Question On Transition from Rom 2:15 to 16

[mikesw]

Can someone familiar with the Greek explain the disconnect between vv 15 and 16 mentioned by Hendriksen ( Romans, 96)?
attn: @JoshebB, @TibiasDad and @Swordman

Some translators and commentators consider verses 14, 15 to be a parenthesis. One of the reasons for this construction is that verse 15 does not seem to link naturally with verse 16.
The objections to the idea of a parenthesis beginning with verse 14 are:
a. The connection between verses 13 and 14 is too close to justify their arbitrary separation which such a parenthesis would bring about.
b. Placing parentheses around verses 14, 15 does not solve the difficulty of getting rid of the seemingly unnatural connection—or lack of connection—between verses 15 and 16.

Incidentally, I think the parenthesis begins with v 13 and ends on v15, like in the NKJV. So I also wonder if v 16 could naturally flow from v12 with that sense of a parenthetical reading. I'm writing an analysis of Rom 2:1-16 at the moment and would like that detail if someone can note the type of disconnect that happens.

 

[mikesw]

Okay. I see from Cranfield that the issue is about associating the timing of the conscience's witness with the time of the day of judgment

Those who assume that the witness of the Gentiles’ conscience is mentioned as being evidence that, in spite of their not having the law in the way the Jews have it, they nevertheless in a real sense know it, naturally find the connexion of v. 16 with v. 15 difficult, since (on the assumption that both parts of v. 15b belong closely together) it implies that the witness of the conscience is to take place at the time of the final judgment, whereas, on their understanding of the matter, it must needs be a phenomenon of the present.

Cranfield, Romans, 161

I thought maybe the mismatch would be a grammatical mismatch.

The reason I put parentheses around vv 13-15 is that it would seem only those without law would be judged.

 

[synergy]

Can someone familiar with the Greek explain the disconnect between vv 15 and 16 mentioned by Hendriksen ( Romans, 96)?
attn: @JoshebB, @TibiasDad and @Swordman

Incidentally, I think the parenthesis begins with v 13 and ends on v15, like in the NKJV. So I also wonder if v 16 could naturally flow from v12 with that sense of a parenthetical reading. I'm writing an analysis of Rom 2:1-16 at the moment and would like that detail if someone can note the type of disconnect that happens.

The Modern Greek Bible has no brackets, a period between verses 12 and 13, and a common between verses 15 and 16. That's how the MKJV renders it also. It does have some effect on which day certain things happen.

Rom 2:12 Διότι όσοι ημάρτησαν χωρίς νόμου, θέλουσι και απολεσθή χωρίς νόμου· και όσοι ημάρτησαν υπό νόμον, θέλουσι κριθή διά νόμου.
Rom 2:13 Διότι δεν είναι δίκαιοι παρά τω Θεώ οι ακροαταί του νόμου, αλλ' οι εκτελεσταί του νόμου θέλουσι δικαιωθή.
Rom 2:14 Επειδή όταν οι εθνικοί οι μη έχοντες νόμον πράττωσιν εκ φύσεως τα του νόμου, ούτοι νόμον μη έχοντες είναι νόμος εις εαυτούς,
Rom 2:15 οίτινες δεικνύουσι το έργον του νόμου γεγραμμένον εν ταις καρδίαις αυτών, έχοντες συμμαρτυρούσαν την συνείδησιν αυτών και τους λογισμούς κατηγορούντας ή και απολογουμένους μεταξύ αλλήλων,
Rom 2:16 εν τη ημέρα ότε θέλει κρίνει ο Θεός τα κρυπτά των ανθρώπων διά του Ιησού Χριστού κατά το ευαγγέλιόν μου.

 

[mikesw]

The Modern Greek Bible has no brackets, a period between verses 12 and 13, and a common between verses 15 and 16. That's how the MKJV renders it also. It does have some effect on which day certain things happen.

Rom 2:12 Διότι όσοι ημάρτησαν χωρίς νόμου, θέλουσι και απολεσθή χωρίς νόμου· και όσοι ημάρτησαν υπό νόμον, θέλουσι κριθή διά νόμου.
Rom 2:13 Διότι δεν είναι δίκαιοι παρά τω Θεώ οι ακροαταί του νόμου, αλλ' οι εκτελεσταί του νόμου θέλουσι δικαιωθή.
Rom 2:14 Επειδή όταν οι εθνικοί οι μη έχοντες νόμον πράττωσιν εκ φύσεως τα του νόμου, ούτοι νόμον μη έχοντες είναι νόμος εις εαυτούς,
Rom 2:15 οίτινες δεικνύουσι το έργον του νόμου γεγραμμένον εν ταις καρδίαις αυτών, έχοντες συμμαρτυρούσαν την συνείδησιν αυτών και τους λογισμούς κατηγορούντας ή και απολογουμένους μεταξύ αλλήλων,
Rom 2:16 εν τη ημέρα ότε θέλει κρίνει ο Θεός τα κρυπτά των ανθρώπων διά του Ιησού Χριστού κατά το ευαγγέλιόν μου.

It helped me look again. I may be fine leaving the parentheses out and then treat vv 14-16 together. I had been thinking that v16 had to explain v 12 by reinforcing the judgment in view of v12 of those with law and those without.

 

[JoshebB]

I am of the mind there is a parenthetical clause, but the parenthesis begins at verse 15 and ends at the end of verse 16..... BUT the last half of that parenthetical clause applies to all people, both groups, Jews of the Law, Gentiles living apart from the Law, and Jews/Gentiles in Christ because everyone gets judged. Paul's use of "therefore," and "for," or "so" occurs in all his epistles. It is always necessary to track his correlative and causal transitions to understand what he's written and sometimes he goes on at great length with many fors before stating his conclusion. This is especially so in the book of Romans. If most of us were given a transliteration of the Greek without chapter and verse notations (or punctuation ) we'd place the chapters at

1. the opening,
2. chapter 3,
3. chapter 9,
4. chapter 12,
5. possibly chapter 15 as his summary,
6. the closing of chapter 16.

Those are where the natural breaks in narrative or exposition occur. That would make the largest portion quite wieldy, but no wieldier for the exegete than the unnatural traditional breaks we currently have.

Give the larger passage a read without verses 15 and 16 and see if that flows better and still communicates what Paul has written about God's judgment is maintained with integrity. Consider verse one the conclusion of chapter one, and start chapter two at verse two, then read what follows without the parenthetical clause of verses 15 and 16. See if that works. Then try what others have posted, removing more verses as a parenthesis, and see if the continuity and integrity are maintained. I am inclined to read, "there will be tribulation and distress for every soul..... for [because] there is no partiality with God..... for all have sinned....." as a single cohesive thought, and the comment about the Gentiles the parenthetical comment, after which Paul returns to the "BUT...." and his previously existing commentary about God's judgement relevant to the problem of Judaization in the Church. Remember: the entire letter is written to (and mostly about) the saints, not non-believers (see verse 1:7).

 

[mikesw]

I have deeply investigated the text of 2:1-16 in light of Paul addressing this exposing of the gentiles' judgmental attitude toward Jews. That reading changes the way the text is read. This is a theory I am proposing and explaining. One aspect, as also found with Moo, Romans, 93n6 and Fitzmyer, Romans 298 is that the center of the passage is equalization of Jew and gentile rather than God's impartiality.
The mention of "for all who sinned" (v12) begins as a proposed explanation of impartiality of God whether with law or without law. Verse 13 describes the negative expectation of those with the Mosaic law. Verse 14 has the for/gar actually placing gentile Christians under the law of Christ, as part of this equalization with Jews (but the details require elaboration). I had figured v16 applied to v12 but now I think verses 14-16 are directed toward gentile Christians -- who are kept uncertain of their status with God in vv 1-16. Consequently, v16 does not have to balance out v12

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have deeply investigated the text of 2:1-16 in light of Paul addressing this exposing of the gentiles' judgmental attitude toward Jews. That reading changes the way the text is read. This is a theory I am proposing and explaining. One aspect, as also found with Moo, Romans, 93n6 and Fitzmyer, Romans 298 is that the center of the passage is equalization of Jew and gentile rather than God's impartiality.
The mention of "for all who sinned" (v12) begins as a proposed explanation of impartiality of God whether with law or without law. Verse 13 describes the negative expectation of those with the Mosaic law. Verse 14 has the for/gar actually placing gentile Christians under the law of Christ, as part of this equalization with Jews (but the details require elaboration). I had figured v16 applied to v12 but now I think verses 14-16 are directed toward gentile Christians -- who are kept uncertain of their status with God in vv 1-16. Consequently, v16 does not have to balance out v12

The witness of "impartiality" doesn't need a specific audience. It is a message for all written in way that all can understand.