OVERVIEW
Instead of plunging into an exposition of the gospel, Paul launches into a lengthy exposure of the sinfulness of the human race. This is sound procedure, for until people are persuaded of their lost condition they are not likely to be concerned about deliverance. So Paul undertakes to demonstrate in the universal human situation a grievous lack of the righteousness God requires. The root of the problem is the failure of human beings to acknowledge God. The result is the power of sin over all, Jews and Gentiles both, and the consequent moral paralysis of the human race. The climax of the discussion, as well as its main goal, is to show that the Jews, too, are in need of the gospel.
OVERVIEW
Paul takes aim first mainly at the idolatry of the pagans. A knowledge of God was available to them, but they refused it, turning instead to gods of their own making. And their accompanying choice of immorality was confirmed by the true God, who “gave them over” (three times: vv.24, 26, 28) to their sins. Here then we find the explanation of the gross immorality of the nations and the long history of human unrighteousness. In this section the Gentiles are mainly in focus, but this does not exclude an application also to the Jews.
The background of vv.18–32 has been much discussed. Since the use of the past tense predominates in this section, are we to conclude that Paul has in view some epoch in the past when sin manifested itself with special intensity? This is unlikely, for he moves now and again to the present tense also. The conclusion is that the description fits his own time as well as earlier ages. If this were not so, the passage could scarcely deserve a place in the development of the theme. At the same time, deliberate allusion to earlier eras is not impossible.
Another problem is raised by the sweeping nature of the charge made in this portion of the letter. Are we to believe Paul is charging every pagan with this total list of offenses? Such a conclusion is unwarranted. Sinful people are capable of committing all of them, but not every individual is necessarily guilty of each and every one.
A further query concerns the originality of the presentation. Was the apostle dependent on earlier sources? The image of the fall of Adam in the Genesis account (Ge 1–3) seems to hover in the background (cf. v.23 with Ge 1:20, 24). As we will see, somewhat the same ground is covered in the work of Second Temple Judaism titled Wisdom of Solomon. This product of Hellenistic Judaism reproaches the nations for their idols and, like Paul, notes a connection between idolatry and fornication (Wis 14:12). But the development of the thought is not fully the same, for a resort to idolatry is related to human ignorance of God (13:1), whereas Paul emphasizes a limited knowledge of God gleaned from his works. In another Jewish source (T. Naph. 3:2–4), the forsaking of the Lord by the Gentiles is noted as resulting in sexual perversion:
Sun, moon, and stars do not alter their order; thus you should not alter the Law of God by the disorder of your action. The Gentiles, because they wandered astray and forsook the Lord, have changed the order, and have devoted themselves to stones and sticks, patterning themselves after wandering spirits. But you, my children, shall not be like that: In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all products of his workmanship discern the Lord who made all things, so that you not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature.
Undoubtedly, the synagogues of the Diaspora made use of material of this kind in trying to proselytize Gentiles. None of it would have seemed strange to Jewish readers. And they would have been fully on track with the criticism of pagan immorality.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
COMMENTARY
18 At the outset it is important to observe the correlation between righteousness and wrath. In parallel statements, both are represented as being “revealed” (apokalyptetai, GK 636, as in v.17). As previously observed, full salvation in terms of divine righteousness awaits the future, being eschatological in nature; but salvation also belongs to the present and is appropriated by faith. Similarly, wrath is an even more obviously eschatological concept, yet it is viewed here as parallel to the manifestation of righteousness, belonging therefore to the present age. It is “revealed” or “being revealed” (so NIV, reflecting the progressive present tense). This means that the unfolding of history involves a disclosure of the wrath of God against sin, seen in the terrible corruption and perversion of human life. This does not mean that the price of sin is to be reckoned only in terms of the present operation of wrath, for there is a day of judgment awaiting the sinner (2:5). But the divine verdict is already in some measure anticipated in the present. “Paul regards the monstrous degradation of pagan populations, which he is about to describe (vv. 24–27 and 29–32), not as a purely natural consequence of their sin, but as a solemn intervention of God’s justice in the history of mankind, an intervention which he designates by the term paradidonai [GK 4140]—to give over” (Godet, 101).
Paul states that “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven.” It is difficult to accept Dodd’s assertion, 47–50, that we are mistaken to conclude that God is angry. Dodd notes that Paul never uses the verb “be angry” with God as its subject. He further points out that in the Pauline corpus “the wrath of God” appears elsewhere only in Ephesians 5:6 and Colossians 3:6. Most of the time we encounter the simple “wrath” or “the wrath,” which appears intended, according to Dodd, to describe “an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe.” It is precarious, however, to make much of the fact that God is not directly linked with wrath in every Pauline reference. The context usually makes it clear when the divine wrath is intended. In the passage before us, the words “from heaven” are decisive. As Gustaf Dalman (The Words of Jesus [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909], 219) points out, “from heaven” in the Gospels means “from God.” Furthermore, since there is a wrath to come that will inevitably involve God, there is no reason why he should not involve himself in manifesting his wrath in the present. Human objection to the idea of the wrath of God is often molded, sometimes unconsciously, by the human experience of anger as passion or desire for revenge. But this is only a human display of wrath, and one that is corrupted. God’s wrath is not to be thought of as merely or purely an emotion but primarily as his active judgment (cf. 13:4–5, where its juridical character is evident). It is “the necessary response of a perfect and holy God to violations of his will” (Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002], 56).
The object of the divine wrath is twofold—the “godlessness and wickedness” of humanity. Paul explicates the first term in vv.19–27 and the second in vv.28–32. “Godlessness” (asebeia, GK 813) means a lack of reverence, an impiety that arrays a person against God, not simply in terms of neglect but also of rebellion. “Wickedness” (adikia, “unrighteousness,” GK 94) means injustice, relating to the immorality that destroys human relationships. The two together point to human failure regarding the commandments of both tables of the Decalogue. As Nygren, 101, puts it, “a wrong relation to God is the ultimate cause of man’s corruption.”
They “suppress the truth by their wickedness” (v.18). Unrighteousness has a blinding effect not only on its perpetrators but also hinders others from seeing the truth. Presumably the truth referred to here is basically the truth about God (cf. v.25). Suppression of the truth implies knowledge of the truth, and what this involves is explained next.
19–20 The creation bears clear witness to its Maker, and the evidence is “plain to them.” Here Paul enters into a discussion of what is usually designated as natural revelation in distinction from the special revelation that comes through the Scriptures. Four characteristics are noted. First, it is a clear and perceivable testimony, as the word “plain” implies. Second, from the use of “understood” (v.20), the revelation does not stop with perception but is expected to include reflection, the drawing of conclusions about the Creator. Third, it is a constant testimony, maintained “since the creation of the world” (cf. Ac 14:17). Fourth, it is a limited testimony in that it reflects God in certain aspects only, namely, “his eternal power and divine nature.” One has to look elsewhere for the full expression of his love and grace, i.e., to the special revelation of Scripture and especially to the revelation of God in his Son (Jn 1:14). Natural revelation is sufficient to make humanity responsible: “For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5; cf. Ps 19:1–4; Isa 40:12–31). But such knowledge is not by itself sufficient to accomplish salvation. The element of power is common to the two spheres of nature (v.20) and grace (v.16). Acquaintance with it in the former area should have prepared people to expect it in the latter. But they have failed and are left “without excuse.”
21–22 Despite the knowledge of God conveyed to human beings through the creation, they failed to act on it. They neither “glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.” Humans are religious beings, and if they refuse to let God have the place of preeminence that is rightfully his, then they will put something or someone in God’s place.
The suggestion that emerges from “their thinking became futile” is that mythology and idolatry grew out of humanity’s insistent need to recognize some power in the universe greater than itself, coupled with the refusal to give God the place of supremacy. It is highly suggestive that the verb “to become futile” (mataioō, GK 3471) is paralleled by a nominal form (tōn mataiōn, “worthless things,” GK 3469) used in Acts 14:15 for idols. It is clear that idols are unreal and unprofitable, and their service can only lead to futility and further estrangement from the true and living God. The irony of v.22 should not be missed: Supposed wisdom so often turns out to be foolishness (cf. 1Co 1:23–29).
23 This abandonment of God in favor of inferior objects of worship is traced in a descending scale here. “Mortal man” is the first substitution. The Creator is forsaken in preference for the creature. Scripture gives us an example of the deification of a human in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Da 3:1–7; cf. Daniel’s rebuke of Belshazzar in 5:23). In Paul’s day, the cult of Caesar had spread throughout the empire. Before long, Caesar and Christ would be competing for the worship of the Roman Empire. In modern times, the Western world may have outgrown crass idolatry, but humanism has subtly injected the worship of the human being without the trappings. God is quietly ruled out and humanity is placed on the throne.
The next stage is the worship of animals. Verse 23 owes its wording largely to Psalm 106:20. The context there refers to the sin of Israel in making a calf at Horeb and bowing down to this molten image (see Ex 32). Paul makes one change in the text of the psalm, which reads, “They exchanged their Glory for an image of a bull, which eats grass” (cf. Wis 11:15; 12:24; 13:10). To the psalmist, God is the glory of the Israelites. Paul seems to make the glory of God his spirituality, in contrast to any attempt to express his majestic excellence in physical terms (cf. Ex 20:4). Whereas Paul is dealing with a characteristic sin of paganism, in the allusion to Horeb he resorts to OT history for an illustration. God did not and could not condone idolatry in the people he had chosen. His judgment fell heavily when there was no repentance (cf. Ex 32:28), even to the point of desolation and deportation from the land he had given to Israel. Jewish readers would have been very familiar with the polemic against idolatry (see, e.g., Isa 44:9–20).
24 The opening word, “therefore,” carries the reader all the way back to the mention of the revelation of God’s wrath, taking in also what lies between. The false worship just pictured is God’s judgment for abandoning the true worship. Ironically and tragically, religion in its various cultic forms is a species of punishment for spurning the revelation God has given of himself in nature. This should dispose of the naive notion that religion as such is necessarily a beneficial thing for mankind. On the contrary, it is in many cases a means of keeping people so occupied with falsehood that they never arrive at a confrontation with the true God.
“God gave them over” becomes a refrain (vv.24, 26, 28) that in each instance follows the reference to their own decision: “they exchanged” (vv.23, 25–26). God in effect confirms the choices already made. Here the reference is to the judgment of God (cf. delivering over “to Satan,” 1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20); it is also used of God’s judgment on Israel for idolatry (Ac 7:42). In our passage, the reference is principally to Gentiles. (Israel was largely purged of idolatry by means of the captivity in Babylon.) We are not told how this “giving over” was implemented, but most likely we are to think of it in negative terms—i.e., that God simply took his hands off and let willful rejection of himself produce its ugly results. There is no direct, redemptive intervention here such as was granted to Israel by sending prophets to rebuke God’s people concerning their unfaithfulness.
It is no surprise to find reference to sexual immorality here. In Jewish polemic, a connection between idolatry and sexual immorality was often made (cf. Wis 14:12). How true is the observation that “their foolish hearts were darkened” (v.21). Paul was no stranger to the matter he discusses here. Writing from Corinth, where prostitution was so common, he must have been keenly aware of this scourge that affected the moral life of the city so adversely.
25 While many versions are content to render it “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” the definite article precedes “lie” and probably should be brought out in the translation. This is the lie above all others—the contention that something or someone is to be venerated in place of the true God. Bengel, 26, makes the laconic observation that this is “the price of mythology.”
The indictment here is that by a wretched exchange humanity came to worship and serve “created things rather than the Creator.” An alternative translation is possible—“more than” (para) in place of “rather than.” But the flow of the argument demands the latter. It is not that humanity grants God a relative honor in their devotion, but none at all. They have wholly rid themselves of him by substituting other objects in his place. This should be sufficient to banish the notion that in the practice of idolatry people simply use the idol as a means of worshiping God (cf. Hos 14:3). Contemplating this abysmal betrayal, the apostle cannot resist an outburst to counteract it. The Creator “is forever praised.” God’s glory remains, even though unacknowledged by many of his creatures. There is only one true God.
26–27 For the second time the sad refrain is sounded—“God gave them over” again to immorality, with emphasis on perversion in sexual relations. The sequence Paul follows—idolatry, then immorality—raises the connection between the two. Sanday and Headlam, 50, make a helpful suggestion: “The lawless fancies of men invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to follow their own unbridled passions.” Men and women went so far as to project their own license on to their gods, as a perusal of the Homeric poems readily reveals. Sinning against God results in their sinning against their own nature.
Paul’s use of “exchanged” is suggestive. The first exchange, that of the truth for the lie, is followed by another—the upsetting of the normal course of nature in sexual relations. Instead of using the ordinary terms for men and women, Paul employs arsenes (“males,” GK 781) and thēleia (“females,” GK 2559). This perversion is the unique contrivance of the human species, not being found in the animal kingdom. It was apparently abundantly evident in first-century Rome. At the end of this section, the apostle uses two expressions, “received” and “due penalty,” which in the original involve the idea of recompense, the punishment being in keeping with the offense. It can hardly be denied that for Paul homosexuality is “unnatural” (para physis, GK 5882; lit., “against nature,” v.26), and involves “shameful lusts.” His perspective would have been dictated by the OT (e.g., Lev 18:22; 20:13). This is a subject that in our day of open advocacy has brought a new urgency and requires a special sensitivity. Stuhlmacher’s conclusion, 37, seems wise: “But now that in the course of the history of the church Paul’s general formulations have led simply to excommunicating homosexuals, instead of getting to the root of their distinct behavior, accepting them, and helping them, there does exist for us today a reason not to repeat Paul’s statements without reflection!”
To sum up, what people do with God has much to do with their character and lifestyle. Nygren, 111, writes, “When man attempts to escape from God into freedom, the result really is that he falls prey to the forces of corruption.” Throughout the passage the human race is represented as active—seeing, thinking, doing. They are not represented as victimized, as taken captive against their will, or as the dupes of evil influences from outside themselves.
28–32 Here the second key word of v.18 (adikia, NIV, “wickedness; NASB, “unrighteousness,” GK 94) reappears (v.29), indicating that this section is to be given over almost totally to a picture of the havoc wrought in human relations because of suppressing the knowledge of God. Paul describes the sinful world that we know all too well from experience. There is a wordplay in the Greek—people “did not think it worthwhile” (edokimasan, GK 1507) to retain God in their knowledge, so God in turn gave them over to a “depraved [adokimon, GK 99] mind,” which led them in turn to commit all kinds of sin. It is God’s function to judge, but human beings have usurped that prerogative in order to sit in judgment on him and dismiss him from their lives. The prior emphasis on the mind is in accord with the appraisal of our Lord, who traced the wellspring of sinful acts to the inner life rather than to environmental factors (Mk 7:20–23). The depraved mind is explained in terms of what it approves and plans—“to do what ought not to be done,” namely, what is “offensive to man even according to the popular moral sense of the Gentiles, i.e., what even natural human judgment regards as vicious and wrong” (TDNT 3:440).
29–31 Scholars have found it difficult to detect any satisfactory classification in the long list of offenses included here. It can be pointed out, however, that the initial group contains broad, generic descriptions of sin. The first of these, “wickedness” or “unrighteousness” (adikia), by its derivation, is the antithesis of righteousness, denoting the absence of what is just. The term “iniquity” expresses it rather well. It necessitates the creation of laws to counteract its disruptiveness, lest society itself be rendered impossible. The next term, “evil” (ponēria, GK 4504), denotes what is evil not in the sense of calamity but with full ethical overtones, signifying what is sinister and vile. This is the term used when the devil is called “the evil one.” The third word, “greed” (pleonexia, GK 4432), indicates the relentless urge to acquire more (cf. Col 3:5). “Depravity” is an attempt to render kakia (GK 2798), a term that indicates a condition of moral evil, emphasizing its internal and resident character. It is related to the word translated “malice” (kakoētheias, GK 2799) later in the text, but the latter goes further, denoting malignity, a mind-set that attributes evil motives to others without provocation.
Among the final twelve phrases, “God-haters” (theostygeis, GK 2539) stands out, since it alone is related directly to an attitude toward the Almighty. But it is not isolated, not introduced without reason. The hatred that vents itself on God readily finds objects of its displeasure among his creatures. When human beings come to the place of worshiping themselves, overweening and insolent pride is the inevitable attitude assumed toward others. Some of the descriptions Paul uses here are not found again in his writings or elsewhere in the NT, but four of them occur in 2 Timothy 3:2–3 in predictions of the state of society in the last days.
32 The final item in the indictment is climactic. It is prefaced by the reminder that people have not lacked a sufficient knowledge of “God’s righteous decree” (to dikaiōma [GK 1468] tou theou), God’s requirement (see 2:26; 8:4). If the knowledge of his “eternal power and divine nature” (v.20) was sufficient to obligate them to worship God with gratitude for his benefits, the knowledge of his righteousness innate in their very humanity was sufficient to remind them that the price of disobedience would be death. Yet they were not deterred from their sinful ways by this realization. In fact, they were guilty of the crowning offense of applauding those who practiced wickedness in its various manifestations. Instead of repenting of their own misdeeds and seeking to deter others, they promoted wrongdoing by encouraging it in others, allying themselves with wanton sinners in defiant revolt against a righteous God.
OVERVIEW
In turning to this section, one can recognize considerable similarity with 1:18–32. Human inadequacy in the light of divine standards continues to characterize the discussion (cf. “without excuse” in 1:20, and “no excuse” in 2:1). The indictment continues to be stated first in broad terms, with no indication whether the people in view are Jews or Gentiles (cf. 1:18; 2:1), but as the picture unfolds, the Jews come into focus just as the Gentiles had in the previous section. Likewise, in both portions general terms for sin are followed by very specific accusations (cf. 1:18 with 1:23, 26–32 and 2:1–16 with 2:17–29).
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
COMMENTARY
1–4 A stylistic change occurs here. The apostle shifts to the second person singular and enters into dialogue with an imagined interlocutor who has absorbed what was said up to this point and shows by his attitude that he is in hearty agreement with the exposure of Gentile wickedness. This type of dialogue with an imaginary opponent, known as a “diatribe,” was a common rhetorical device in the Greco-Roman world. That Paul had actually experienced such encounters in his missionary preaching is hardly open to doubt. We may have an echo here of just such occasions.
1 The implication in the opening verse is that a Jewish auditor, heartily endorsing the verdict rendered concerning the Gentiles, fails to realize his own plight. True judgment rests on the ability to discern the facts in a given case. If one is able to see the sin and hopelessness of the Gentiles, one should logically be able to see oneself as being in the same predicament. But it is possible to be so taken up with the faults of others that one does not consider one’s own failures (cf. Mt 7:2–3). The charge that the person who passes judgment on others does the very same things is enlarged in 2:17–24. There is a real sting in the allegation “you . . . do the same things,” for the word prassō (GK 4556; NIV, “do”; NASB, “practice”) is the term used in 1:32 for the practices of the benighted Gentiles. Paul repeats it in 2:2. The Jewish critic is also without excuse (cf. the same word, anapologētos, GK 406, 1:20). “What Paul is here especially concerned about is to break down the supposed protection on which the Jew depended. There is no escape for the Jew in the fact that he aligns himself with God in judging the unrighteousness of the heathen” (Nygren, 118).
2–3 As Paul moves to state the first of the principles of divine judgment (v.2), he carries the observer with him. Surely this person will agree (“we know”) that when God pronounces judgment on those who make a practice of indulging in sin, his judgment is based on truth. This has no reference to the truth of the gospel but simply means that the judgment is reached on the basis of reality, on the facts of the case and not on the basis of appearances or pretensions. “Do you think you will escape God’s judgment?” (v.3). Two words are emphatic here—“think” (logizomai, “count as reality,” GK 3357) and the redundant (in the Greek) pronoun sy (“you”) in front of “will escape.” Paul is reading the inmost thoughts of the Jewish debater, whom he understands thoroughly from his own pre-Christian experience. That Judaism could be guilty of such complacency is clear from a passage in Wisdom that immediately follows the portion already noted about pagan idolatry and immorality: “But you, our God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy. For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power; but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours. For to know you is complete righteousness” (Wis 15:1–3a).
4 Paul carries the probing deeper still, suggesting that in addition to self-righteousness, with its accompanying false security, there is an ignoring and despising of the fact that God, to be true to himself, must bring sin under judgment. There is even a scornful attitude toward God’s tolerance toward his people Israel, as though that tolerance were but a confirmation of their security, if not a sign of weakness on God’s part. “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong” (Ecc 8:11). God’s “kindness” toward Israel is noted again at a later and crucial point in Romans (11:22).
In this passage “tolerance” and “patience” seem to be explanatory of “kindness” (chrēstotēs, GK 5983), which is repeated as the governing thought. The word rendered “tolerance” has the idea of the restraint of wrath. In classical Greek it is used of a temporary truce. “Patience” or “long-suffering” refers to God’s merciful tolerance of our failures. The intent of the kindness is to give opportunity for “repentance” (metanoia, GK 3567; cf. 2Pe 3:15), a term that surprisingly occurs in Romans only here, though it must have been often on Paul’s lips in preaching (cf. Ac 20:21). In this epistle he places greater emphasis on faith.
5–6 Using language often applied to the nation of Israel in the OT, Paul refers to the stubbornness and impenitence of his Jewish interlocutor, who has been described as guilty of the very things for which he judges others. This attitude invites retribution and is slowly but surely building up a reservoir of divine wrath that will break on the guilty in the day of reckoning. Then God’s “righteous judgment” will be revealed, patent to all, in contrast to the revelation and indirect working of God’s wrath in the present scene, as depicted in ch. 1.
At that time, a second principle of divine judgment will become apparent—one emphasizing performance—namely, that what people receive depends on how they live: to each person “according to what he [or she] has done [erga, GK 2240; lit., works]” (v.6). Profession does not take the place of production. This is very close in sense to the first principle (see comments at vv.2–3 above). In view of the comprehensiveness of the passage as a whole, it will hardly do to explain this day of wrath as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The explicit statement that God “will give to each person according to what he has done” points to the final reckoning. National judgment may fit into a temporal scheme, but personal judgment belongs to the frontier of the ages to come. The use of the phrase “day of God’s wrath” is decisive enough to settle the issue.
6–11 Paul’s argument in vv.6–11 is a carefully structured chiasm (a pattern of ABC/C’B’A’), with v.6 corresponding in thought to v.11 (God’s judgment is impartial); v.7 to v.10 (those who do good will be rewarded); and v.8 to v.9 (those who do evil will experience divine wrath). In amplifying the second principle of judgment, Paul makes room for only two broad classes—(1) those “who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality” (v.7) and (2) those who follow an evil course (v.8). The first group is promised eternal life. But what can the apostle mean by his breathtaking assertion that those who “by persistence in doing good” are the ones who obtain eternal life? How are we to understand this affirmation and that of v.13, as well as the statements of vv.14–15 and 26–27, which seem to imply that the law can indeed be kept? Does not Paul here go against the cumulative argument of 1:18–3:20, namely, that observance of the law cannot result in salvation and that all are trapped in their sin?
Short of the desperate conclusion that Paul simply contradicts himself, and instead assuming that Paul knows what he is saying, how are we to put together these apparently disparate strands? Commentators have adopted two main possibilities. The first is that Paul is speaking only hypothetically (so Moo); i.e., if there were any who could keep the law, they would obtain eternal life, but this option is only theoretical (since all in fact “fall short” [3:23]). The other possibility is to conclude that Paul is actually talking about a manifestation (albeit limited) of righteousness that demonstrates loyalty to the law, as exhibited by Christians (so Fitzmyer, Schreiner, Stuhlmacher).
The key to understanding Paul here is the realization that he does not entertain the notion of a Christian who does not produce the fruit of the Spirit, thus fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law (8:4). Paul in v.6 quotes Psalm 62:12 or Proverbs 24:12 verbatim (except for slight variations in the form of the verb). The affirmation that God “will give to each person according to what he [or she] has done” is for Paul a statement of Scripture that he cannot and will not go against. Paul indicates in several other places the continuing importance of what a person does (1Co 6:9–11; 2Co 5:10; Gal 5:19–25). Here is something of a paradox. For Paul, no person can be saved by observing the law. Salvation, as he will soon argue, depends exclusively on being declared righteous through faith in the atoning death of Christ on the cross. At the same time, however, the person who is justified by faith will, out of a new nature and empowered by the Holy Spirit, exhibit righteous living. The effect of this is that those who are given eternal life are, in fact, people marked by righteousness. As Nygren, 127, notes, “Justification does not mean carte blanche for the Christian, so that God no longer asks as to his works.”
Paul does not contradict here what he says later about the impossibility of gaining salvation by means of the works of the law (3:20). These verses do not teach a system of salvation by works. On the contrary, “The reward of eternal life . . . is promised to those who do not regard their good works as an end in themselves, but see them as marks not of human achievement but of hope in God. Their trust is not in their good works, but in God, the only source of glory, honour, and incorruption” (Barrett, 45). Paul is simply portraying the motivation and tenor of the life that will culminate in eternal fellowship with God. In view is “the one to whom God the creator grants, as an act of free grace, a new nature in righteousness and the spiritual ability to do what is right, and then establishes at the judgment an advocate at his or her side, against whom no accuser can appear” (Stuhlmacher, 47).
As applied to the “seeker” (cf. Ac 17:27), the principle commits God to honor the moral aim and provide the means for making a decision, as we see in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac 8) and Cornelius (Ac 10). Both were seekers making use of the light they had. The good works the believer performs do not bring salvation, but they attest the salvation the believer has already received by faith (Ro 6:22), and therefore they have an essential function (cf. Eph 2:8–10). On the other side of the ledger, we find a pattern of evil defined in terms of self-seeking and rejection of the truth leading to divine wrath (Ro 2:8) in terms of trouble and distress (v.9). In the statement “who reject the truth and follow evil” we detect a distinct echo of 1:18. Destiny does not depend on whether one is a Jew or a Gentile (v.9). The Jews are mentioned first simply because of God’s prior dealing with Israel in history. Mention of the two divisions of humanity leads naturally to the pronouncement of the third principle: God’s judgment is impartial. “There is no partiality with God” (v.11). This is the truth that Peter learned in the Cornelius incident (Ac 10:34). Paul’s explanation of this important point belongs to the following paragraph.
12–16 The principle of impartiality has to face a problem as soon as the two groups, Jews and Gentiles, are considered together. God has not dealt with them in similar fashion. To the Jews God has given a revelation of himself in Scripture that has been denied the Gentiles. But in this section, Paul will show that the Gentiles do have a law, and this suffices as a basis for judgment.
12 It is clear that this law has no power to save, for “all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law.” Gentiles do not perish for the reason that they lack the law that Jews possess but because they sin against the law they do have. In speaking of the Jews, Paul says they “will be judged by the law,” but this does not imply exoneration, for no Jew has succeeded in keeping the law.
13 The expression “all who sin under the law” (v.12) could strike a Jewish reader as incongruous, but Paul is linking sin with law deliberately in order to prepare the way for his next statement to the effect that the righteous are not “those who hear the law.” We have a reminder in James 1:22–24 of the ease with which a person could hear the law read and go away without any effect on his or her life and conduct. Those who will be “declared righteous,” by contrast, are the doers of the law (v.13). This is the first occurrence in Romans of the important expression “declared righteous” (NASB, “justified”). Full treatment of this matter must wait until we encounter the term again in ch. 3. Sometimes the verb dikaioō (GK 1467) may have a general, as opposed to a theological, frame of reference, as in the statement “wisdom is proved right by all her children” (Lk 7:35), where vindication is clearly intended. But the passage before us is dealing with law, sin, and judgment, so that the full theological significance of the word meaning “to declare as righteous” should be retained (see comments at Ro 3:20).
Paul’s purpose is to undercut the position of the person who is counting on obedience to the law for acceptance with God. Compliance would have to be perfect if one were to be declared righteous by an absolutely righteous God (cf. Gal 5:3; Jas 2:10). By analogy, the Gentiles are in essentially the same position, because they also are not without law, as Paul goes on to indicate. The future tense of the verb (“will be declared righteous”) favors the conclusion that final judgment is in view. Paul is not raising false hopes here; on the contrary, he is dashing them—in keeping with the progress of the argument. Only after the flimsy edifice of humanly contrived righteousness has been leveled will the apostle be ready to put in its place the sturdy foundation of the justification provided by God in Christ. Though Paul usually uses the verb dikaioō (“justify, declare righteous”) in a realized and positive sense (e.g., Ro 3:24), here the frame of reference is eschatological and negative. Hearing of the law, or mere possession of the law, is no substitute for obedience to the law. (See Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace—To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 [1986]: 72–93.)
14 The opening connective of v.14—“for”—is important as showing that, in the discussion of the Gentile situation to which Paul now briefly turns, he has in mind a presentation designed to counter the boastfulness of the Jews. He seems anxious to avoid the impression that he is discussing the Gentiles in their entirety. (He says “Gentiles,” not “the Gentiles.”) He is thinking of them in individual terms, not as masses. Furthermore, if he encompassed all people except the Jews in his statement, the contrast with the adverse picture of pagans in ch. 1 would be so startling as to suggest contradiction. There are Gentiles who, despite their apparent disadvantage in not possessing the Mosaic law, “do by nature” what the law requires.
What are these things? Presumably they are not matters peculiar to the law of Moses but moral and ethical requirements widely recognized and honored, such as caring for one’s parents and not stealing or committing murder. It is a commonplace of rabbinic teaching that Abraham kept the laws of Sinai long before they were given. Philo (Abraham, 1:5) taught a correspondence between the law and nature, saying that Moses “wished to show that the enacted ordinances are not inconsistent with nature.” Again, Philo notes that Moses begins his work with an account of the creation of the world, “implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the Law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered” (Creation, 1:3).
Paul states that such Gentiles are “a law for themselves.” By no means does he intend to say that they are indifferent to any law except that which they invent in their self-interest. On the contrary, he goes on to say that they are governed by the particular law that is written on their hearts (v.15). This ought not to be confused with the promise of the law written in the heart as depicted in Jeremiah 31:33, because if that were the case, as Nygren, 124, observes, Gentiles “would indeed have the law, and that in a more intimate way than the Jew had it.” Paul is not asserting this; rather, he is insisting that the basic requirements of the law are stamped on human hearts. Presumably he can say this because human beings are made in the image of God. C. S. Lewis begins his argument in Mere Christianity (1952; repr., New York: HarperCollins, 2001, 3–4) by pointing out that when quarrels develop between people, the thing to be determined is who is in the right and who is in the wrong. The parties may differ radically as to their respective positions on this issue, but they are very clear that there is a right and a wrong. Similarly, despite the great differences in laws and customs among peoples around the world, one thing that unites them in a common humanity is the recognition that some things are right and others are wrong.
15 An additional element that belongs to the equipment of the Gentiles is “conscience.” The translation speaks of their consciences as “bearing witness.” In the Greek prefix syn at the front of the verb, there is an emphasis that does not appear in the translation—“bearing witness with.” We may ask, With what? Only one answer seems possible, namely, with the requirements of the law written on the heart. The two function together. The word “conscience” (syneidēsis, GK 5287) does not appear in the OT. Perhaps this is due to the Jews’ overwhelming awareness of the regulating power of revealed truth. However, the operation of conscience is recognized (e.g., in the guilt of Ge 42:21; 2Sa 24:10), even though the word is lacking.
Paul’s fairly frequent use of “conscience” indicates his indebtedness to his Greek environment and the desirability of capitalizing on a concept that was familiar to his Gentile churches. With reference to this passage, C. A. Pierce (Conscience in the New Testament [London: SCM, 1955], 86) writes, “That the everyday language of the Gentiles contains a word for confessing to feelings of pain on commission or initiation of particular acts—feelings which carry with them the conviction that the acts ought not to have been committed—is first-hand evidence that the Gentiles are subject, by nature, to a ‘natural law’ as the Jews, by vocation, to the Torah.” So it can be maintained that the function of conscience in the Gentile is parallel to the function of the law for the Jew. The way conscience operates is described as a process of accusation or defense by the thoughts of a person, the inner life being pictured as a kind of debating forum, so that at times he or she is exonerated at the bar of conscience, at other times convicted of wrongdoing.
16 The difficulty to be faced here is the determination of what will take place. Does Paul mean that only at the judgment will conscience be engaged in the manner he has just indicated? This would seem to be a severe limitation, unless the intent is to indicate a heightened operation of this God-given monitor as the soul faces the divine assize. If it is correct to take vv.14–15 as a parenthesis (cf. NIV), then what takes place on the day of judgment is the declaration of righteousness (or otherwise) referred to in v.13.
God’s judgment will include human “secrets” (cf. 1Co 4:5). This is the only court able to assess them. Many an act that seems entirely praiseworthy to those who observe it may actually be wrongly motivated; and contrariwise, some things that may seem to merit stern disapproval may pass muster in this supreme court because the intention behind the deed was praiseworthy. The Jews theoretically admitted judgment and certainly welcomed it in the case of the Gentiles, while trying to shield themselves behind their privileged position. The Gentiles admitted the reality of judgment implicitly by the very process of reasoning that either accused or excused their conduct. What the Gentiles did not know was the item included here—that God will judge “through Jesus Christ” (Jn 5:27; Ac 17:31).
Some interpreters have seen in the statement “as my gospel declares” (kata to euangelion [GK 2295] mou; NASB, “according to my gospel”), a fourth principle of judgment intended to be linked with the three already noted. Two of the three principles mentioned earlier are given in the form of similar prepositional phrases with the preposition kata (“according to”): judgment is kata alētheian (GK 237; lit., “according to truth”), v.2; and kata ta erga (GK 2240) autou (lit, “according to his works”), v.6. But to make the gospel, in the sense of its content, to be the criterion for judgment in this context is clearly wrong, for Paul is not dealing with the gospel in this chapter. What he is saying is that the gospel he preached includes the prospect of judgment and that it will be conducted through the mediation of Christ.
OVERVIEW
Paul turns now to the question of the advantage of the Jews in terms of their possession of the law and the distinctive mark of circumcision. This advantage (cf. 3:1) is seen as offset by their boastfulness and fruitlessness.
17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.
COMMENTARY
17–24 Here Paul again engages in dialogue with a representative Jew, making effective use of a superb, razor-sharp irony. He begins by building up this person, citing his various distinctives and appearing to appreciate them (vv.17–20), only to swing abruptly into a frontal assault by exposing the inconsistency between his claims and his conduct (vv.21–24). The Jews were characterized by their reliance on the law, given by God through Moses. The law came to Israel as the result of a relationship with God enjoyed by no other people. In Paul’s time, some of the leaders of Judaism were making such extravagant statements about the law as to put it virtually in the place of God. Many Jews were obsessed with the law to the extent that salvation was wrongly thought to be dependent on obedience to the law. Concern to obey the law could easily become central and obscure the grace of God’s covenantal love. This tendency became even more developed after the fall of Jerusalem, when the law constituted the rallying point for a nation that had lost its holy city and its temple.
Paul concedes that the use of the law will bring knowledge of God’s will and recognition of its superior teaching. Paul refers to it as “the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (v.20). But this is not all, for the Jews think that this advantage makes them superior to the Gentiles. This is what Paul speaks to. We can paraphrase here, “You come to the Gentiles and propose yourself as a guide for their blindness, when, as a matter of fact, as I have already shown, they have a light and a law as well as you. You come to the Gentiles as though they were dumb and childish, giving you the whip hand (as a trainer), which you thoroughly relish. To you they are mere infants, knowing next to nothing.” By employing terms actually used by the Jews for the Gentiles, one after the other—not once suggesting that the Gentiles have anything to their credit but invariably magnifying the Jews—Paul is now in a position to expose Jewish pride and boasting as totally unfounded.
21–24 Abruptly the shadowboxing with Paul’s opponent turns aggressive and the blows become lethal as the Jew is confronted by the disparity between what he or she would teach others as the will of God and his or her own manner of life. The thrust loses nothing of its forthrightness by being posed in a series of questions, for the effect is to turn the complacent opponent back on himself or herself to search his or her own soul.
The indictment is summarized by the general charge of breaking the very law the Jew boasts of (v.23). There is a tragic irony in the fact that the Jew who boasts in God’s law ends up dishonoring God and breaking the law. The reference to robbing temples (v.22) is obscure but may have in view the expropriation of monies or goods from pagan shrines. The failure of the Jews is so notorious that even non-Israelites notice the discrepancy. At this point, Paul introduces a quotation (Isa 52:5; cf. Eze 36:22) about the Jews causing the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles. God had been obliged to chasten his disobedient people by permitting them to go into captivity, where their captors made sport of their God, who apparently was unable to prevent their deportation (cf. Eze 36:20–21). Then, as in Paul’s day, the fault lay not with God but with his people, who had refused to obey his law.
25–27 If the law was the major distinctive of the Jews, a close second was circumcision. As with the law, so with circumcision: the nation was guilty of placing unwarranted confidence in the rite. Jewish tradition pictures Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna to ensure that no circumcised person be allowed to enter perdition (Gen. Rab. 48). The view that only those who were circumcised shared in the world to come was commonly held. Circumcision was to Jewry what baptism is to those who maintain baptismal regeneration. In dividing men into two classes, circumcised and uncircumcised, the Jews were in effect indicating those who were saved and those who were not.
But Paul’s contention is that circumcision and observance of the law cannot be separated. If one has the symbol of Judaism and lacks the substance, of what value is the symbol? Symbols are of value only when there is a reality to which they correspond. Circumcision profits, but only if the law is observed (v.25). The latter is precisely the issue. Lack of obedience to the law nullifies the significance of circumcision. If Gentiles should manifest success in observing the law, the lack of circumcision is surely not so important as to discount their spiritual attainment (cf. the line of thought in 2:14). In fact, says Paul, one can go a step further (v.27) and say that the circumcised may find himself on a lower plane than the despised Gentiles, because if the latter obey the law that the Jews take for granted instead of taking it seriously, then the Gentiles will in effect “condemn” the Jews. This does not involve the bringing of any charge but is a specialized use of the word krinō (“judge,” GK 3212) to indicate the effect created by some who surpass others despite an inferior status or limited advantage (cf. Mt 12:41). Such Gentiles appear in a more favorable light than the Jews.
The meaning of dia grammatos kai peritomēs (lit., “through having the letter of the law and circumcision,” v.27) is difficult. Calvin’s attempt, 56, to handle the matter by combining the two to make them mean a literal circumcision in contrast to what is spiritual is hardly satisfactory. When Paul wants to make explicit the fact of literal circumcision, he uses the qualifying phrase “in the flesh” (v.28; NIV, “physical”). The basic problem, however, centers in the force of the preposition dia, which when it occurs with the genitive, as here, is normally rendered “through.” But is “through” to be taken as instrumental or in the less common sense of indicating attendant circumstance? An example of the latter usage is in Romans 4:11, where Abraham is spoken of as the father of all who believe “through” uncircumcision, i.e., “while” not being circumcised. Clearly this refers not to instrumentality but to the status of these people at the time they believe. Thus the common interpretation is the NIV’s “even though you have the written code and circumcision.” The factor that makes one hesitate is Paul’s shift from nomos (law, GK 3795) to gramma (letter, GK 1207). One can detect in Paul’s use of the latter term in v.29 and in 2 Corinthians 3:6 a somewhat pejorative connotation—what is written, laid down as law, but lacking any accompanying enablement. If taken in this sense here, something of the force of instrumentality may be detected.
When we are told in v.27 that the Jew dia grammatos kai peritomēs is a transgressor of the law, the dia cannot just be translated “in spite of,” as though to denote an accompanying circumstance; it must also be given an instrumental significance. It is precisely through what is written and through circumcision that the Jew is a transgressor. He is to see that his true position involves possession of the gramma and the peritomē (GK 4364), but with no genuine fulfillment of the law, since neither what is written nor circumcision leads him to action (cf. TDNT, 1:765).
In the immediate context (v.23) Paul also uses dia with the instrumental sense in raising the question of the Jew’s dishonoring of God “by breaking the law.” The transgression of the law is common to both statements.
28–29 That this portion is intended as a conclusion to the discussion of the law and circumcision is evident, for both are mentioned, though the law is referred to only in terms of “letter” (NIV, “written code”) as in v.27. There was plenty of background for Paul’s appeal for circumcision of the heart (e.g., Dt 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26). A real Jew, says Paul, is one who has circumcision of the heart, accomplished “by the Spirit, not by the written code” (cf. 2Co 3:6). How striking this is! The law is part of the Scripture that the Spirit has inspired, yet there is no hint here that the true Jew is one in whom the Spirit has made the teaching of the law dynamic. By the avoidance of any such suggestion, Paul prepares the way for his treatment of the law in ch. 7. He goes on to note that Jews transformed by the Spirit would really be living up to the name they bear, for “Jew” (Ioudaios) comes from Judah, which means “praise.” They would be praiseworthy in the eyes of God, fulfilling what the law requires but cannot produce (cf. 8:3–4).
Paul writes, of course, as a Christian Jew, as one who has suffered much for his faith from his countrymen. But these closing verses of ch. 2 show that for all the bluntness of his references to the Jews he is not motivated by a desire to belittle his nation on account of the treatment he has received. He rather seeks their highest good (cf. 9:1–3; 10:1). From Paul’s argument it follows that the criteria which mark out one who is truly a Jew can equally be satisfied by (physically) uncircumcised Gentiles. It is not an exaggeration to say that Gentile Christians have become “honorary” Jews, having been brought into the family of God’s people by virtue of their faith in Christ (cf. 4:16–17).
It is worth stressing that Paul is speaking salvation-historically in this chapter. None of these verses should ever be used against the Jews or Judaism in an anti-Semitic fashion. Stuhlmacher, 50, notes, “As spoken by the Jew, Paul, over against Jews, their original purpose is not to declare the election of Israel simply null and void, but to direct the Jews to the reality of the coming God.”
In 3:1–8 a new factor is introduced: Israel’s failure to respond to God in terms of trust and obedience, justifying the visitation of his wrath on them.
NOTES
17 The view that a number of Jews were obsessed with the law to the extent that they regarded their salvation as dependent on observance of the law is a point forcefully denied by the “new perspective” (see Introduction, pp. 29–30).
22 “Do you rob temples [ἱεροσυλεῖς, hierosyleis]?” is not fully clear. A cognate of the same word occurs in Acts 19:37, “robbers of temples” (ἱεροσύλους hierosylous), where it covers sacrilege in the general sense of desecrating sacred things. Here a precise, strong contrast is intended. The Jews who have been taught to abhor idols are charged with laying hands on them for the sake of profit. This may sound inconceivable, but if the robbery was directed at the offerings brought to the idol, this was tantamount to robbing the idol and thereby desecrating the temple. Ancient temples were repositories of treasure and were therefore a source of temptation to the avaricious (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4:207).
24 See Edgar Krentz, “The Name of God in Disrepute: Romans 2:17–29,” Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990): 429–39.
25–27 On these verses, see Joel Marcus, “The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” NTS 35 (1989): 67–81.
OVERVIEW
The subject of the guilt of the Jews is continued, but now with a couple of new emphases: (1) the element of unbelief and (2) the claim of immunity from divine judgment on the strange grounds that God’s faithfulness is thrown into bolder relief by human failure. What reasonable basis remains for acting in judgment?
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.
COMMENTARY
1 The opening question reflects the devastating attack the apostle has launched in the preceding chapter. “Circumcision” (the definite article is used) could serve to denote Israel (cf. 4:9), but here it refers to the rite of circumcision, as in 2:25–27.
2–3 In the light of Paul’s preceding argument (cf. the statement he will make in 3:9), one might well expect a negative answer to the question of v.1. Surprisingly, however, Paul answers his question with the strong statement, “Much in every way!” He begins to enumerate the aspects of that advantage, “first of all,” but proceeds no further than his first point (for what he could have added had he continued, see the fuller list in 9:4–5). As Stuhlmacher, 52, puts it, “The relativizing of the special claims of the Jews in view of the final judgment according to works in no way means for Paul that Jews and Gentiles were equal in terms of the history of election.”
The chosen advantage noted here is that this nation has been “entrusted with the oracles of God” (NASB; NIV, “very words of God”). The Greek word for “oracles,” logia (GK 3359), is related to logoi (GK 3364, as used, e.g., in Jn 14:24) but has a specialized meaning in classical Greek, where it is used especially for divine utterances, often for those preserved and handed down by earlier generations. Jewish writers used it both for pagan oracles, which they considered false, and for revelations from the God of Israel. LXX usage makes it evident that two elements could belong to a logion: (1) a disclosure of what God proposes to do (especially in terms of prediction, as used in the LXX of Nu 24:16) or (2) a pronouncement of the duty laid on men and women in view of the divine will or promise (e.g., Ps 119:67 [LXX 118:67]).
To be “entrusted” with the divine oracles obviously means more than to be the recipient of them. It means more even than to be the custodian and transmitter of them. What is called for, in the light of the meaning of logia, is faith and obedience. Just at this point the Jews failed (v.3). Paul has already dealt sufficiently with Jewish failure in terms of the law, but here he deals with it in terms of God’s revealed purpose. The statement that “some did not have faith” is reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 10:7–10, where the same author says that some became idolaters, some grumbled, etc. Actually, only two men of the exodus generation pleased God and were permitted to enter the Promised Land. Paul is recognizing the concept of the faithful remnant in Israel.
Is the rendering “did not have faith” acceptable here, or should one regard the NRSV translation, “were unfaithful,” as preferable? The problem is to determine which fits better with the contrasting term—“God’s faithfulness.” We should recall that the oracles of God summon both to faith (in their promissory character) and to faithfulness (in their legislative aspect). From the Jewish standpoint, a logion could involve both halakah and haggadah—something to be done and something to be believed. (Haggadah embraced the promises and much else.) But since Paul has dealt with obligation already in ch. 2, we should perhaps think here in terms of emphasis on the area of belief. Of course, the two concepts of faith and faithfulness are closely related. Barrett, 60, renders it “proved unbelieving,” which fits the context.
We should understand “God’s faithfulness” in terms of the covenantal aspect of God’s dealings with Israel. There are really two sides to this faithfulness—the one positive and the other negative, in line with a similar duality in connection with the righteousness of God (1:17–18). That the negative aspect is before us here is evident from the mention of his wrath (v.5). This is in harmony with a frequent emphasis in the prophets. When Israel fractured the Sinaitic covenant, God’s very faithfulness compelled him to judge his people by sending them into captivity. The positive aspect (which we might have expected from v.1 but which is deferred) will appear in the sustained discussion of God’s dealings with Israel (chs. 9–11).
4 As might be expected, Paul vigorously rejects any suggestion that God could fail in terms of his faithfulness. This is the first of ten occurrences in Romans of the expression “may it never be!” (mē genoito; NASB; NIV, “not at all!”), which Paul uses to make a vehement denial of a conclusion that must be resisted. God’s faithfulness is a fixed point in Paul’s universe: “The faithfulness of God is unchangeable” (Bengel, 40). The concept of God’s fidelity is carried forward by the use of a closely related term. He is “true” to his covenantal promises because he is true in himself. If one had to choose between the reliability of God and of human beings, one would have to agree with the psalmist when he declared in his disillusionment, “All men are liars” (Ps 116:11). One of the best men in Israel’s history, declared to be the man after God’s own heart, proved a disappointment. After being chastened for his sin and refusal to confess it for a long period, David was ready to admit that God was in the right and he was in the wrong (Ps 51:4—a psalm traditionally ascribed to David).
5–6 The supposition that human unrighteousness could serve to display God’s righteousness may have been suggested by the passage from Psalm 51 just cited. Is it not possible (so the logic runs) that since human failure can bring out more sharply the righteousness of God, the Almighty ought to be grateful for this service and soften the judgment that would otherwise be due the offender? The question is one Jews might well resort to in line with their thought that God would go easy on his covenant people. So Paul speaks for a supposed interlocutor. The mention of “wrath” ties in with 2:8–9.
Paul’s explanatory statement “I am using a human argument” is due to his having permitted himself to use the word “unjust” of God, even though it is not his own assertion (cf. 6:19). But God is not unrighteous. Paul responds to the suggestion with his strongest form of objection: “May it never be!” (v.6; NASB; NIV, “Certainly not!”; see v.4). “If that were so,” i.e., if God were unrighteous, he would not be qualified to judge the world. The idea is unthinkable—indeed, blasphemous—and there is no need to establish God’s qualifications, since the readers, at least, are not in doubt on a point of this sort about which Scripture is so clear.
7–8 Once more the apostle entertains a possible objection. The thought is closely related to what was stated in v.4, as the similarity in language indicates. Though the construction is somewhat rough, the general sense is clear enough. Speaking for an objector, Paul is voicing the hoary adage that “the end justifies the means”: “Let us do evil that good may result” (v.8). He has evidently had to cope with this in his own ministry, and he will be dealing with it again in a different context (6:1). Here he is content to turn the tables on the objector. If any claim that their falsehood, which throws into sharp relief the truthfulness of God, promotes God’s glory and should therefore relieve the sinner of condemnation, let them ponder the apostolic verdict—“their condemnation is deserved” (v.8).
NOTES
4 The infinitive κρίνεσθαι, krinesthai (GK 3212), should probably be taken as a middle rather than a passive (see Cranfield, 1.182; Bruce, 96), so that the second line of the quotation runs, “and may prevail when you judge.”
5 David Daube (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London: Athlone, 1956], 396) has examined the expression κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, kata anthrōpon legō, lit., “I speak according to man” (NIV, “I am using a human argument”) in the light of rabbinic usage and has concluded that it is a technical term in Paul’s writing. Daube writes, “It constitutes an apology for a statement which, but for the apology, would be too bold, almost blasphemous.”
OVERVIEW
Paul’s argument about the human problem of sin reaches its climax in these verses. He seals his argument in the most powerful way, with the quotation of a montage of Scripture passages that indict humanity before the bar of God’s righteousness. Paul’s argument about sin thus finds its basis and final authority in Holy Scripture.
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
COMMENTARY
9 Questions of both text and punctuation confront us at this point. As to text, we need not hesitate to accept proechometha (GK 4604), rendered “Are we any better?” Other renderings of this word are possible (see Notes). The basic idea of the verb is “to stand out, excel, surpass,” and this is the most likely sense here. There is a difficulty, to be sure, in that the word could be either middle or passive in voice. If it is middle in force as well as in form, the sense is, “Do we have a defense?” or, “Do we excuse ourselves?” But the middle may well be used here in an active sense, as is often done with other verbs, hence, “Are we any better?” If a passive, the sense is, “Are we excelled?” i.e., “Are we worse?” (NASB text note). In Paul’s view, the Jews are neither better nor worse; they are under sin, just as are the Gentiles.
Assuming that Paul is identifying himself here with the Jews, of whom he has been speaking, the question would suggest that the indictment of the Jews has been so severe as to open the possibility that the Gentiles are actually in a better position. But insufficient ground has been provided to suggest such a possibility. So the best conclusion is that Paul intends to question once more whether the Jews have an edge over the Gentiles. His answer, “Not at all!” registers an emphatic denial. Such a denial may seem to be in conflict with the statements in vv.1–2, and for this reason some would render it, “Not absolutely.” But in vv.1–2, he deals with the distinctive position of the Jews in the divine economy; here he is dealing with the Jews’ moral and spiritual fitness—how they stand before God in terms of fulfilling their God-given role.
Paul backs up his denial of Jewish superiority by reminding his readers of the charge he has been bringing, namely, “that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin.” To be “under sin” is to be imprisoned under its sway and condemnation. No one escapes this plight except through the death of Christ, as Paul will tell us, beginning in 3:21.
10–18 A final and clinching argument seals the verdict: the testimony of Scripture. Writing to those who are for the most part Gentiles, Paul does not set down Scripture first and then work from that as a base for exposition (which is the method used in the epistle to the Hebrews); rather, he comes to the OT only at the conclusion of his argument to substantiate what he has established on other grounds. Both the Jews and the early Christians were in the habit of drawing up collections of Scripture passages relating to various topics in order to use them as proof texts for instruction or argumentation. It is not known whether the present collection, taken mostly from the Psalms, is the work of Paul or whether he is utilizing something previously formulated.
10b–12 The present catena serves a double purpose: to affirm the universality of sin in the human family and to assert its encroachment on every facet of individual and corporate life. The universality of the opening citation, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” is striking. The language is devastatingly clear and sharp. No exception is allowed. It can be put positively: “All have turned away” (v.12), which seems to echo the thought of ch. 1 that human beings had the opportunity to know God but turned away from him to their own detriment and confusion. Paul wants the full impact to register. He does not bother to consider the objection that the OT speaks of righteous people and in fact recognizes them as a class over against the wicked (Ps 1) or as individuals (Job 1:8). From the standpoint of the divine righteousness, the fact is that they all fall short, as Paul has affirmed of both the Jew and the Gentile, and hence whether under the law or lacking it.
13–18 The latter half of the catena, beginning with v.13, reflects the second emphasis, namely, the ramifications of sin in human life. As far as relationship with God is concerned, the rupturing power of sin has been noted (vv.11–12). But what effect does sin have on the sinner? The effect is total because the sinner’s entire being is vitiated. Observe at this point the various members of the body referred to: the throat, the tongue, and the lips (v.13); the mouth (v.14); the feet (v.15); and the eyes (v.18). This list serves to affirm what theologians speak of as total depravity, i.e., not that human beings in their natural state are as bad as they can possibly be, but rather that every aspect of their life is adversely affected by sin. Their whole nature is permeated with it. Human relations also suffer because society can be no better than those who constitute it. Some of the obvious effects—conflict and bloodshed—are specified (vv.15–17).
18 The chain of quotations from Scripture closes with a statement of the root difficulty: “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (v.18). This is the same observation gleaned from the study of ch. 1. Getting out of step with God is the cause of conflict and chaos in human relations. It is the cause of the pervasive fallenness of the world that confronts us at every point of our existence.
19 In the closing statements of the indictment, the apostle may be reading the mind of a Jew who questions the legitimacy of appealing to passages of the sort he has used, on the ground that humanity in general is in view—or at any rate, if Jews are in view, they are Jews who by their very godlessness are not representative of the nation as a whole. The stubborn fact, however, is that “whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law” (v.19). In the first clause “the law” must refer to the law in the broad sense of the OT revelation (cf. 1Co 14:21), for to take it as referring to the Pentateuch or to its legislative portions would destroy the continuity of thought in the passage. As already observed, the string of quotations derives from the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew canon) and the Prophets. “Under the law” is more literally “in the law” (en tō nomō); so the thought is probably not so much that the Jews are under the law’s authority and dominion in the legal sense as that they possess Scripture (so Cranfield, 1:196), which has relevance to them at every point. Otherwise the shift in meaning of nomos (“law”), from Scripture to the commandments, is very abrupt. Yet the legislative aspect of the law is, of course, also involved by virtue of being a part of Scripture.
“That every mouth may be silenced” refers to the silencing of all human claims on God. When human achievement is measured against what God requires, there is no place for pride or boasting but only for a silence that is consonant with the verdict of guilty. In the various biblical scenes of judgment, the silence of those who are being judged is a notable feature (e.g., Rev 20:11–14). Questions may be raised for the sake of clarification of the reason for the verdict (Mt 25:41–46), but when the explanation is given, no appeal is attempted. The judgment rendered by the Judge of all the earth is always just (Ge 18:25).
In making these statements, the apostle has been occupied with the Jews because Scripture has been at issue, but suddenly he makes a statement that involves all humanity. He pictures “the whole world” as “accountable to God.” This seems to be a non sequitur. How can Jewish failure in terms of what Scripture requires lead to the involvement of the remainder of the human race? Two possibilities come to mind. One is that the Jewish nation is being regarded as a test case for all peoples. If given the same privileges enjoyed by Israel, the rest of the nations would likewise have failed. Their human nature is no different from that of the children of Abraham. Another possibility, which is the more likely explanation, is that the failure of the non-Jews is so patent that it is not a debatable subject; it can be taken for granted as already established (1:18–32). Once it has been determined that the record of the Jews is not really any better, then judgment is seen as universally warranted.
20 The final word to the Jews is designed to rob them of any fancied support in the Mosaic law, the word “law” being used as in the second occurrence in v.19. Justification before God cannot be attained by attempted observance of the law, no matter how hard a person may work at it. The fact is that no one has succeeded in keeping the law (cf. Jn 7:19).
For the first time in Romans we encounter the expression ex ergōn nomou (lit. “by works of law”; NIV, “by observing the law” (cf. v.28), which has such prominence in Galatians (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). The meaning of this phrase has been much discussed in recent years owing to the influence of the “new perspective” on Paul (see Introduction, p. 29). An increasing number of scholars conclude that “works of law” refers not to a general obedience to the law but specifically to those issues that marked out the Jews from the Gentiles, namely, circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws. Thus, the issue in v.20, as articulated by Dunn, 1:159, is not “works of the law as a means to achieving righteousness and acquittal,” as it has traditionally been understood, but “the function of the law as an identity factor, the social function of the law as marking out the people of the law.” What Paul wants to oppose, according to this view, is the restricting of salvation to the Jews and the consequent exclusion of the Gentiles. It is clear, of course, that Paul would have been opposed to the law as constituting a boundary marker that would exclude the Gentiles from God’s grace. But Paul’s argument here is a more basic one. It gives a negative verdict on any and every claim of righteousness via the law, and it is applied not merely to the Jews (as would be the case, according to Dunn’s view) but to all flesh, so that “every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God” (v.19).
Part of v.20—“no one [lit., no flesh] will be declared righteous in his sight”—is a quotation from Psalm 143:2, in which a change in the Greek text is made from “no one living” to “no flesh” (NIV, “no one”), an alteration designed to bring out the frailty and inability of human beings with respect to meeting God’s requirements (cf. 8:3). The practical result of the study of the law is to “become conscious of sin” (cf. 5:20; 7:7–11). How startling it is to contemplate the fact that the best revelation one has apart from Christ only deepens the awareness of failure. While the Jews thought of the law as the means by which righteousness could be achieved, Paul takes a decidedly more pessimistic view—indeed, a contrary view: the law simply brings a heightened awareness of sin. And thus the law loudly proclaims the need for the gospel.
NOTES
9 The first three words of the Greek text could be taken together as one sentence, yielding some such translation as, “Wherein, then, are we excelled?” But the following words, οὐ πάντως, ou pantōs, “not at all,” do not properly answer this question. It is thus preferable to retain the double question, as in the NIV. Uncertainty as to the meaning of προεχόμεθα, proechometha (“are we any better?”), accounts for the interpretative variant reading προκατέχομεν περισσόν, prokatechomen perisson, supported principally by D* G Ψ 104 it syrp,h and having the meaning, “Why, then, are we especially superior?”
10–12 These words are a somewhat free rendering of Psalm 14:1–3 (= Ps 53:2–4); cf. Ecclesiastes 7:20.
10–18 On this passage, see Leander E. Keck, “The Function of Romans 3:10–18: Observations and Suggestions,” in God’s Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 141–57.
13 Verse 13 is quoted verbatim from the LXX of Psalm 5:10 (MT Ps 5:9), with the last line from the LXX of Psalm 139:4 (MT 140:3). Verse 14 quotes Psalm 10:7; vv.15–17 quote Isaiah 59:7–8 (cf. Pr 1:16); and v.18 quotes Psalm 36:1, with the slight change of the pronoun from singular “his” to plural “their.”
20 For helpful discussions of the expression “works of law,” see C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 (1991): 89–101; Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Works of Law’ in Paul,” NovT 33 (1991): 217–44; J. D. G. Dunn, “Yet Once More—‘The Works of the Law,’” JSNT 46 (1992): 99–117; Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 (1985): 90–96; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Paul’s Jewish Background and the Deeds of the Law,” in According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle (New York: Paulist, 1993), 18–35.
For a superb treatment of the subject of 1:18–3:20, see Marguerite Shuster, The Fall and Sin: What We Have Become as Sinners (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).