June 1, 2025 • 25 mins
Paul examines God's judgment in Romans 2, revealing how self-righteousness fails to save while faith in Christ's glory provides true salvation. His rhetorical style, influenced by Greek education, helps us understand difficult passages that might otherwise appear to teach works-based salvation.
• Romans 2:1 addresses mankind's hypocrisy when judging others
• Paul uses rhetoric—a Greek communication style—to convey theological truths
• His rhetorical devices include apostrophes, dialogues, and imaginary opponents
• God's kindness toward sinners is meant to lead them to repentance
• Seeking "glory and honor" means seeking God himself, not self-glorification
• Tribulation comes to "the Jew first and also the Greek"?
• Understanding context prevents misinterpretation of passages
• The judgment is about belief versus unbelief, not behavior
Tune in to our next episode as we explore why tribulation and distress come "to the Jew first" and what this means for understanding God's judgment.
Share what's on your heart and enjoy free study resources on our Episodes Page at wakinguptograce.com: https://wakinguptograce.com/056-gods-judgment-and-pauls-rhetoric-romans-2-1-11/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
announcement (00:01):
Hello and welcome to the Waking Up to Grace
podcast, where we celebrate andexplore the finished work of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Tune in to the Waking Up toGrace podcast on every major
platform.
You can also listen to ourepisodes and read our full
transcripts atwakinguptogracecom.
And now here's Lenny.
Lenny (00:22):
Welcome back to the podcast everyone.
Today we'll be looking at God'sjudgment and Paul's rhetoric.
As we go into chapter 2 ofRomans, we read Therefore you
have no excuse, o man, every oneof you who judges, for in
passing judgment on another, youcondemn yourself because you,
the judge, practice the verysame things.
(00:43):
That's Romans 2, verse 1.
The question we want to askhere would be is Paul speaking
to the same group of people thatwe determined to be mankind in
general so far?
Let's look back at what we readearlier to keep things fresh.
Romans 1.21 says For althoughthey knew God, they did not
honor him as God or give thanksto God, but they became futile
(01:06):
in their thinking and theirfoolish hearts were darkened.
Do we have any reason tobelieve anything changed in the
context of this targeted groupof people so far?
I would say no.
It looks like we're looking atthe same group of people.
He's just talking about mankindin general from the beginning
of time.
Do we see the secular ornon-believing world judging each
(01:26):
other in this passage?
I would say so.
In Romans 2.1 that we werereading, he's saying you have no
excuse, o man, every one of youwho judges, talking about
mankind in general, isn't he?
And the next question would beDo we see a lot of hypocrisy in
Scripture coming from the worldapart from national Israel?
(01:51):
And yeah, we do.
That's what Paul's been talkingabout this whole time, isn't it
?
So it seems that Paul continuesto describe a mankind that
rejects Yahweh, and he continuesin verses 2 through 4, saying
we know that the judgment of Godrightly falls on those who do
such things.
Do you suppose, o man, you whojudge those who do such things
and yet do them yourself, thatyou will escape the judgment of
(02:11):
God?
Or do you presume on the richesof his kindness and forbearance
and patience, not knowing thatGod's kindness is meant to lead
you to repentance?
I wanted to point out here, aswe read the next several verses,
that O man is written withexclamation.
There should probably be anexclamation point at the end,
based on the original language.
(02:33):
According to Strong's, it's aprimary interjection, a sign of
the vocative case as a note ofexclamation.
So Paul is expressing severityhere as he describes God's
judgment.
He's exclaiming it.
But is it just me, or does Paulseem to have a way of
communicating that we just don'tuse today?
(02:54):
Do you hear peoplecommunicating like this in your
church?
Probably not other than whenquoting scripture.
Maybe the writings of ourapostles are ancient writings.
They didn't at all communicatein words the way we do today.
In our intro to Romans andPaul's writings we discussed
rhetoric.
There's dispute over whether ornot Paul spoke rhetorically in
(03:16):
his writings.
There are several points madethat say that he does not use
rhetoric to communicate.
Some of these points arerhetoric was not part of the
genre of letter writing.
In other words, they didn't useit in letters.
Commonly, paul's writings do notconform perfectly to the
(03:36):
structure of speeches dictatedin rhetorical handbooks.
Rhetoric most often took placein certain settings courtrooms,
assemblies, festivals andcelebrations, and these settings
are lacking in Paul's letters.
And then the early churchfathers, in air quotes, did not
identify in Paul a rhetoricalcommunicator.
(03:58):
They didn't see rhetoric.
And a lot of people go by theearly church fathers.
And then we have Paul rejectedthe use of rhetoric in 1
Corinthians 1-3 as diluting thepower of the gospel.
And if you go back in 1Corinthians 1-3 and read that,
it's a pretty good point theymake.
And then rhetoric was used forspeeches and not writing.
(04:20):
That would be the final point.
So there's some pretty goodpoints made that would say that
Paul did not use rhetoric.
But then there's several reallygood points that support Paul's
use of rhetoric in his writings.
Starting with, paul's letterswere meant to persuade.
Therefore, it's possible toexamine Paul's letters with
(04:41):
reference to rhetorical motives.
We talked about that in ourintro.
And then the rhetorical genrewas flexible and Paul could
change and shape the pattern ofhis speech for each situation.
There were also different typesof rhetoric and different
styles in various regions, sothey weren't all exactly the
same.
And then settings such astrials before Roman governors
(05:05):
and debates within the churchwould have called for expertise
in rhetoric.
Another point is Paul refused toattribute the power of his
gospel to rhetoric, but hisletters were still considered
weighty and strong in 2Corinthians 10.10.
Even Peter calls them hard tounderstand in 2 Peter 3.16.
This may display that Pauldidn't use rhetoric in the
(05:27):
gospel proclamation, but heprobably did use rhetorical
devices in writing letters tohis churches.
This would also explain why inour 2 Corinthians 10.10 passage,
where it's said that hisletters are weighty and strong,
they also say his bodilypresence is weak and his speech
of no account.
And then another point is thatwhile it is true that rhetoric
(05:50):
is meant primarily for speaking.
We should recognize a couple ofthings.
The only knowledge we have ofrhetoric is from written sources
, such as handbooks on rhetoric.
We have no recordings.
All the speeches known of comefrom written sources.
Many of Paul's letters werelikely dictated from oral speech
, like Tertius and Romans, andwere meant to be read aloud to
(06:14):
the churches.
Another point yet Paul was bornand raised in Tarsus of Cilicia,
a Greek-speaking city.
His first language was Greek.
Cilicia, a Greek-speaking city.
His first language was Greek.
Paul probably received a Greekeducation, including Greek
philosophy, literature andrhetoric.
Paul's use of phrases such aswhat then?
(06:35):
What then, shall we say?
Certainly not.
And oh man, all have strikingparallels with Epictetus'
discourses, and I reference allthose passages in the notes that
you'll find atwakinguptogracecom on this
episode's page, and I'm evenlinking to these Epictetus'
discourses because it's quitefascinating to look at.
(06:57):
Another point is that Romansinvokes a number of rhetorical
devices known to Greco-Romanauthors, including rhetorical
questions, and I cite a bunch ofrhetorical devices known to
Greco-Roman authors, includingrhetorical questions, and I cite
a bunch of verses in the notesapostrophes.
Apostrophes meaning questionsfor an imaginary opponent, with
several verses in the notes.
(07:18):
And then we have dialogues andall these Roman verses that I
reference in the study notes.
Again refutations of objections, several Romans passages,
speeches in character, Romans 7,romans 10, comparisons all over
(07:39):
Romans and then example storiesall over Romans.
Some passages in Romans soundtheological.
Other passages are fashioned ina rhetorical sense.
I've come to see Paul's letterto the Romans as both theology
and rhetoric.
I've also come to believe thatwe can gain a much deeper
understanding of Paul's writingswhen we understand his ways of
(08:01):
communicating.
It helps us with context.
It helps us to understand theintended meaning of Paul's words
, especially in difficultpassages as we go through our
Roman study.
I believe that many of you willsee what I mean In the passage
we're studying now and othersthat we'll encounter throughout
our study.
You'll find much similarity inthe writings of Epictetus.
(08:22):
Epictetus was a Greek Stoicphilosopher and again I have a
link to his writings for yourreview in this study guide.
It's really interesting to lookat.
You see so much of the sameverbiage.
When you compare and contrastPaul with this Greek philosopher
and the way that he spoke, it'snot surprising to me that Paul
used rhetorical speaking.
(08:42):
Going back to episodes 33 and34, we learn that the Jews in
Rome spoke Greek, so the Jewsand Gentiles both would have
been familiar with rhetoric.
Paul was merely communicatingin a way that they could relate
with.
This would also explain why hiswritings are so hard for us to
relate with today.
We naturally try and put Paulinside of the box of our
(09:04):
communication methods and hejust doesn't fit into that box.
But getting back to our passage,paul wrote we know that the
judgment of God rightly falls onthose who do such things.
Do you suppose, o man, you whojudge those who do such things
and yet do them yourself, thatyou will escape the judgment of
God?
Or do you presume on the richesof his kindness and forbearance
(09:26):
and patience, not knowing thatGod's kindness is meant to lead
you to repentance?
And that's Romans 2, 2 through4.
Did Paul see the Lord'sjudgment as righteous and true?
Yes, he most definitely did.
Based on this passage, didn'the?
Now does Paul call out theself-righteous here, to be sure
they realize that Yahweh is notgoing to be fooled by their
(09:47):
behavior?
He most certainly does.
He's calling out theself-righteous, the people that
are judging others, and sayinghey, you're not going to escape
the judgment of God either justbecause you judge so well
yourself.
Back in Romans 1.18, we read forthe wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness
(10:07):
of men who, by theirunrighteousness, suppress the
truth.
Looking back on this passage,does Paul teach that
self-righteousness, or pointingthe finger at the behavior of
others, is godly or righteous inany way?
No, he definitely doesn't, doeshe?
So would self-righteousnessthen also suppress the truth?
Yeah, it would suppress thetruth, wouldn't it?
(10:30):
In chapter 2, verse 4, we reador do you presume on the riches
of his kindness and forbearanceand patience, not knowing that
God's kindness is meant to leadyou to repentance?
And so I ask could the blessingof enjoying life on earth be
considered the riches of hiskindness and patience?
To those that are rejecting himyeah, letting him live, that's
(10:52):
pretty generous I would say hedidn't owe anybody that.
Does he owe anybody anopportunity to live on earth?
No, he really doesn't.
He created life Based on thetrue definition of repentance,
which is a change of mind.
What is Yahweh looking for inthese godless people?
He's looking for them to repent, isn't it?
That's why you always hearrepent, repent, change your mind
(11:14):
, turn to God.
And then Romans 2, 5 through 8,we read because of your heart
and impenitent heart, you arestoring up wrath for yourself.
On the day of wrath, when God'srighteous judgment will be
revealed, he will render to eachone according to his works.
To those who, by patience andwell-doing, seek for glory and
honor and immortality, he willgive eternal life.
(11:36):
But for those who areself-seeking and do not obey the
truth but obey unrighteousness,there will be wrath and fury.
Now, if this passage were takenout of context, could it sound
like a works-based salvation?
It certainly would, wouldn't it?
Now, if a church were to putthis up on a screen and do a
study on it, could we mislead awhole lot of people that way?
(11:58):
Yeah, you really.
Could you look at this passage?
You could really mislead somepeople if you're not looking at
context, opening up your Bibleand just saying this is God's
word, this is what he's tellingyou today.
Can you see why we go, verse byverse, to be sure that what we
see is in the correct context?
I can't stress it enough.
(12:22):
It's just so important.
When Paul says but because ofyour heart and impenitent heart,
doesn't that mean he's talkingto you?
Trick question it doesn't meanhe's talking to you at all.
We said he's using rhetoric.
Oftentimes there's an imaginaryopponent.
So if he's talking to animaginary opponent, he's putting
some imaginary person in themix of his conversation and you
(12:43):
put yourself in that position ashis imaginary opponent.
When he's using this rhetoricand this rhetorical speaking,
where do you put yourself?
You put yourself in with thegodless people.
You don't want to do that.
In romans 121, we read foralthough they knew god, they did
not honor him as god or givethanks to him.
(13:04):
But they became futile in theirthinking and their foolish
hearts were darkened, andtherefore god gave them up in
the lusts of their hearts, toimpurity, to the dishonoring of
their bodies among.
So is Paul still talking abouta mankind who rejects God?
Here, yes, paul is speaking inan apostolic judgment against
(13:24):
those who reject the truth.
This may seem obvious when westudy it, but these simple
principles are thrown out thewindow daily in church
institutions in order to provewhatever point they want to make
to you.
Always pay attention to context.
Don't let sloppy hermeneuticslead you into bondage and error.
Let's look at our passage again,realizing that he's not telling
(13:45):
us that our heart, impenitentheart, is storing up wrath for
ourselves.
So he writes but because of ourheart, impenitent heart is
storing up wrath for ourselves.
So he writes.
(14:16):
So is there a place here forthose who are trying to please
God but fail to meet hisrequirements?
Maybe they weren't good enough?
Is that what he's talking about?
If we are to get what we deservefor our works, how can we be
saved from God's wrath and fury?
Do you have any sin in yourlife that deserves wrath?
All of it does, doesn't it?
(14:36):
If we look at this passage asrelating directly to the works
we produce, we fall into fear.
We cannot stand firm in ourbehavior, can we?
If we do, that's just theself-righteousness that we read
about earlier.
We're going to judge otherpeople based on our standard.
He already told us we're notgoing to escape judgment if we
do that.
Our works will never allow usto stand before a Lord who is as
(14:59):
holy and righteous as Yahweh.
But what if the passage isactually about the root of the
problem?
What if it refers to that whichproduces bad or good works in
our life?
In verse 7 we read Would you saythat Paul describes someone
(15:21):
seeking glory and honor forthemselves?
If not, how might we find orobtain this glory and honor,
knowing that Paul taught fromthe same Old Testament
scriptures, the Tanakh that wehave today.
Let's see if we can find aconnection with what he's
talking about here.
That might help.
In Psalm 8.5, we read Yet youhave made him a little lower
(15:43):
than the heavenly beings andcrowned him with glory and honor
.
So who's being described byDavid in this psalm?
It's Christ, isn't it?
It's the Lord who crowned him.
Yahweh did, didn't he?
And then in 1 Chronicles 29.11,we read Yours is the kingdom, o
(16:08):
Lord, and you are exalted ashead above all.
So who is the power and gloryin this passage?
It's Yahweh.
Do you think our behavior canget us in on this?
In 1 Timothy 1.17 we read DoesPaul include any people in this
(16:32):
statement?
In his writing to Timothy, doeshe say to the king of ages and
Lenny and Melissa, immortal,invisible?
No, he doesn't.
Does?
He Doesn't say any of that.
He doesn't include people here.
So who is glory and honor to begiven to forever?
Yahweh and, of course, yeshua.
They're both Lord.
(16:53):
And then in Revelation we readWorthy are you, our Lord and God
, to receive glory and honor andpower, for you created all
things and by your will theyexisted and were created.
And that's in the Revelation ofJohn 4, verse 11.
Are you getting the point here?
Can you see where I'm goingwith this?
Let's look at what Paul saidagain in our Romans letter.
(17:15):
But because of your hard andimpenitent heart, you are
storing up wrath for yourself.
On the day of wrath, when God'srighteous judgment will be
revealed, he will render to eachone according to his works.
To those who, by patience andwell-doing, seek for glory and
honor and immortality, he willgive eternal life.
So what are those who, bypatience and well-doing, seeking
(17:38):
?
What are they seeking?
They seek the Lord, don't they?
They're seeking the Lord Isseeking merely looking for him
in this context, or is itseeking after his guidance or
being directed by the Lord?
I think it's both.
So whose works are reallynecessary then, for salvation?
Whose works are being judged Ifwe look at it this way, the way
(18:00):
the passage is telling us, it'sthe Lord, his work, he's the
glory, he's the honor.
To him alone.
Glory and honor, immortality.
We have none of those things.
We need him, don't we?
And then will God give hisglory and honor to those who
seek him?
Let's see what Paul says aboutthat to the Christians in
Thessalonica 2 Thessalonians1.12 says so we seek him, don't
(18:34):
we?
Yeah, we seek him.
Whose works do we want to befound in us on the day of
judgment?
We want to see Yeshua's worksfound in us, don't we?
So?
Is God actually looking for hisglory in us, then?
Yeah, he's looking for theglory of Christ.
Yeshua, his work Before thecross, before the finished work
(18:54):
of Christ.
They were looking forward tothese things.
Now we have them.
Do you think that when Yahwehfinds that we are glorified in
Christ, that we'll pass Hisjudgment and receive the
promised eternal life?
Yeah, we absolutely are goingto pass right through judgment
with flying colors.
We're not going to have to sitthere and go to that imaginary
(19:15):
drive-in theater and look at ourlives and be judged for all the
things that we've done, good orbad.
We're clothed with christ.
But then, after that, in verse 8, paul writes but for those who
are self-seeking and do not obeythe truth but obey
unrighteousness, there will bewrath and fury.
Does paul describe believerswho act selfishly and fall into
(19:36):
lies?
No, no, he's not talking aboutbelievers at all.
He's talking about a godlessmankind, a mankind who rejects
Yahweh and his truth.
They reject the gospel.
They seek righteousness apartfrom him.
They seek a righteousness thatcomes from themselves, they
(19:57):
deceive themselves by making uptheir own rules and even judging
others based on those made-uprules.
And as we already studied, forthe wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness
of men who, by theirunrighteousness, suppress the
truth.
That's 1.18.
Then Romans, 1.21 says Foralthough they knew God, they did
not honor him as God or givethanks to him, but they became
(20:17):
futile in their and again.
Is obeying unrighteousness thesame as rejecting Yahweh?
Yes, it is.
It's not your behavior.
It's rejecting Yahweh Is nothonoring or giving thanks to
Yahweh, the opposite of givingall honor and glory to Him.
Yeah, that's opposition.
(20:39):
Not honoring or giving thanksto Yahweh is what the godless
people were doing.
So do these passages describeanything about actual behavior
at all?
No, they actually don't.
They're not talking aboutbehavior.
They're talking about beliefand unbelief.
They're talking about thefaithful and the faithless, the
God-honoring and the godless.
(21:00):
So why do those who rejectYahweh get all the bad labels?
It's because they're producingall that stuff.
Sin is produced in unbelief.
Sin is produced when we rejectYahweh.
Sin is produced in the godless.
It's not until we turn toYahweh that we can even
understand righteousness FromGod's view, true righteousness
(21:22):
that comes from the heart.
We don't even know it until Godshows it to us, until he
reveals it to us, until he opensour eyes.
We are simply self-seekingbefore that.
We read earlier about those whoreject Yahweh.
Paul wrote we know that thejudgment of God rightly falls
about those who reject Yahweh.
Paul wrote we know that thejudgment of God rightly falls on
those who do such things.
Do you suppose, o man, you whojudge those who do such things
(21:44):
and yet do them yourself, thatyou will escape the judgment of
God?
Or do you presume on the richesof his kindness and forbearance
and patience, not knowing thatGod's kindness is meant to lead
you to repentance?
So is it crystal clear what theLord is looking for in his
judgment?
He's looking for belief, he'slooking for honor, he's looking
for thanks.
(22:04):
Instead, mankind, for the mostpart, rejects right.
So we see a clear context ofbelief and unbelief as we go
through these passages in Romans.
But let's see what Paul saysnext.
In Romans 2, 9-11, we readthere will be tribulation and
distress for every human beingwho does evil, the Jew first and
(22:28):
also the Greek, but glory andhonor and peace for everyone who
does good, the Jew first, andalso the Greek, for God shows no
partiality.
Now I'm going to ask are weseeing a shift of focus in
Paul's writing here?
I see a shift of focus.
I see him now bringing theminto their situation and their
(22:50):
time period the Jews and theGentiles, the people who he's
writing to.
So we're going to start seeinghim focus on Jew and Gentile now
.
He starts at the beginning andnow he's working his way up to
where they're at now, and hedoes that throughout Romans.
We're going to see that.
So what did we learn earlierabout glory and honor?
They come from the Lord, right.
(23:11):
Glory and honor are for theLord alone, right.
So, based on that, why were theJews the first to receive?
Glory and honor are for theLord alone, right.
So, based on that, why were theJews the first to receive glory
and honor and peace?
They were the first to receiveMessiah, weren't they?
Christ came to Israel.
He came to his people.
He came to save the lost sheepof Israel.
That was his ministry.
And was this based on works orfaith?
(23:33):
It was based on faith.
And was this based on works orfaith?
It was based on faith.
We see that clearly in thescripture.
I know there's arguments onthat, but it's very clear in
scripture when we study it Laterin Romans, paul makes this
abundantly clear.
In Romans 9, 31 through 32, weread but that Israel, who
(23:54):
pursued a law that would lead torighteousness, did not succeed
in reaching that law.
Why?
Because they did not pursue itby faith, but as if it were
based on works.
They have stumbled over thestumbling stone.
Paul says they didn't pursue itby faith.
They were obedient to the law,thinking that the works of the
law were making them righteous,and not faith.
They were godless, they werehypocrites, they were heartless
(24:17):
according to Yeshua.
But getting back to our passage,let's read that again Romans 2,
9-11.
There will be tribulation anddistress for every human being
who does evil, the Jew first andalso the Greek, but glory and
honor and peace for everyone whodoes good, the Jew first and
also the Greek, for God shows nopartiality.
(24:40):
The big question that we needto ask ourselves here is, with
all of mankind rejecting Yahwehall through the ages, why is
tribulation and distress comingfirst to the Jews, if
tribulation and distress is justsimple hard times that we
experience when we don't haveYahweh on our side, if it's just
(25:03):
simple distress and tribulationin a way that affects our
worldly being on a daily basisfor sin being disobedient to God
.
If it's just as simple as that,why first to the Jews?
And this question is one we'llbe investigating in our next
episode.
So stay tuned to the Waking Upto Grace podcast.
(25:24):
I hope you guys have a greatday out there and I'll talk to
you next week.
Hello and welcome to the Waking Up to Grace
podcast, where we celebrate andexplore the finished work of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Tune in to the Waking Up toGrace podcast on every major
platform.
You can also listen to ourepisodes and read our full
transcripts atwakinguptogracecom.
And now here's Lenny.
Lenny (00:22):
Welcome back to the podcast everyone.
Today we'll be looking at God'sjudgment and Paul's rhetoric.
As we go into chapter 2 ofRomans, we read Therefore you
have no excuse, o man, every oneof you who judges, for in
passing judgment on another, youcondemn yourself because you,
the judge, practice the verysame things.
(00:43):
That's Romans 2, verse 1.
The question we want to askhere would be is Paul speaking
to the same group of people thatwe determined to be mankind in
general so far?
Let's look back at what we readearlier to keep things fresh.
Romans 1.21 says For althoughthey knew God, they did not
honor him as God or give thanksto God, but they became futile
(01:06):
in their thinking and theirfoolish hearts were darkened.
Do we have any reason tobelieve anything changed in the
context of this targeted groupof people so far?
I would say no.
It looks like we're looking atthe same group of people.
He's just talking about mankindin general from the beginning
of time.
Do we see the secular ornon-believing world judging each
(01:26):
other in this passage?
I would say so.
In Romans 2.1 that we werereading, he's saying you have no
excuse, o man, every one of youwho judges, talking about
mankind in general, isn't he?
And the next question would beDo we see a lot of hypocrisy in
Scripture coming from the worldapart from national Israel?
(01:51):
And yeah, we do.
That's what Paul's been talkingabout this whole time, isn't it
?
So it seems that Paul continuesto describe a mankind that
rejects Yahweh, and he continuesin verses 2 through 4, saying
we know that the judgment of Godrightly falls on those who do
such things.
Do you suppose, o man, you whojudge those who do such things
and yet do them yourself, thatyou will escape the judgment of
(02:11):
God?
Or do you presume on the richesof his kindness and forbearance
and patience, not knowing thatGod's kindness is meant to lead
you to repentance?
I wanted to point out here, aswe read the next several verses,
that O man is written withexclamation.
There should probably be anexclamation point at the end,
based on the original language.
(02:33):
According to Strong's, it's aprimary interjection, a sign of
the vocative case as a note ofexclamation.
So Paul is expressing severityhere as he describes God's
judgment.
He's exclaiming it.
But is it just me, or does Paulseem to have a way of
communicating that we just don'tuse today?
(02:54):
Do you hear peoplecommunicating like this in your
church?
Probably not other than whenquoting scripture.
Maybe the writings of ourapostles are ancient writings.
They didn't at all communicatein words the way we do today.
In our intro to Romans andPaul's writings we discussed
rhetoric.
There's dispute over whether ornot Paul spoke rhetorically in
(03:16):
his writings.
There are several points madethat say that he does not use
rhetoric to communicate.
Some of these points arerhetoric was not part of the
genre of letter writing.
In other words, they didn't useit in letters.
Commonly, paul's writings do notconform perfectly to the
(03:36):
structure of speeches dictatedin rhetorical handbooks.
Rhetoric most often took placein certain settings courtrooms,
assemblies, festivals andcelebrations, and these settings
are lacking in Paul's letters.
And then the early churchfathers, in air quotes, did not
identify in Paul a rhetoricalcommunicator.
(03:58):
They didn't see rhetoric.
And a lot of people go by theearly church fathers.
And then we have Paul rejectedthe use of rhetoric in 1
Corinthians 1-3 as diluting thepower of the gospel.
And if you go back in 1Corinthians 1-3 and read that,
it's a pretty good point theymake.
And then rhetoric was used forspeeches and not writing.
(04:20):
That would be the final point.
So there's some pretty goodpoints made that would say that
Paul did not use rhetoric.
But then there's several reallygood points that support Paul's
use of rhetoric in his writings.
Starting with, paul's letterswere meant to persuade.
Therefore, it's possible toexamine Paul's letters with
(04:41):
reference to rhetorical motives.
We talked about that in ourintro.
And then the rhetorical genrewas flexible and Paul could
change and shape the pattern ofhis speech for each situation.
There were also different typesof rhetoric and different
styles in various regions, sothey weren't all exactly the
same.
And then settings such astrials before Roman governors
(05:05):
and debates within the churchwould have called for expertise
in rhetoric.
Another point is Paul refused toattribute the power of his
gospel to rhetoric, but hisletters were still considered
weighty and strong in 2Corinthians 10.10.
Even Peter calls them hard tounderstand in 2 Peter 3.16.
This may display that Pauldidn't use rhetoric in the
(05:27):
gospel proclamation, but heprobably did use rhetorical
devices in writing letters tohis churches.
This would also explain why inour 2 Corinthians 10.10 passage,
where it's said that hisletters are weighty and strong,
they also say his bodilypresence is weak and his speech
of no account.
And then another point is thatwhile it is true that rhetoric
(05:50):
is meant primarily for speaking.
We should recognize a couple ofthings.
The only knowledge we have ofrhetoric is from written sources
, such as handbooks on rhetoric.
We have no recordings.
All the speeches known of comefrom written sources.
Many of Paul's letters werelikely dictated from oral speech
, like Tertius and Romans, andwere meant to be read aloud to
(06:14):
the churches.
Another point yet Paul was bornand raised in Tarsus of Cilicia,
a Greek-speaking city.
His first language was Greek.
Cilicia, a Greek-speaking city.
His first language was Greek.
Paul probably received a Greekeducation, including Greek
philosophy, literature andrhetoric.
Paul's use of phrases such aswhat then?
(06:35):
What then, shall we say?
Certainly not.
And oh man, all have strikingparallels with Epictetus'
discourses, and I reference allthose passages in the notes that
you'll find atwakinguptogracecom on this
episode's page, and I'm evenlinking to these Epictetus'
discourses because it's quitefascinating to look at.
(06:57):
Another point is that Romansinvokes a number of rhetorical
devices known to Greco-Romanauthors, including rhetorical
questions, and I cite a bunch ofrhetorical devices known to
Greco-Roman authors, includingrhetorical questions, and I cite
a bunch of verses in the notesapostrophes.
Apostrophes meaning questionsfor an imaginary opponent, with
several verses in the notes.
(07:18):
And then we have dialogues andall these Roman verses that I
reference in the study notes.
Again refutations of objections, several Romans passages,
speeches in character, Romans 7,romans 10, comparisons all over
(07:39):
Romans and then example storiesall over Romans.
Some passages in Romans soundtheological.
Other passages are fashioned ina rhetorical sense.
I've come to see Paul's letterto the Romans as both theology
and rhetoric.
I've also come to believe thatwe can gain a much deeper
understanding of Paul's writingswhen we understand his ways of
(08:01):
communicating.
It helps us with context.
It helps us to understand theintended meaning of Paul's words
, especially in difficultpassages as we go through our
Roman study.
I believe that many of you willsee what I mean In the passage
we're studying now and othersthat we'll encounter throughout
our study.
You'll find much similarity inthe writings of Epictetus.
(08:22):
Epictetus was a Greek Stoicphilosopher and again I have a
link to his writings for yourreview in this study guide.
It's really interesting to lookat.
You see so much of the sameverbiage.
When you compare and contrastPaul with this Greek philosopher
and the way that he spoke, it'snot surprising to me that Paul
used rhetorical speaking.
(08:42):
Going back to episodes 33 and34, we learn that the Jews in
Rome spoke Greek, so the Jewsand Gentiles both would have
been familiar with rhetoric.
Paul was merely communicatingin a way that they could relate
with.
This would also explain why hiswritings are so hard for us to
relate with today.
We naturally try and put Paulinside of the box of our
(09:04):
communication methods and hejust doesn't fit into that box.
But getting back to our passage,paul wrote we know that the
judgment of God rightly falls onthose who do such things.
Do you suppose, o man, you whojudge those who do such things
and yet do them yourself, thatyou will escape the judgment of
God?
Or do you presume on the richesof his kindness and forbearance
(09:26):
and patience, not knowing thatGod's kindness is meant to lead
you to repentance?
And that's Romans 2, 2 through4.
Did Paul see the Lord'sjudgment as righteous and true?
Yes, he most definitely did.
Based on this passage, didn'the?
Now does Paul call out theself-righteous here, to be sure
they realize that Yahweh is notgoing to be fooled by their
(09:47):
behavior?
He most certainly does.
He's calling out theself-righteous, the people that
are judging others, and sayinghey, you're not going to escape
the judgment of God either justbecause you judge so well
yourself.
Back in Romans 1.18, we read forthe wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness
(10:07):
of men who, by theirunrighteousness, suppress the
truth.
Looking back on this passage,does Paul teach that
self-righteousness, or pointingthe finger at the behavior of
others, is godly or righteous inany way?
No, he definitely doesn't, doeshe?
So would self-righteousnessthen also suppress the truth?
Yeah, it would suppress thetruth, wouldn't it?
(10:30):
In chapter 2, verse 4, we reador do you presume on the riches
of his kindness and forbearanceand patience, not knowing that
God's kindness is meant to leadyou to repentance?
And so I ask could the blessingof enjoying life on earth be
considered the riches of hiskindness and patience?
To those that are rejecting himyeah, letting him live, that's
(10:52):
pretty generous I would say hedidn't owe anybody that.
Does he owe anybody anopportunity to live on earth?
No, he really doesn't.
He created life Based on thetrue definition of repentance,
which is a change of mind.
What is Yahweh looking for inthese godless people?
He's looking for them to repent, isn't it?
That's why you always hearrepent, repent, change your mind
(11:14):
, turn to God.
And then Romans 2, 5 through 8,we read because of your heart
and impenitent heart, you arestoring up wrath for yourself.
On the day of wrath, when God'srighteous judgment will be
revealed, he will render to eachone according to his works.
To those who, by patience andwell-doing, seek for glory and
honor and immortality, he willgive eternal life.
(11:36):
But for those who areself-seeking and do not obey the
truth but obey unrighteousness,there will be wrath and fury.
Now, if this passage were takenout of context, could it sound
like a works-based salvation?
It certainly would, wouldn't it?
Now, if a church were to putthis up on a screen and do a
study on it, could we mislead awhole lot of people that way?
(11:58):
Yeah, you really.
Could you look at this passage?
You could really mislead somepeople if you're not looking at
context, opening up your Bibleand just saying this is God's
word, this is what he's tellingyou today.
Can you see why we go, verse byverse, to be sure that what we
see is in the correct context?
I can't stress it enough.
(12:22):
It's just so important.
When Paul says but because ofyour heart and impenitent heart,
doesn't that mean he's talkingto you?
Trick question it doesn't meanhe's talking to you at all.
We said he's using rhetoric.
Oftentimes there's an imaginaryopponent.
So if he's talking to animaginary opponent, he's putting
some imaginary person in themix of his conversation and you
(12:43):
put yourself in that position ashis imaginary opponent.
When he's using this rhetoricand this rhetorical speaking,
where do you put yourself?
You put yourself in with thegodless people.
You don't want to do that.
In romans 121, we read foralthough they knew god, they did
not honor him as god or givethanks to him.
(13:04):
But they became futile in theirthinking and their foolish
hearts were darkened, andtherefore god gave them up in
the lusts of their hearts, toimpurity, to the dishonoring of
their bodies among.
So is Paul still talking abouta mankind who rejects God?
Here, yes, paul is speaking inan apostolic judgment against
(13:24):
those who reject the truth.
This may seem obvious when westudy it, but these simple
principles are thrown out thewindow daily in church
institutions in order to provewhatever point they want to make
to you.
Always pay attention to context.
Don't let sloppy hermeneuticslead you into bondage and error.
Let's look at our passage again,realizing that he's not telling
(13:45):
us that our heart, impenitentheart, is storing up wrath for
ourselves.
So he writes but because of ourheart, impenitent heart is
storing up wrath for ourselves.
So he writes.
(14:16):
So is there a place here forthose who are trying to please
God but fail to meet hisrequirements?
Maybe they weren't good enough?
Is that what he's talking about?
If we are to get what we deservefor our works, how can we be
saved from God's wrath and fury?
Do you have any sin in yourlife that deserves wrath?
All of it does, doesn't it?
(14:36):
If we look at this passage asrelating directly to the works
we produce, we fall into fear.
We cannot stand firm in ourbehavior, can we?
If we do, that's just theself-righteousness that we read
about earlier.
We're going to judge otherpeople based on our standard.
He already told us we're notgoing to escape judgment if we
do that.
Our works will never allow usto stand before a Lord who is as
(14:59):
holy and righteous as Yahweh.
But what if the passage isactually about the root of the
problem?
What if it refers to that whichproduces bad or good works in
our life?
In verse 7 we read Would you saythat Paul describes someone
(15:21):
seeking glory and honor forthemselves?
If not, how might we find orobtain this glory and honor,
knowing that Paul taught fromthe same Old Testament
scriptures, the Tanakh that wehave today.
Let's see if we can find aconnection with what he's
talking about here.
That might help.
In Psalm 8.5, we read Yet youhave made him a little lower
(15:43):
than the heavenly beings andcrowned him with glory and honor
.
So who's being described byDavid in this psalm?
It's Christ, isn't it?
It's the Lord who crowned him.
Yahweh did, didn't he?
And then in 1 Chronicles 29.11,we read Yours is the kingdom, o
(16:08):
Lord, and you are exalted ashead above all.
So who is the power and gloryin this passage?
It's Yahweh.
Do you think our behavior canget us in on this?
In 1 Timothy 1.17 we read DoesPaul include any people in this
(16:32):
statement?
In his writing to Timothy, doeshe say to the king of ages and
Lenny and Melissa, immortal,invisible?
No, he doesn't.
Does?
He Doesn't say any of that.
He doesn't include people here.
So who is glory and honor to begiven to forever?
Yahweh and, of course, yeshua.
They're both Lord.
(16:53):
And then in Revelation we readWorthy are you, our Lord and God
, to receive glory and honor andpower, for you created all
things and by your will theyexisted and were created.
And that's in the Revelation ofJohn 4, verse 11.
Are you getting the point here?
Can you see where I'm goingwith this?
Let's look at what Paul saidagain in our Romans letter.
(17:15):
But because of your hard andimpenitent heart, you are
storing up wrath for yourself.
On the day of wrath, when God'srighteous judgment will be
revealed, he will render to eachone according to his works.
To those who, by patience andwell-doing, seek for glory and
honor and immortality, he willgive eternal life.
So what are those who, bypatience and well-doing, seeking
(17:38):
?
What are they seeking?
They seek the Lord, don't they?
They're seeking the Lord Isseeking merely looking for him
in this context, or is itseeking after his guidance or
being directed by the Lord?
I think it's both.
So whose works are reallynecessary then, for salvation?
Whose works are being judged Ifwe look at it this way, the way
(18:00):
the passage is telling us, it'sthe Lord, his work, he's the
glory, he's the honor.
To him alone.
Glory and honor, immortality.
We have none of those things.
We need him, don't we?
And then will God give hisglory and honor to those who
seek him?
Let's see what Paul says aboutthat to the Christians in
Thessalonica 2 Thessalonians1.12 says so we seek him, don't
(18:34):
we?
Yeah, we seek him.
Whose works do we want to befound in us on the day of
judgment?
We want to see Yeshua's worksfound in us, don't we?
So?
Is God actually looking for hisglory in us, then?
Yeah, he's looking for theglory of Christ.
Yeshua, his work Before thecross, before the finished work
(18:54):
of Christ.
They were looking forward tothese things.
Now we have them.
Do you think that when Yahwehfinds that we are glorified in
Christ, that we'll pass Hisjudgment and receive the
promised eternal life?
Yeah, we absolutely are goingto pass right through judgment
with flying colors.
We're not going to have to sitthere and go to that imaginary
(19:15):
drive-in theater and look at ourlives and be judged for all the
things that we've done, good orbad.
We're clothed with christ.
But then, after that, in verse 8, paul writes but for those who
are self-seeking and do not obeythe truth but obey
unrighteousness, there will bewrath and fury.
Does paul describe believerswho act selfishly and fall into
(19:36):
lies?
No, no, he's not talking aboutbelievers at all.
He's talking about a godlessmankind, a mankind who rejects
Yahweh and his truth.
They reject the gospel.
They seek righteousness apartfrom him.
They seek a righteousness thatcomes from themselves, they
(19:57):
deceive themselves by making uptheir own rules and even judging
others based on those made-uprules.
And as we already studied, forthe wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousness
of men who, by theirunrighteousness, suppress the
truth.
That's 1.18.
Then Romans, 1.21 says Foralthough they knew God, they did
not honor him as God or givethanks to him, but they became
(20:17):
futile in their and again.
Is obeying unrighteousness thesame as rejecting Yahweh?
Yes, it is.
It's not your behavior.
It's rejecting Yahweh Is nothonoring or giving thanks to
Yahweh, the opposite of givingall honor and glory to Him.
Yeah, that's opposition.
(20:39):
Not honoring or giving thanksto Yahweh is what the godless
people were doing.
So do these passages describeanything about actual behavior
at all?
No, they actually don't.
They're not talking aboutbehavior.
They're talking about beliefand unbelief.
They're talking about thefaithful and the faithless, the
God-honoring and the godless.
(21:00):
So why do those who rejectYahweh get all the bad labels?
It's because they're producingall that stuff.
Sin is produced in unbelief.
Sin is produced when we rejectYahweh.
Sin is produced in the godless.
It's not until we turn toYahweh that we can even
understand righteousness FromGod's view, true righteousness
(21:22):
that comes from the heart.
We don't even know it until Godshows it to us, until he
reveals it to us, until he opensour eyes.
We are simply self-seekingbefore that.
We read earlier about those whoreject Yahweh.
Paul wrote we know that thejudgment of God rightly falls
about those who reject Yahweh.
Paul wrote we know that thejudgment of God rightly falls on
those who do such things.
Do you suppose, o man, you whojudge those who do such things
(21:44):
and yet do them yourself, thatyou will escape the judgment of
God?
Or do you presume on the richesof his kindness and forbearance
and patience, not knowing thatGod's kindness is meant to lead
you to repentance?
So is it crystal clear what theLord is looking for in his
judgment?
He's looking for belief, he'slooking for honor, he's looking
for thanks.
(22:04):
Instead, mankind, for the mostpart, rejects right.
So we see a clear context ofbelief and unbelief as we go
through these passages in Romans.
But let's see what Paul saysnext.
In Romans 2, 9-11, we readthere will be tribulation and
distress for every human beingwho does evil, the Jew first and
(22:28):
also the Greek, but glory andhonor and peace for everyone who
does good, the Jew first, andalso the Greek, for God shows no
partiality.
Now I'm going to ask are weseeing a shift of focus in
Paul's writing here?
I see a shift of focus.
I see him now bringing theminto their situation and their
(22:50):
time period the Jews and theGentiles, the people who he's
writing to.
So we're going to start seeinghim focus on Jew and Gentile now
.
He starts at the beginning andnow he's working his way up to
where they're at now, and hedoes that throughout Romans.
We're going to see that.
So what did we learn earlierabout glory and honor?
They come from the Lord, right.
(23:11):
Glory and honor are for theLord alone, right.
So, based on that, why were theJews the first to receive?
Glory and honor are for theLord alone, right.
So, based on that, why were theJews the first to receive glory
and honor and peace?
They were the first to receiveMessiah, weren't they?
Christ came to Israel.
He came to his people.
He came to save the lost sheepof Israel.
That was his ministry.
And was this based on works orfaith?
(23:33):
It was based on faith.
And was this based on works orfaith?
It was based on faith.
We see that clearly in thescripture.
I know there's arguments onthat, but it's very clear in
scripture when we study it Laterin Romans, paul makes this
abundantly clear.
In Romans 9, 31 through 32, weread but that Israel, who
(23:54):
pursued a law that would lead torighteousness, did not succeed
in reaching that law.
Why?
Because they did not pursue itby faith, but as if it were
based on works.
They have stumbled over thestumbling stone.
Paul says they didn't pursue itby faith.
They were obedient to the law,thinking that the works of the
law were making them righteous,and not faith.
They were godless, they werehypocrites, they were heartless
(24:17):
according to Yeshua.
But getting back to our passage,let's read that again Romans 2,
9-11.
There will be tribulation anddistress for every human being
who does evil, the Jew first andalso the Greek, but glory and
honor and peace for everyone whodoes good, the Jew first and
also the Greek, for God shows nopartiality.
(24:40):
The big question that we needto ask ourselves here is, with
all of mankind rejecting Yahwehall through the ages, why is
tribulation and distress comingfirst to the Jews, if
tribulation and distress is justsimple hard times that we
experience when we don't haveYahweh on our side, if it's just
(25:03):
simple distress and tribulationin a way that affects our
worldly being on a daily basisfor sin being disobedient to God
.
If it's just as simple as that,why first to the Jews?
And this question is one we'llbe investigating in our next
episode.
So stay tuned to the Waking Upto Grace podcast.
(25:24):
I hope you guys have a greatday out there and I'll talk to
you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.