Romans 2 :3-4

[(^^)Regin]

Hello from Japan!
Are these two verses BOTH rethorical questions ?

Many thanks in advance!

Sent from my i8800 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew P.C.]

It would be easier to know the context of your question. However, Paul answers those questions in the following verses:

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. (NASB)

He is trying to drive a point into the minds of the Romans, so, he is using a rhetorical method by expressing terms to impress upon them this idea of judgment. Calvin also says the following on verse 3:

As rhetoricians teach us, that we ought not to proceed to give strong reproof before the crime be proved, Paul may seem to some to have acted unwisely here for having passed so severe a censure, when he had not yet proved the accusation which he had brought forward. But the fact is otherwise; for he adduced not his accusation before men, but appealed to the judgment of conscience; and thus he deemed that proved which he had in view — that they could not deny their iniquity, if they examined themselves and submitted to the scrutiny of God’s tribunal. And it was not without urgent necessity, that he with so much sharpness and severity rebuked their fictitious sanctity; for men of this class will with astonishing security trust in themselves, except their vain confidence be forcibly shaken from them. Let us then remember, that this is the best mode of dealing with hypocrisy, in order to awaken it from its inebriety, that is, to draw it forth to the light of God’s judgment.

 

[(^^)Regin]

Hi Andrew, thanks for the response, there is an 'OR' in between them
- are they two separate question?
- is it one big question?
- is one part rhetorical and the latter not?
- are both rhetorical?

Many thanks in advance

Sent from my i8800 using Tapatalk

 

[timfost]

If by rhetorical you mean "asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information," then yes. If you mean that the Jews knew the answers to these questions already, probably no, though the OT is full of giving reasons so that they should have known.

The Jews were so blinded by their inflated perception that they could merit salvation, that these questions would have been very offensive apart from special grace. Charles Hodge says:

There is a middle ground between moral suasion and coercion. God supersedes the necessity of forcing, by making us willing in the day of his power. The apostle, however, is not here speaking of gracious influence, but the moral tendencies of providential dispensations.

In this regard, there is a striking similarity to Acts 7:51.

Haldane further demonstrates that this was not a question that the Jews necessarily knew the answer (v. 3):

This question evidently implies that the Jews did think they would escape, while they committed the very same sins for which they believed the heathens would be condemned.

Some hyper-Calvinists say that this is a hypothetical rhetorical question so that they can maintain that no "common grace" is shown to the reprobate. The problem with this interpretation is that they confuse special grace and common grace, and the general work of the Holy Spirit and the special work of the Holy Spirit. Haldane remarks that:

But with respect to the greater number, it remained unaccompanied with that spirit, and consequently continued to be merely an external calling, without any saving effect. The Apostle, in the following verse, declares that the Jews by their impenitence drew down upon themselves the just anger of God. From this it evidently follows that God externally calls many to whom He has not purposed to give the grace of conversion. It also follows that it cannot be said that when God thus externally calls persons on whom it is not His purpose to bestow grace, His object is only to render them inexcusable. For if that were the case, the Apostle would not have spoken of the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, --terms which would not be applicable, if, by such a call, it was intended merely to render man inexcusable.

Concerning these two verses being one or two questions, I would certainly say they are related, but would hope that somebody with a better understanding of Greek could answer you more thoroughly.

 

[MW]

are both rhetorical?

It is an either/or pair of questions which incriminates the accused and leaves them without a defence for their claims. "Rhetorical" is the grammatical way of describing them, but they are more in the nature of what a prosecutor would do in questioning the guilty party in a legal matter. God's judgment is introduced as ultimate in verse 2. Then human judgment is weighed in the balance of it in vv. 3-4. The first question challenges the unspoken belief that the individual is free from the judgment which condemns others. The answer is expected to be negative because God's judgment is according to truth. Then, given the negative answer expected in verse 3, the next verse exposes an alternative reason why the individual might think he is immune, namely, the goodness of God to him over and above what others have received. The question shows that there was a moral consideration in bestowing this goodness so that the claim of impunity only proved ingratitude on the part of its recipient. The answer in the following verse will then demonstrate that such ingratitude deserves greater judgment.

In one line of interpretation the "man" is the Jew who claims superiority over the Gentiles. Given the Jew/Gentile comparison later in the passage this seems reasonable.