# Man in Romans 2:1



## Doodle Bug (Jan 19, 2006)

Hi, 
I have decided to finish my el ed degree and am taking a Romans class as part of the requirements. So I have a study on Romans 2:1 and who is man in the passage. I think I understand the passage, but the problem is that I have three commentaries I have to summerize thier position. In theory Calvin and either John Phillips or Allva McClain should be different, but all I can see is that all three identify man as a general (instead of Jewish) hypocrite.
Can anyone give me some feedback. I feel like I'm missing something.
Thanks
Becky


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 19, 2006)

I'm only a layman, but it seems general to me too. Romans 2:1, with its "Therefore" seems to be the conclusion of Romans 1:18-32, which has a general application. Paul more pointedly addresses Jews in Rom. 2:17-29.


----------



## Robin (Jan 20, 2006)

Becky,

Keep reading (get rid of the verse/chapter divisions. Temporarily back-burner the analysis stuff.) 

Remember, it's a letter - intended to be read aloud; beginning to end; without stopping.

If you do that, you'll notice a very different "spin" on Paul's emphasis. It'll take about 30 minutes to get through the whole letter. Do this a lot, too. Things will get clearer.

Paul would  to see us chopping up his letter, dissecting it thus.

Oy!

Robin 

Meanwhile....may I heartily commend you for tackling Romans!!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 20, 2006)

Matthew Henry's comments may be helpful:



> He arraigns them for their censoriousness and self-conceit (v. 1): Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. As he expresses himself in general terms, the admonition may reach those many masters (Jam. iii. 1), of whatever nation or profession they are, that assume to themselves a power to censure, control, and condemn others. But he intends especially the Jews, and to them particularly he applies this general charge (v. 21), Thou who teachest another teachest thou not thyself? The Jews were generally a proud sort of people, that looked with a great deal of scorn and contempt upon the poor Gentiles, as not worthy to be set with the dogs of their flock; while in the mean time they were themselves as bad and immoral--though not idolaters, as the Gentiles, yet sacrilegious, v. 22. Therefore thou art inexcusable. If the Gentiles, who had but the light of nature, were inexcusable (ch. i. 20), much more the Jews, who had the light of the law, the revealed will of God, and so had greater helps than the Gentiles.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 21, 2006)

I believe Paul begins by addressing moralists generally (among whom would be many Jews), and his language (o man, _whoever_ you are) is deliberately general. He thus bridges his condemnation of the licencious Gentiles of chapter 1 and the Jewish law-possessers of the end of chapter 2. As he progresses through the chapter he strips away all the moralist's support, concluding at the end with an assualt on the Jewish "Masada"--his law-possession, and the last defense "but-but-but-but-but I'M CURCUMCISED!"


----------

