https://youtu.be/T88tUJZkgGw
In our verse by verse study of Romans last time we finished Rom 2:17; with an Expanded Translation of "If on the one hand you are classified as a Jew (and you are,) and not only rely on the law (for salvation), but you also boast about your relationship with God (and you do)."
This brings us to verse 18 that addresses the distortion of the law that those who think they can be saved by keeping the law have.
Arrogance assumes and presumes. It is arrogant presumption to assume that they know the will of God, that they have the will of God.
In fact, they claim that they have a monopoly on God's will but they don't know it at all because no unbeliever can be filled with the spirit and no one who is not filled with the spirit can know God's will.
Rom 2:18; "And know his will" starts with the continuative use of the conjunction "kai," translated "and" plus the present active indicative of "ginosko," that means to know or understand.
This is a tendential present tense, used for an action that is attempted but it does not actually occur because they think they know God's will but they actually don't.
The active voice: that in the context the legalistic Jewish unbeliever produces the action of the verb but it could be any self-righteous person.
The indicative mood is the interrogative indicative; the viewpoint of reality is implied in the illusion enquired into when the indicative is used in the asking of a simple question.
The accusative neuter singular direct object from the definite article "to" is used here as a possessive pronoun, plus the accusative neuter singular direct object from the noun "thelema" translated "will" that goes with the possessive pronoun so it is translated 'the will"
The translation is, "and know the will." The NASB translates it "His will" but notice in the NASB it is translated 'His" because it reads better in the English so it is in italics.
This assertion is a presumption because he doesn't really know God's will. The legalistic Jewish unbeliever in reversionism is under the delusion that by learning and keeping the Mosaic Law he understands God's will.
Self-righteousness falsely assumes to be doing God's will and legalism falsely assumes that human righteousness is equivalent to God's righteousness.
"and approve the things that are essential" is not quite correct. The problem is the present active indicative of the verb "dokimazo" that is translated "approve."
The present tense is a progressive present, describing action that is in progress or in a state of continuous action.
The active voice: the legalistic self-righteous Jew in this case produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative so it describes action from the viewpoint of existing reality.
A better translation would be "and accept as approved." Then comes the accusative neuter plural of the definite article "ta" translated" those things." It is a demonstrative pronoun referring to thoughts and deeds.
Next the present active participle from "diafero" that means to differ, to be different, to be worth more than, to be better than or superior to.
This is an adjectival participle to qualify the definite article "ta" that is used as a demonstrative pronoun. It should be translated "and approve those superior things."
"being instructed out of the law" a present passive participle from "katecheo," that means to sound in the ears, to make the ears ring, to instruct orally, to teach or to instruct.
This is a retroactive progressive present referring to what is begun in the past and continues into the present time. Translation: "since he is instructed."
The passive voice: the self-righteous Jew receives the action of the verb, the instruction of the law. The participle is a causal participle that refers to the basis for the action of the main verb.
Plus the preposition "ek" with the ablative of both the definite article "ho" and the noun "nomos" translated "from the law."
Expanded Translation Rom 2:18: "And knows his (God's) will, and approves those superior things, since he is instructed from the law."
This verse is describing the delusion of self-righteousness in Israel, where whatever the legalist approves is considered to be superior to everything else.
In this case the legalistic Jew or Judaiser has approved as superior standards that are in opposition to God's holiness and integrity.
They have approved righteousness from law keeping as being equivalent or superior to God's righteousness.
As a result they have rejected Jesus Christ who is the exclusive source of God's perfect righteousness, the only way to receive God's perfect righteousness is by imputation. 2Cor 5:21;
This is in direct conflict with legalism and self-righteousness. God only loves and approves His own righteousness and that can only be imputed.
God's righteousness is eternal, infinite, perfect, incorruptible, and one half of His integrity (the other half is His perfect justice.)
God's justice condemns what falls short of God's perfect righteousness and God always judges from perfect righteousness.
Self-righteous people love their own righteousness so they are easily deluded into a false confidence that judges others.
God rejects all self-righteousness this passage tells us that He rejects the self-righteousness of the Jewish legalist. The reason for God's rejection of self-righteousness is explained in Isa 64:6; and Psa 53:1-3;
God rejects both the self-righteousness and the maligning accusations of the self-righteous. The self-righteous person is guilty of presumption and blasphemy.
God's justice cannot bless the self-righteous He must condemn them. That is why the believer who is self-righteous is always under Divine discipline.
Rom 2:18; The ascriptive present participle "diafero" is translated "essential" or "superior" as in "superior things." This is sarcasm that is directed at the arrogant confidence of self-righteousness.
Remember that in this passage Paul is using sarcasm to describe the delusion of the self-righteous religious Jew under the Mosaic Law who doesn't really know the will of God and doesn't really approve superior things, this sarcasm is used to describe the delusion of self-righteousness.
Self-righteous legalists distort the law and its content from condemnation of their status to commendation of their self-righteousness.
They have learned the law as a ritualistic catechism and they are using the mandates of the law for production of their own righteousness that they present to God and demand that it be accepted for salvation.
God's justice does not adjust to human whims. God's justice does not accommodate itself to human righteousness or self-centered human fantasies.
God's justice rejects and condemns it.