5
Jews Are “without Excuse”
Romans 2:1–29
Outline
- Jewish Sin and God’s Impartial Judgment (2:1–11)
Jews Are as Guilty as Gentiles (2:1–5)
God’s Impartial Judgment (2:6–11)
- Jews, Gentiles, and the Law (2:12–16)
- Jewish Sin and the Covenant (2:17–29)
Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
- Understand how Jews are doing “the same things” gentiles do.
- Identify the way in which God confronts all people with his law.
- Appreciate the value and limitations of the covenant that God entered into with Israel.
- Appreciate more fully the situation of human beings outside of Christ.
The gentile Christian in Rome listening to the end of Romans 1 being read in a church service might have wondered about this Paul. The apostle had the reputation of being favorable to gentiles, but in these verses Paul seemed to be repeating the same old Jewish polemic against the gentiles. Had nothing changed with the coming of Christ? Were gentiles still going to be treated as a race inferior to the Jews?
As the listener began hearing chapter 2, these questions would quickly have been answered. Paul has announced in 1:18 that God’s wrath is revealed against all human sin. He has shown in 1:19–20 that all people deserve God’s wrath, because they have access to God’s truth but have turned away from it. In the rest of the chapter he has concentrated on the way people have spurned God’s natural revelation. But now, in chapter 2, he turns to special revelation. God has made his will known to the Jewish people in very particular ways, especially through his law. But, as all people fail to live up to the expectations of God revealed in nature, so also Jews have failed to live up to the demands God has made of them in his law. To be sure, the Jews are not quite in the same position as the gentiles, for God did single them out from all the peoples of the world and entered into a covenant relationship with them. But Paul will show that this covenant, apart from the grace available in the gospel, cannot shield Jews from God’s judgment.
Jewish Sin and God’s Impartial Judgment (2:1–11)
This passage falls into two distinct units. In 2:1–5, Paul places Jews in the same category into which he has placed the gentiles (1:21–32): guilty of sinful acts and “without excuse.” He then shows how this equal treatment of Jews and gentiles fits with an important attribute of God: impartiality (2:6–11).
Jews Are as Guilty as Gentiles (2:1–5)
By the time Paul wrote Romans, he had been preaching the gospel for over twenty years. He knew how people would react to his teaching and what questions they were likely to raise. As he wrote about the gospel to the Roman Christians, Paul used this experience to structure his presentation. He therefore frequently pauses to ask questions about and raise objections to what he has just taught. The transition from chapter 1 to chapter 2 reveals just this kind of circumstance. Paul was well accustomed to preaching about the sinfulness of all human beings based on natural revelation. As he did so, he was familiar with people in the crowd who would be quite eager to join in his condemnation and pride themselves as superior to the idolaters and fornicators whom he was raking over the coals. We can imagine Paul suddenly turning on such people and shocking them with a direct accusation: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (v. 1).
Like any good writer, Paul uses the literary devices of his own day to communicate effectively with his readers. One of the devices that Paul uses quite often in Romans is diatribe. More a style than a genre, a diatribe usually takes the form of a dialogue, using questions and answers to make its points. The writer enters into a discussion with a fictional opponent as a way of advancing his or her own argument. Perhaps the best example comes in the Discourses of Epictetus. Paul uses this style in the beginning of Romans 2. As the English word “yourself” toward the end of verse 1 reveals, Paul is using the second-person singular in these verses. This does not indicate that he is singling out one person in the Roman congregation; rather, he is using the diatribe style, letting the Roman Christians overhear his fictional discussion with a typical Jew. To be sure, Paul does not come out and explicitly label his discussion partner as a Jew at this point. This is for rhetorical effect, as he allows the Jew gradually to self-identify in the accusation that now unfolds. But how can Paul say that Jews are doing “the same things” as the people he has condemned in chapter 1? Jews were not known for idolatry at this period of time, and generally they avoided serious sexual sins. But they were guilty of many of the sins Paul has listed in 1:29–31. And perhaps Paul thinks of the Jews’ preoccupation with the law as a kind of idolatry.
In verses 2–5 Paul elaborates the judgment to which Jews, like gentiles, will be subjected. He makes two basic points.
First, God’s judgment is based on the “truth” (v. 2). What Paul means by this is that God will judge every human being in accordance with the actual facts of the case. Paul returns to this point in verse 5, emphasizing that it is because of “stubbornness” and an “unrepentant heart” that God will judge these people. The facts that God takes into consideration have to do above all with the inner condition of a person. Not just outward actions but the attitude of the heart will be decisive when God judges people on the day of his wrath.
Second, God’s judgment cannot be avoided through outward identity. We saw that Paul was indebted to Jewish polemic against the gentiles in 1:18–32, and we identified a particularly clear example of this polemic in Wisdom of Solomon 12–15. But in that book, after condemning the gentiles for their sin over the course of three chapters, the author suddenly turns to the situation of the Jews, saying this about them: “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, and to know your power is the root of immortality” (Wis. 15:1–3 NRSV). Paul’s language in verses 3–4 seems to be a deliberate echo of this text, or one very much like it. What the passage reflects is the assumption by the Jews that their privileged covenant status put them in such a different category from other people that they did not need to worry about their sin. But, like Jeremiah before him, when confronted with a similar attitude (Jer. 7), Paul insists that mere covenant status will not be enough to shield God’s people from judgment. Always, God insists on a heart response to him and a life of obedience reflecting that heart response.
God’s Impartial Judgment (2:6–11)
These verses are carefully organized, falling into a pattern called “chiasm.” The word comes from the letter of the Greek alphabet that resembles our letter X. At the points of the X are the elements of the argument, structured in an A-B-B'-A' sequence (often extending beyond four points). One can readily identify verses 6–11 as falling into this kind of structure:
A God will judge people according to their works (v. 6)
B People who do good will attain eternal life (v. 7)
C People who do evil will suffer wrath (v. 8)
C' Wrath for those who do evil (v. 9)
B' Glory for those who do good (v. 10)
A' God judges impartially (v. 11)
The main point of a chiasm often comes in the middle, but in this case the main point is found at the outside: God’s impartiality, revealed in his assessing every human being according to the same standard, works. The application of this standard means that people who do evil things will suffer God’s wrath (vv. 8, 9). On the other side of the coin, those who do good things will experience eternal life and glory (vv. 7, 10). The argument is designed to puncture the Jewish assumption of superiority. God treats every person the same, but the Jews have a greater accountability, because they have been the recipients of the clearest revelation of God. Therefore they will be “first” in receiving judgment for sin (v. 9) and “first” in being granted eternal life for doing good (v. 10).
But how can Paul promise that people who do good will be given eternal life (vv. 7, 10)? Doesn’t this claim contradict his later insistence that no person can be put right with God by works (3:20; 4:2–3)? Several solutions to this problem have been offered, but two are the most likely. First, Paul might be referring to Christians, who, because of God’s grace in Christ and the indwelling Spirit, are enabled to produce works that will count favorably in the judgment of God (see, e.g., 2 Cor. 5:10; James 2:14–26).1 Second, Paul here simply might be stating the condition that a person must meet, apart from Christ, to go free in the judgment of God. Whether any person meets that standard is quite another question, and Paul will answer it decisively in the negative as his argument moves forward (see 3:9).2 On the whole, I think that the second interpretation fits best in the context.
Torah scroll, consisting of the first five books of the Old Testament, from which the law is read
Jews, Gentiles, and the Law (2:12–16)
Paul’s claim that God would impartially judge Jews on the same basis as gentiles seems to ignore a crucial point: the Jews, because of God’s covenant with them, are not in the same situation as the gentiles. How can God treat the two groups the same? Paul responds to this kind of objection in the rest of the chapter. He begins in this paragraph with a focus on the law. As we saw in chapter 1, “law” in Romans refers first of all to the law God gave Israel through Moses, the torah. In verse 12, therefore, “all who sin apart from the law” are gentiles and “all who sin under the law” are Jews, for only Jews stand “under the law” (the Greek is literally, “in [the sphere of] the law”). Nevertheless, Paul alleges, the result for both groups is the same. Gentiles will “perish” as they sin without direct awareness of the torah, while Jews will “be judged” through that torah. And the parallelism requires that this judgment have a negative verdict: condemnation. So Paul begins by reasserting the equality of Jew and gentile before God in the judgment.
Verse 13 substantiates the last point of verse 12. Jews will be condemned even though they have the torah, because (“for” at the beginning of v. 13) God justifies doers of the law, not those who only hear it. All Jews “hear” the law. They read it, hear it read in the synagogue, and study it. But the standard by which God judges, as Paul has made clear in verses 6–11, is works—what is actually done. Paul here infers that Jews have not adequately “done” the law. Their doing has not matched their hearing. Paul’s claim that “those who obey the law . . . will be declared righteous” again raises the issue of salvation through works (v. 13). And again, I suggest, Paul is setting out the standard by which God judges and is not claiming that anyone actually meets that standard.
Granite mountains of the Sinai near modern Eilat are a reminder of Mount Sinai, where God’s law was revealed to Moses. (Berthold Werner/Wikimedia Commons)
The place of verses 14–16 in Paul’s argument is debated. Some interpreters attach these verses directly to the end of verse 13. They think that the gentiles who “do by nature things required by the law” (v. 14) are the same as those in verse 13 “who obey the law” and are justified. Paul therefore would be referring in verses 14–15 to gentile Christians who, though not having the law by birth, now fulfill the law’s demand because of the indwelling Spirit (see 8:4). (The phrase “by birth” in the preceding sentence represents Paul’s “by nature,” which can be attached to the phrase “who do not have the law” as well as to the verb “do” [as in the NIV].) Advocates of this interpretation often point to the language about “the requirements of the law” being “written on their hearts” in verse 15. This sounds a lot like the famous “new covenant” prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33, where God promises, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” And, of course, the New Testament proclaims that this prophecy is fulfilled in Christians, who possess the Spirit of God (e.g., Heb. 8:8–12).3 But it might be significant that Paul says not that “the law” is written on the heart, but that “the requirements of the law” are written on the heart. And, for other reasons, I think it unlikely that Paul is referring here to gentile Christians. For one thing, Paul would be unlikely to say that gentile Christians “are a law for themselves” (v. 14). For another, Paul’s language resembles ancient discussions about the natural law. Originating with the Greeks, who speculated about the natural law as a way of making certain moral norms universal, discussion of the natural law was taken up by Jews such as Philo of Alexandria. Paul seems to be alluding to these discussions, and his purpose would then be to show that, though gentiles have not been given God’s law in the specific form of torah, they nevertheless have knowledge of God’s moral requirements. They may not have the Mosaic law (torah), but they do have law—moral demands that God puts in the conscience of every human being. Once again Paul levels the playing field between Jew and Greek. Even torah, in which Jews take so much pride, does not distinguish them as much as they might think from the gentiles, for gentiles also have law.
On this reading, verses 14–15 are a kind of parenthetical addendum to verse 12, with its simple contrast between those who have the law and those who do not (note the parentheses around vv. 14–15 in the NIV). By keeping verse 16 outside the parentheses, the NIV translators imply that this verse goes with verse 13: God will declare righteous those who obey the law “on the day when God judges people’s secrets.” But it is better to attach verse 16 to the end of verse 15. Because gentiles have some knowledge of God’s moral demands, their consciences are in a conflicted state. They sense approval for doing what that law requires, but they also feel condemned because of the sins they commit. This “bearing witness” of the conscience takes place throughout life but will find its ultimate importance on the day of judgment.
Jewish Sin and the Covenant (2:17–29)
Paul now returns to the diatribe style of 2:1–5, for the first time addressing his discussion partner as a “Jew.” The basic point of verses 17–29 is to show that the legitimate Jewish boast in possessing the law and circumcision (the mark of the covenant) falls short of bringing salvation to the Jewish people. For Paul again insists that it is not the possession (or the hearing) of God’s law and covenant that matters—it is the doing. We must underline the importance of this argument for Paul’s ultimate purposes. In 1:18–3:20 he sets the stage for the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ by delineating the human dilemma. All people need God’s righteousness, because all people sin. Few in Paul’s day would quarrel with the claim that all people sin. But Jews still would see no need for the righteousness of God in Christ, for their sin, they would argue, is taken care of through God’s covenant arrangement with them. Paul therefore must show that they have misunderstood that covenant if they think that it, in itself, suffices to take care of their sin problem. Thus he focuses in these verses on the two key components of the covenant: the torah, which spelled out Israel’s covenant obligations, and circumcision, the mark of covenant entrance.
In the first paragraph, verses 17–24, Paul contrasts the Jews’ possession of the law with their failure to perform it. Verses 17–20 consist of a series of “if” clauses spelling out the benefits and privileges that the Jews possess through the covenant. Some interpreters think that Paul engages in sarcasm here, mocking the Jews for their inordinate pride. But that misses Paul’s point. Each of the items listed here is a legitimate cause of pride on the part of the Jewish people. God has entered into a special relationship with the Jews (v. 17), revealed his will to them in the law (v. 18), and appointed Israel to be a guide to the other nations, who do not have that law (vv. 19–20; cf. Isa. 42:6–7). The problem, however, is that the Jews have not lived up to their privileges. Paul summarizes his point in verse 23: “You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” Verses 21–22 lead up to this summary with three examples of the contrast between Jewish teaching and Jewish behavior. The first two—stealing and adultery—are clear enough. But what Paul might intend with the third is more difficult to say: “You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?” The most obvious possibility is that Paul is accusing the Jews of stealing from pagan temples. We know that Jews at this time were relaxing the Old Testament strictures about using the metal melted down from pagan idols. Paul might be reminding the Jews how this practice tacitly involves the Jews in idolatry. Another possibility is that Paul refers to Jews who robbed the Jerusalem temple by not paying the money required of every Jew for its upkeep.4 Still another option is to interpret the verb that Paul uses here (hierosyleō) to mean “commit sacrilege.” He might then be referring to the tendency of Jews to make the law so important as to infringe on God’s own prerogatives.5 The first of these options, the majority view among commentators, is best because it provides the most natural contrast with the Jews’ abhorrence of idolatry.
Paul’s argument in the second paragraph (vv. 25–29) is roughly equivalent to what he has argued in verses 17–24. Paul has made clear that the torah will be of ultimate benefit to the Jews only if they obey it. Similarly, he now alleges, circumcision will rescue Jews from judgment only if the law is obeyed. Circumcision was a very important mark of Jewish identity in Paul’s world. Its great symbolic value was why it was such a contentious matter in the early church (see Acts 15; Galatians). It marked God’s covenant with Abraham, and God himself insisted that Abraham’s male descendants be circumcised as a mark of covenant status. The attempt of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to stamp out the Jewish religion at the time of the Maccabean Revolt focused on circumcision. Loyal Jews naturally responded by making the rite even more important than before. And the danger of accommodation to gentile culture in the Diaspora also elevated the importance of a distinguishing rite such as circumcision.
In verses 25–27, Paul does not deny the value of circumcision. His point, rather, is that circumcision by itself cannot assure the Jew of membership in the covenant people of God. Only fidelity to the law can accomplish this. For Jews, therefore, circumcision is useful if they “observe the law” (v. 25). But if they break the law, their circumcision is, in effect, canceled. At the same time, in what would have been quite a radical turn in the argument for first-century Jews, Paul claims that uncircumcised gentiles who “keep the law’s requirements” will be treated as though they were circumcised (v. 26). Such a law-obedient though uncircumcised gentile even will stand in judgment over the Jew (v. 27). We face here again the question of the identity of these gentiles. Certainly the realistic-sounding language of verse 27 gives greater credence than ever to the view that identifies these law-observing people as gentile Christians. But, with considerably less certainty, I think again that Paul is arguing hypothetically.
The radical nature of Paul’s argument becomes even more pronounced in verses 28–29. Here Paul relativizes the whole concept of “Jew.” Paul is using the language of “Jew” here to mean “a member of God’s true people.” And he argues that membership in this people has nothing to do with outward or physical matters such as circumcision. Belonging to God’s people is, rather, an inward matter. It is not physical circumcision that counts but the circumcision of the heart. Of course, the demand for the circumcision of the heart is standard Old Testament teaching (e.g., Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4). But nowhere in the Old Testament is it suggested that physical circumcision can be dispensed with. Moreover, Paul adds that this circumcision of the heart must be carried out by the Spirit and not in terms of the “written code.” The latter phrase is the NIV rendering of an important Greek word, gramma, “letter.” Three times in his letters Paul contrasts “Spirit” (pneuma) and gramma (see also Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6–7). While its meaning is debated, gramma seems to be Paul’s way of referring to the Old Testament law as a “written” instrument. It therefore comes to represent the old salvation-historical era. “Spirit,” on the other hand, stands for the new era of redemption that has dawned with the coming of Christ (see 1:4). Here, therefore, Paul clearly looks ahead to his claim that it is only Christians, filled with God’s Spirit, who truly can experience the radical internal transformation indicated by the language of the “circumcision of the heart.” Jews need to understand that their covenant status cannot, by itself, protect them from the judgment of God. And they need ultimately also to understand that only a relationship with Christ through the Spirit of the new age will bring them into the true people of God.