 6:17.) Knowledge thus enables goodness and admonishment (Rom. 15:14.)
Knowledge, here, is definitely used in the negative. One who has the appearance of knowledge does not magically also have said knowledge. I can forge a PhD and place it on my wall – yet this does not mean I have gone through 5-8 years of study. In relation to the Jews, here, we may say, “Israel can build a temple and herald the law – yet this does not mean that they themselves respect He Who is in the temple, or that they actually follow the principles they proclaim.
These men may be able to say the law. But “knowledge” does not equal a “realization” – an epignosis, or “ON-KNOW,” in Greek. One may know something, but it is not about what you know, but what we learn from what we know. The Jews, then, may know all about their Levitical offerings – but apart from the realization that these Levitical offerings point to and are fulfilled by Christ, the knowledge itself is worthless.
This use of truth, then, accords with the first use of “truth,” back in 1:18. This is more of a thematic connection – in 1:18, we read of men subject to irreverence and injustice, which leads them to detain truth. In 2:20, the Jewish denomination is a perfect example of this detainment. They have the law – representative of the truth, in this case – and they detain it with outward appearance without substance. They know its precepts (Deut. 4:7-8,) giving them, at the time, the most intimate relationship to the Creator of the universe that could be attained (Ps. 147:19-20.)
And they withhold it. They detain truth
anyway, which in turn withholds a realization, a true understanding
of the law from the human population. The nation cannot fulfill its prophesied
role under the conditions man is presently under (Rom. 1:18-32.) So long as sin
persists, truth will be subjected to our five senses, and contingent on our pedantic
precision and legalese.
God’s Predicament
And Yahweh is saying: Because this people comes close to Me with its
mouth, And with its lips they glorify Me, Yet its heart, it is far from Me, And
their fear of Me is becoming an instruction of mortals that is learned,
Therefore, behold, I am continuing to distribute this people, And I shall
distribute them, And the wisdom of its wise will perish, And the understanding
of its understanding ones shall conceal itself.
Such is the impasse that God finds Himself faced with. We may reiterate the problem once more: He must bring about the promises made to Abraham – not merely the expansion of the nation, but the actual priesthood to the entire earth, with resounding success. Yet He cannot join forces with sin – representative of His exact opposite – in order to do so. That conflict must be mediated first, yet the trick is that any concession on Yahweh’s end will conflict with His righteous disposition, and will thus give Sin the whole victory.
Thus, in the Old Testament, He must stand His ground – He must maintain an opposition to the nation’s false practices, and reinforce His abhorrence therein.
Yet, whether Jesus was crucified on the cross or not, this steadfastness of Yahweh already tells us much of His character. He is not of a self-righteous disposition (that is, He does not feign righteousness in order to turn His nose up at you) – He is righteous. Placing limitation on unrighteousness is one of the best decisions this God can do, and He should do it.
It may be asked… if God is the true Guide of the blind, the Light to those in darkness, the Discipliner to the imprudent, and a Teacher to the minors, being all-knowing, and completely honest, then why hasn’t the nation He has guided, illuminated, disciplined, or educated managed to get a clue?
You may have a knee-jerk reaction, crying “Sin! Sin’s fault!” But this is not satisfactory, for we have read, earlier in this very epistle, that God is responsible for the poor disposition of mankind (Rom. 1:22, 24, 26, 28.)
But this only leads to a further question – why would God set the system up this way? Why tell the nation of Israel, “Be a guide, be a light, be a teacher, and discipline properly,” only to indict them when they fail to do it?
…Okay, well, that’s two questions. The latter question will be answered in fuller measure in Romans 11 – on the other side of the evangel. We will place the question on hold until we can meditate more fully on it at that time. In short, the blessings which Israel is promised do not rest on law – and therein lies the problematic assumption of the Jews, and thus religion to this day. The premise that conduct will bring about the blessings themselves are false. Proper conduct is merely the external effect of an internal reality. Since mankind’s internal reality is presently a muddled up mess, God would be undermining His own authority to entrust such a radical event to broken vessels.
No – the truth is that these blessings rest on God’s faithfulness, His own abilities as a righteous Deity to bring about that which He Himself promised. He alone deals with the problem (Rom. 1:3-4,) paving the way for Israel’s future.
The former question, anyway, has already been answered, yet again. Without this backdrop of sin, and the exhaustion of mankind’s options, God would have no evangel to display (Rom. 1:16.) It is only in light of man’s failures that God will then begin to operate.
This is a hard lesson to learn. Most, in minor stages in their lives, will cry that this is unfair – yet this operates under a limited premise. Such an objection immediately places you in the judgment seat, the arbiter of your own story, and further assumes that God has no plan for those who have failed, or seeks to leave them in some embittered, cynical state of being for all eternity.
Both of these assumptions are the horns of the bull which Paul has grabbed head-on (Rom. 1:18, 2:1.) Bluntly, you have no grounds to make that assumption, with such a limited and unrighteous standpoint. And at this point in the letter, you have not yet heard out what God does plan for those who have failed miserably, and are in great need of correction. You have heard that those who are found wanting must die; this is true. But you have not read the evangel itself, which speaks of life after death, which, as I have hinted at numerous times now, is for everyone (Rom. 1:16, 5:18-19.)
So let’s take a radical new direction in this study, then, and study what is. Let’s not jump to the assumption that God has “failed” at being what He said He is, when He has not yet even opened His mouth. To make such an assumption would ironically prove God’s point concerning our lacking judgment – to condemn before an appeal has even been made is poor, even in our feeble judicial branch today.
For now, let us set aside personal feelings and trust God. You are not being asked at this point to trust because you need to be certain that He is true, but because we need not look at some moment of pain in our own lives, or in the lives of others, and assume with an appeal to emotion that God simply does not care. God has made it clear that He is fully aware of the situation, and, if He weren’t, would not even be saying this in Romans to begin with.
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment