# Romans 2:15 Stott's Commentary and the "failure" to use the definite article



## Eoghan (Oct 22, 2009)

In John Stott's commentary on Romans (p91) he claims that when Paul holds gentiles accountable for their actions, (their conscience now accusing now defending them) this is not universally applicable to every Gentile. Why? because the Greek does not use the definite article "the Gentiles" but "Gentiles".  That is, among the Gentiles there are _some_ who show a greater sense of moral values - right and wrong. 

Now I appreciate Stott not wanting to ascribe a working moral compass to every gentile. This is patently not the case, nor is it what Paul teaches either! Conscience like natural revelation is not a reliable guide but it is sufficient to hold us accountable and show a general principle at work in us. When we go against conscience it becomes "seared" (1 Timothy 4:12) and silenced. Paul's point is not that it is a true moral compass for the gentile, always pointing True North but that we are all born with a conscience and rather than refine it, realigning it to True North (as opposed to magnetic north)we go against conscience and this makes us who have no Torah accountable. 

Paul is not a surgeon suggesting a remedy for the gentile, rather he is a pathologist dispassionately showing the progress of the disease.

Getting back to the greek definite article or rather the lack thereof, which was my point in posting. Romans 3:9 "...both Jew and Gentile..." compasses every gentile and jew in it's scope yet it would appear to lack the definite article does it not? So John Stott's observation is wrong in the context and wrong in the particular? 

Am I right?


----------



## rbcbob (Oct 22, 2009)

Romans 2:14 οταν γαρ εθνη Gentiles *qua* Gentiles categorically, not numerically.
Romans 3:9 Ιουδαιους και Ελληνας Greeks *qua* Greeks categorically, not numerically.


----------



## Eoghan (Oct 22, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Romans 2:14 οταν γαρ εθνη Gentiles *qua* Gentiles categorically, not numerically.
> Romans 3:9 Ιουδαιους και Ελληνας Greeks *qua* Greeks categorically, not numerically.




Is that agreement with me rbcbob


----------



## Nathan Riese (Oct 22, 2009)

(ESV) 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 


14 ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος· 15 οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων, 

Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini et al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (With Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993; 2006), Ro 2:14-15.

Let's anaylyze this.



> QUESTION—Who are the Gentiles that he is referring to in this verse?
> 1. Paul is referring generally to Gentiles without reference to whether or not they are believers.
> 1.1 This refers to some but not all Gentiles [AB, Gdt, Mor, NAC, St]. The lack of the definite article indicates that he not making a universal claim about all Gentiles, but about some Gentiles: sometimes there are Gentiles who sometimes do what the law requires [AB, Gdt, Mor, NAC, St].



So, Fitzmeyer, Godet, Mounce, and Leon Morris all agree with Stott in his observation, so it's not just Stott saying this.




> 1.2 The reference is to Gentiles generally [Mu, NTC, TH, TNTC]. They are people who are Gentiles, who generally or collectively do not have the specially revealed law but who have a sense of right and wrong within them functioning for them as the law [Mu]. He is saying that all people, including Gentiles, have a sense of right and wrong [NTC].
> 2. They are unbelieving Gentiles who, though they may do some parts of the law, are not saved [BECNT, Ho, NICNT, WBC]. The number of Gentiles who do the things the law requires is left indefinite; he is not saying either that there are only a very few exceptional Gentiles, or that most of them would fit this category [NICNT]. There are some Gentiles who at least part of the time live in accordance with what the law says through their own innate sense of right and wrong even though they have no direct knowledge of the Mosaic law [WBC]. They are Gentiles, but Paul’s object is to show that the occasionally moral conduct of all men only proves that they have a knowledge of right and wrong and that there is a rule of duty written on men’s hearts, not that their conduct saves them [Ho]. That these are unbelieving Gentiles is indicated by the fact that the obedience of the Gentiles mentioned is inconsistent and insufficient, that the testimony of their conscience is mainly accusatory, and that what is innate to them is said to constitute a ‘law to themselves’ instead of speaking of the Holy Spirit’s enabling, as would be expected if they were Christians [BECNT].
> 3. They are Gentile Christians whose works of obedience, though imperfect and not deserving of God’s favor, are still the expression of their faith [ICC2].
> 4. They are Gentiles who have realized and accepted the fact that a relationship with the creator must be based on obedience and faith, and by responding in this way, are doing what is in fact required by the law [HNTC].
> ...



David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Romans 1-8, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 159.

The point of the matter is this.
It is not "Gentiles" indiscriminately, but discriminately, for there is a subset given: 
Gentiles _who do not have the law_

In other words, the point of his not having the article there is because he is only talking about a subset of Gentiles, namely, the ones who are unbelievers who do not have the law.

For example, many times people come in conversation and say,
"I can understand God maybe sending people to hell who have the Bible and still refuse, but how can people in some island somewhere be deserving of hell?"

Paul's states something like this,
"People who have the Torah are judged by the Torah. This includes at least _some_ Gentiles. The rest of the Gentiles have the natural law to condemn them."

In a way, it is universal, but Paul really is speaking in a limited sense for specifically the Gentiles who do not have the law.

Although it is TRUE that Gentiles who have the Law also have the natural law, his point here is that those who do not have the Law still do have the natural law within them, and that is why the Gentiles in this sense is NOT universal.

Hope that all makes sense!


----------



## Eoghan (Oct 22, 2009)

Nathan Riese said:


> In other words, the point of his not having the article there is because he is only talking about a subset of Gentiles, namely, the ones who are unbelievers who do not have the law.
> 
> For example, many times people come in conversation and say,
> "I can understand God maybe sending people to hell who have the Bible and still refuse, but how can people in some island somewhere be deserving of hell?"
> ...



I like it but can't help feel that conscience is common to us all. To label Gentiles as a subset of humanity and then further specify a sub-subset of gentiles who have not encountered the law?

I come back to Romans 3:9 clearly this text is comprehensive and yet it fails to use the definite article. This undermines all arguments about the definite article being absent being a decisive factor in ruling out the universality of the conscience argument.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 22, 2009)

Eoghan said:


> I come back to Romans 3:9 clearly this text is comprehensive and yet it fails to use the definite article. This undermines all arguments about the definite article being absent being a decisive factor in ruling out the universality of the conscience argument.



If I am not mistaken, as a general rule, the absence of the article _qualifies_, the presence of the article _identifies_. Thus, if one speaks of Gentiles, rather than _*the *_Gentiles, I would think that this identifies the entire category of person with the qualities of "Gentileness."

In context, Paul's argument is that the Jews are guilty before God. Taken in this context, a great deal of confusion is removed, as the point is merely that Gentiles are, at times, more righteous than the Jews. Therefore, the Jews may not boast in their receipt of Scripture, since the Gentiles, who don't have the Scriptures, may outshine them. Chapter one would give us good cause to recognize that this is not an always and everyone statement regarding the Gentiles, but simply a valid generalization that possession of the Law does not equal keeping of the Law.

Cheers,


----------



## Nathan Riese (Oct 22, 2009)

Follow this syllogism that you have made:

1. Romans 3:9 has no definite article
2. Romans 3:9 is universal
3. Romans 2:14-15 refers to Gentiles without the definite article
4. Therefore, it is possible that the reference to these Gentiles is universal

Romans 3:9 is one case, that hardly makes something a rule.
Looking closer, Romans 3:9 is qualitative. Jews and Gentiles = description of "all."
"All" = the quantity
"Jews and Gentiles" = the quality
Therefore, the article is not needed.

I hope that makes sense. What I am saying is that, in Romans 3:9, "Jews and Gentiles" is not his reference to number, the "all" is..."Jews and Gentiles" is his qualification of "all" and does not need an article.

So, you must point to a different text for your argument.

-----Added 10/22/2009 at 05:34:29 EST-----

It sounds like you are arguing for something that isn't really there. You're arguing that the natural law is universal and that the lack of the article referring to Gentiles is still universal, but you haven't proven your case exegetically, because the point you are making is not the point that Paul is making.

Paul's point is that _specifically_ *it is Gentiles WHO DO NOT HAVE THE LAW* who are still condemned because of the natural law within them and who can still obey the law because of the natural law within them.

You are right, the natural law is universal. You are right, we ALL have the natural law and that is taught here, and that is the point, that specifically, these people who do not have the Mosaic Law still have the natural law.

Follow this Venn Diagram (if you can visualize it)

Everyone (universal) has the natural law within them
Some, namely all Jews and some Gentiles, have the Mosaic Law to guide them as well as condemn them.
Gentiles who do not have the law (the ones mentioned without the article in Romans 2:14) can still do works of the law and have condemnation upon them.

That is why there is no definite article, and that is why it is not universal in that paragraph.


----------

