The Impartiality of God
Paul uses another Greco-Roman style of writing called the diatribe. Simply he writes as if he were responding to critics and opposers all along the way. Here his imaginary critic is he who says that they don't deal with the list of problems in 1:29-31. Paul simply states that by the very fact you think that, you've proven yourself wrong. We find an uncomfortable truth in 2:6, that there is judgment according to deeds. But here we must not eqivocate on two different issues. On the one hand, salvation is by the grace of God (that is the point of this whole book). But judgment, as has been stated throughout the TNK or Tenach (The Old Testament: TORAH, Teaching or Law; NEVI'IM, Prophets; K'TUVIM, Writings) is always in accordance to what a person has done. This will be dealt with more fully later on.
2:6-11 is a chiasm. (6=11; 7a=10b; 7b=10a; 8a=9b; 8b=9a).
6 God "will repay everyone according to what they have done."
7 To those who by persistence in doing good
seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil,
there will be wrath and anger.
9 There will be trouble and distress
for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good:
first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
11 For God does not show favoritism.
We don't like thinking about the wrath of God. In a worship class we sang, I could sing of your wrath forever. We don't like thinking about God being angry or writing real songs about it.
However, in a philosophical sense, it's just as silly to think of God as love. They are both anthropomorphisms (applying human characteristics to a divine being). If God truly is unchanging, any application of emotion to Him just doesn't make sense. This however is what open theists would argue: if God has love and anger, etc., then He just must be changing and within time, etc. This however is just lazy theology and philosophy, not advanced and enlightened as they'd like you to believe.
Unfortunately postmodernism and the emerging church are connected with open theism and vice versa which is unfortunate. It's part of why Mark Driscoll rejects emergent theology. However, to reject a whole thought system which is open-minded smacks of the warnings in 1:18ff.
Again notice that the point of 1:16; 2:9, 10 is not to show dominance by the Jew--quite the opposite! As 2:11 explicitly says, there is no partiality of with God. If anything, Paul is simply responding to the ongoing Jewish notion that being Jew by blood was some how better. But Paul says, "Sure you may be the first to hear of salvation; but you'll also be the first to be judged as well!"
Keener also sees the phrase "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" as a way of saying "from A to Z." The Jews and Greeks (as in the specific people, not a generic word for non-Jew) were about as opposite as you can get. Salvation is for everyone: from the uber-religious Jews to the ultra-pagan Greeks...and everyone in between!
2:12-16 are fascinating and I can't even begin to imagine all it's implications. All it says, quite simply, is that those without the law are judged differently than those with it. We don't know how or what that means in terms of salvation and the good ole questions of "eternal destination." But from the get-go we understand that there are two things at stake here: salvation (which we Christians understand fairly well) and judgment (which we get mixed up with salvation). How these two jive with one another, we can only hope to find out.
2:6-11 is a chiasm. (6=11; 7a=10b; 7b=10a; 8a=9b; 8b=9a).
6 God "will repay everyone according to what they have done."
7 To those who by persistence in doing good
seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil,
there will be wrath and anger.
9 There will be trouble and distress
for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good:
first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
11 For God does not show favoritism.
We don't like thinking about the wrath of God. In a worship class we sang, I could sing of your wrath forever. We don't like thinking about God being angry or writing real songs about it.
However, in a philosophical sense, it's just as silly to think of God as love. They are both anthropomorphisms (applying human characteristics to a divine being). If God truly is unchanging, any application of emotion to Him just doesn't make sense. This however is what open theists would argue: if God has love and anger, etc., then He just must be changing and within time, etc. This however is just lazy theology and philosophy, not advanced and enlightened as they'd like you to believe.
Unfortunately postmodernism and the emerging church are connected with open theism and vice versa which is unfortunate. It's part of why Mark Driscoll rejects emergent theology. However, to reject a whole thought system which is open-minded smacks of the warnings in 1:18ff.
Again notice that the point of 1:16; 2:9, 10 is not to show dominance by the Jew--quite the opposite! As 2:11 explicitly says, there is no partiality of with God. If anything, Paul is simply responding to the ongoing Jewish notion that being Jew by blood was some how better. But Paul says, "Sure you may be the first to hear of salvation; but you'll also be the first to be judged as well!"
Keener also sees the phrase "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" as a way of saying "from A to Z." The Jews and Greeks (as in the specific people, not a generic word for non-Jew) were about as opposite as you can get. Salvation is for everyone: from the uber-religious Jews to the ultra-pagan Greeks...and everyone in between!
2:12-16 are fascinating and I can't even begin to imagine all it's implications. All it says, quite simply, is that those without the law are judged differently than those with it. We don't know how or what that means in terms of salvation and the good ole questions of "eternal destination." But from the get-go we understand that there are two things at stake here: salvation (which we Christians understand fairly well) and judgment (which we get mixed up with salvation). How these two jive with one another, we can only hope to find out.
