Romans 2

2. The Condemnation of the Jew, 2:1–16

There is considerable discussion as to whether the opening part of this chapter refers to the Jew (who is not specifically addressed until v. 17) or the Gentile (who is certainly in mind in vv. 12–16; cf. vv. 9–10). One view is that Paul has in mind neither of them as such, but “men of moral insight and ideals” (Foreman).¹ Such people would applaud Paul’s condemnation of blatant sinners of every race (ch. 1). But does that mean that they were guiltless? Not at all. Paul now moves on to show that those who sit in judgment on their fellows are as guilty as those they judge. There is a natural tendency to justify ourselves for the wrong we do by condemning people who do other evils that we think are worse. “The Pharisee is always present in each one of us” (Leenhardt). Even when we try to help people, we do not start with the premise that we as well as they are sinners needing God’s forgiveness; we simply try to improve their moral conduct. Paul’s point is that we are all involved in a solidarity of sin that embraces the whole human race. He is concerned with the gospel as God’s way for the whole person and for the whole of mankind (not with self-justification or minor moral improvements).

But, while all this is true and some of it was probably in Paul’s mind, it seems more likely that he is thinking here primarily of the Jew.² The way the term “Jew” is used in verse 17 does not look like the introduction of a new topic (and cf. “the Jew first”, vv. 9, 10). Jews would have agreed heartily with all that Paul has had to say about the Gentile world. They were always ready to condemn the Gentiles, but they saw themselves as on a much higher plane. A Jew could write, “Now therefore weigh in a balance our iniquities and those of the inhabitants of the world; and so it will be found which way the turn of the scale will incline. When have the inhabitants of the earth not sinned in thy sight? Or what nation has kept thy commandments so well?” (2 Esdr. 3:34–35). The sufferings of the Jews were seen as different from those of the Gentiles: “For when they [i.e., the Israelites] were tried, though they were being disciplined in mercy, they learned how the ungodly were tormented when judged in wrath. For thou didst test them as a father does in warning, but thou didst examine the ungodly as a stern king does in condemnation” (Wis. 11:9–10). The whole of Wisdom 11–15 accords with this,³ a parallel which Nygren regards as “quite decisive” (p. 114). The Jew seems to have combined two attitudes, one which stressed the community and the other the individual. He thought of his nation as the community of the saved. When he stood before God it was not simply as an individual, to be dealt with on the grounds of his personal record in keeping or not keeping the law. He belonged to God’s own people and would be saved along with the rest of that people. His circumcision placed him firmly within the saved community. He might be punished for his sins, but he would not be eternally lost, for “All Israelites have a share in the world to come” (Sanh. 10:1).⁴ But if the Jew put an emphasis in this way on the communal aspect, he did not mind stressing the individual in concrete situations. He regarded himself as on a different level from any Gentile with whom he happened to be confronted, and indulged in the luxury of despising him. A further point to be kept in mind is that what Paul says bears interesting resemblances to some aspects of the teaching of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 7:1–4; Luke 6:41–42), and this was certainly addressed to Jews.

Thus on the whole it seems best to think of the Jews as primarily in mind throughout this section. But the language is general enough to have an application to everyone, and sometimes Paul glances at the wider world (notably in vv. 9–10, 12–16).⁵ His style throughout is lively, and many commentators see here the use of the diatribe form, a form which allows for spirited argument between the writer and his readers.⁶

a. The danger of judging others, 2:1–3

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?

Paul begins by pointing out that those who engage in the luxury of condemning others are putting themselves in jeopardy, for in doing so they condemn themselves. It is always easier to see the mote in someone else’s eye than the plank in our own.

1. Therefore links this with the preceding; what Paul says now arises out of what he said at the end of the previous chapter. There is a difficulty in that it is not obvious how the guilt of the Gentile world brings the Jew under condemnation.⁷ We seem to require that those addressed here are included in the previous section. The explanation may be that, while it is true that in chapter 1 Gentiles are primarily in mind, the sins of all people are castigated, and here, while the Jews are at center stage, all who judge others are condemned.⁸

The word translated have no excuse is often used in a legal sense. It means “without reasoned defence”. Paul has already used it of the Gentiles (1:20; see the note in Earle), and his use of it now with respect to the Jews shows that there is no difference. The Jew is in just as indefensible a position as are the Gentiles. When he condemns somebody else he condemns himself. Paul adopts a device he uses quite frequently, that of an address to an imaginary opponent.⁹ BDF note this as a way of taking something universal and making it vivid by referring it to an individual.¹⁰ “O man” (RSV; GNB paraphrases with “my friend”, while NIV reduces it to you) is far from being a usual form of address; indeed, this “O” of address is found no more than 15 times in the entire New Testament (three times in Romans). It often lends something of an emotional tone to the address, but this is not obvious here.¹¹ “Whoever you are” (RSV) keeps the address general. But RSV’s “when you judge another” (like NIV) is not as accurate as KJV’s “whosoever thou art that judgest”. Paul is not addressing a specific person and qualifying this by referring to those occasions on which he judges. He is addressing anyone who judges and addressing him because he judges. Preeminently he has the Jew in mind, though we should not overlook the fact that he expresses the idea very generally. Anyone who judges, whether Jew or Gentile, puts himself in danger, for¹² in passing judgment he condemns himself. Passing judgment¹³ on another person¹⁴ means condemning oneself.

This is because the person judging does the same things. This would be a startling charge to a Jew. He was sure that the Gentile did all manner of wicked things, as Paul has made plain in chapter 1. But he himself lived in a very different way, he thought. He was especially firm in having nothing to do with idolatry, which Paul has castigated so severely. But when he condemned the other person, the Jew was committing basically the same sin, even though the formal expression was different; “The sin of the Jews was the same, but their sins were not” (Denney).¹⁵

2. Paul not infrequently appeals to his correspondents’ knowledge (we know; cf. 3:19; 6:6; 7:14; 8:22, 28). He varies his approach by using the participle “knowing” (5:3; 6:9; 13:11). Or he can say “you know” (2:18) or ask the question “Do you not know?” (6:3, 16; 7:1; 11:2; cf. 2:4). All this is an invitation to sweet reasonableness. Where the occasion demands it, Paul can be dogmatic and issue authoritative instructions. But he likes to enlist the intelligent cooperation of his readers and have them see the point for themselves (as when he tells the Corinthians, “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say”, 1 Cor. 10:15).

“The judgment of God”¹⁶ is an expression which occurs again in verse 3 and nowhere else in the New Testament (though cf. 1 Pet. 4:17; Rev. 18:20). But, though the expression is rare, it is everywhere assumed that the judgment is God’s and that it is “according to truth”; no sinner can face it with equanimity. Dodd sees this verse as the Jew’s complacent utterance, with Paul’s retort coming in the next verse. Others put the words in quotation marks,¹⁷ but the meaning appears to be much the same. Such a position is possible, but it seems more likely that Paul is making these words his own and using them with deadly seriousness. The Jew is in real danger, for “God condemns that sort of behavior impartially” (JB; cf. v. 11). God’s judgment is “according to truth”;¹⁸ that is, it is just, and it is exercised toward all those who do the kind of thing Paul has been talking about. In judgment it is not nationality or privilege that matters, but deeds.

3. The verb translated think (which comes first in the Greek) is quite Pauline.¹⁹ It is properly an arithmetical word and means “to count”, “to reckon”. But it is often used metaphorically where numbers are not in question with a meaning like “take into account”, “reckon”, “consider”. It is a word that invites to reasoning, which may be why it turns up so often in Romans. It is suited to the argumentative style that Paul adopts throughout this letter.

NIV has altered the meaning a little with its when you … pass judgment … and yet do…. It is not so much when as “you who do such things”. Throughout this section Paul is not speaking of someone who does a variety of things and addressing him when he does this or that. He is speaking to one whose characteristic is that he does certain things, specifically that he judges others. To this he links the further thought and yet do the same things.²⁰ When Paul goes on to say you will escape, his you is emphatic:²¹ “Do you think that you of all people will escape… ?” Some Jews did expect precisely this: “even if we sin we are thine” (Wis. 15:2). Haldane points out that three things are implied in what Paul says: the Jew can avoid neither judgment nor being condemned nor the carrying out of the sentence. For “the judgment of God” see the note on v. 2.

b. The need for repentance, 2:4

⁴Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?

An important part of the teaching of this epistle is that God is a merciful God; his purposes are always purposes of mercy. He may at times be engaged in activities like judgment that seem to the casual observer to be directed against the sinner. But even God’s judgments must be seen in a context of mercy; they are meant to lead people to repentance and forgiveness. God never punishes for the sake of punishment. And if this is the case with judgment, much more is it so with God’s forbearance. So, before he brings out what is in store for the impenitent sinner, Paul has a short section in which he speaks of God’s kindness as leading people to repentance.²²

4. Paul’s Or may pose a sharp alternative: either the Jew must consider himself immune from judgment or he must despise God’s kindness. But more probably it is used to make much the same point as the preceding.²³ Anyone who thinks he will escape judgment despises God’s kindness, treats it as of no account. Riches properly denotes material wealth, but it is often used metaphorically (cf. 9:23; Eph. 1:7, etc.). Here the meaning is that God’s kindness and the other qualities mentioned are in no short supply. Kindness (cf. 11:22) renders a word that is difficult to translate exactly.²⁴ The basic thought is that of goodness (this same word is translated “good” in 3:12). But it is the goodness that is goodness of heart, not that which is austerely correct. The translation “kindness” brings out this benevolent aspect, but we should not be unmindful of the fact that goodness is also involved.²⁵ Paul is thinking of God’s goodness, which is seen in the kindness he shows to his people.

Tolerance²⁶ translates a term found twice only in the New Testament, both in Romans. In Greek usage generally it denotes “stopping, esp. of hostilities … armistice, truce” (LSJ). God does not punish the sinner immediately after he sins. He holds back his final judgment and thus gives the sinner an interval in which he can repent and turn to God. But the important thing to notice about this word is that it points to a truce, not a peace. It is temporary. It implies a limit. If the sinner does nothing but sin, if he rejects the invitation to repent (cf. Eccl. 8:11), then in due course he must face God with all his sin about him. God’s forbearance is wonderful, eloquent of his deep concern for people. But it is not forgiveness.

Patience²⁷ renders a word which literally means something like “long-tempered” (as against “short-tempered”). It means patience with people, the ability to bear long in the face of disappointment and opposition. Paul sees God as enduring with patience the continuing failure of sinners, and more specifically sinners from his own people Israel, to turn away from their sin. The combination with the two preceding nouns gives a wonderful picture of God’s refusal to punish and of his goodwill towards people, even sinful people.

Not realizing is more literally “not knowing”, and the ignorance is culpable; the person ought to know²⁸ (for Paul’s appeal to knowledge see the note on v. 2). The word translated kindness is not the same as the one earlier in this verse, though it is related.²⁹ There seems no significant difference, and the addition of the cognate word simply puts emphasis on the idea that both convey. That which is good and kind in God is directed towards bringing³⁰ people to repentance. This term means a change of mind, specifically a change of mind about sin.³¹ It refers to that change which comes over a sinner when he sees his wrongdoing no longer as attractive but as damnable. He turns away from it. This means abandoning the security of the old way; God’s demand for repentance is a demand that we trust him, even though it means forsaking our human securities. In the New Testament repentance is not simply negative. It means turning to a new life in Christ, a life of active service to God.³² It should not be confused with remorse, which is a deep sorrow for sin (cf. 2 Cor. 7:10) but lacks the positive note in repentance. It is this thoroughgoing attitude to which God’s goodness is leading people.³³

c. Judgment, 2:5–16

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.”^a 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.

Paul points to what the impenitent are doing to themselves and goes on to the general principle involved. Judgment means that those who have acted in accordance with God’s will will be rewarded, whereas those who have opposed God will be punished.

5. But is an adversative conjunction; what follows stands in contrast to the preceding. Instead of repentance there is hardness and impenitence. Because of³⁴ makes a causal connection. Stubbornness³⁵ translates a word found here only in the New Testament (though the cognate verb occurs in 9:18 and elsewhere). Its original meaning seems to have been what is hard to the touch, or rough. But it came to be used metaphorically of hardness of heart, which of course is its meaning here.³⁶ Unrepentant is another word found only in this passage in the New Testament; indeed, as far as our present knowledge goes, this is its first occurrence in Greek literature. It often has the meaning “irrevocable” in its later usage, but here the meaning is clearly as NIV. For heart see the note on 1:21; it will mean here the whole inner life. In the case of those Paul has in mind the inner life is directed away from God. There is a hardness, a refusal to forsake sin and take God’s way.

In this context storing up is a picturesque word. It is connected with the idea of “treasure” and means “to lay up as treasure” (cf. “riches”, v. 4).³⁷ The person Paul has in mind is laying up for his treasure—the wrath of God! For wrath see the note on 1:18. It signifies God’s settled opposition to all that is evil, and not some irrational passion. We should not miss Paul’s point that sin will inevitably reap its due reward, and that God will be active in the process. The day of wrath (there is no God’s in the Greek) is an unusual expression, found here only in the New Testament (Rev. 6:17 has “the great day of their wrath”). There is no real doubt that it refers to the Day of Judgment,³⁸ and that it views that day from the aspect of the punishment of evil. Many things might be said about that day, but one is certainly that then God’s settled opposition to evil will reach its consummation.

That day will be not only one of wrath but of revelation (Paul says “day of wrath and revelation”). “Revelation” is another typically Pauline word;³⁹ it signifies the making known to people of something previously existent, but not known. God’s righteousness in judgment was always a fact, but people have not always appreciated it, nor will they until the day of revelation. Then it will be clear beyond all doubting. Righteous judgment is one word in the Greek, the compound being found here only in the New Testament and not often in any earlier writing.⁴⁰ The meaning is probably much the same as when Paul uses the two words instead of the compound (2 Thess. 1:5).⁴¹

6. With a quotation from Psalm 62:12 Paul sums up what judgment means. His verb give (RSV, “render”; JB, “repay”) has about it the air of requital, the payment of what is due. To each person makes this personal; recompense is an individual matter, not a collective punishment. And this just requital, this paying back of what is due, will be done to each according to what he has done (cf. Job 34:11; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10, and the New Testament passages cited on p. 147). It is the invariable teaching of the Bible and not the peculiar viewpoint of any one writer or group of writers that judgment will be on the basis of works, though salvation is all of grace. Works are important. They are the outward expression of what the person is deep down. In the believer they are the expression of faith, in the unbeliever the expression of unbelief and that whether by way of legalism or antinomianism. The Jew held that salvation was bound up with the law. Very well. Let him look at what this means. It means that a person’s works, not his claims to belong to a favored group, are of the greatest significance, for God will render to each according to those works. The Jew cannot rest in any fancied security of privilege but must look to the day when his works will be subjected to the divine scrutiny. Paul is inviting him to consider how those works will stand up on the Day of Judgment.

7. Paul proceeds to particularize and to divide those being judged into two classes.⁴² His word for persistence denotes an active, manly fortitude. It is used of the soldier who, in the thick of a hard battle, gives as much as he gets; he is not dismayed by the blows he receives, but fights on to the end. Linked as it is here with doing good, it is seen by BAGD as meaning “perseverance in doing what is right.”⁴³ Barrett translates, “those who with patient endurance look beyond their own well-doing”. He sees this word as “the vital word”, and he also says: “Those who view their own activity with patient endurance attest thereby that they are seeking what is not to be found in any human being and doing…. The reward of eternal life, then, 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.”

I am not sure that all this is to be found in the word, but it seems that this is Paul’s basic thought (cf. Matt. 24:13; Heb. 3:14). He is certainly not speaking of law works as so many ways of acquiring merit. He is speaking of an attitude, the attitude of those who seek certain qualities, not of those who keep certain laws or try to merit a certain reward. Their trust is in God, not in their own achievement. He refers to those whose lives are oriented in a certain way. Their minds are not set on material prosperity or the like, nor on happiness, nor even on being religious. They are set on glory and honor and immortality, qualities which come from a close walk with God. The bent of their lives is towards heavenly things.

Paul speaks of doing good, employing a word he uses often in Romans.⁴⁴ He goes on to link glory⁴⁵ with honor (as is done in v. 10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 2:7, 9; 1 Pet. 1:7; 2 Pet. 1:17, and several times in Revelation). Glory might refer to something that is ascribed to God, and perhaps honor also, but immortality⁴⁶ would be a curious word to use in this connection. People do not “seek” God’s immortality, though they may seek immortality for themselves. We should take all three as the objects of our search. This linking of glory,⁴⁷ honor, and immortality points to a search that is not done from selfish motives (as the worldly-minded seek their favorite pleasures). It springs from a sense of values that arises from the conviction that nothing can compare with these qualities and that these are attained only as the gifts of God.

God gives eternal life, the adjective being characteristic of Paul and John.⁴⁸ Strictly it means “pertaining to an age”, and it was applied to the age to come (rather than to the age before creation or the present age). Since that age was not thought of as coming to an end, the expression “into the age” was a way of saying “forever”. Similarly the life that “pertains to an age”, the age to come, is life that will not end; thus “eternal” is a reasonable translation. But we should not overlook the fact that life in the age to come is characterized by much more than longevity. It is life of a special quality, life lived in the very presence of God.⁴⁹ Life is another word often used by both Paul and John.⁵⁰ They are both interested in the fact that the gospel brings people life. To believe on Jesus Christ is to enter an experience so transforming that one can be said to live only then. And since this new quality of life is eternal, it is permanent.

8. As Paul turns to those who do not seek the things of God, he uses the word But to introduce the contrast. The word translated self-seeking is not common; in the New Testament it occurs five times in Paul, twice in James, and nowhere else. Its meaning is disputed. Traditionally it has been held to mean “factious”, but in recent times “selfishness” and the like have many supporters.⁵¹ There does seem to be an attitude of self-centeredness about it, perhaps coupled with a contentious spirit. Paul uses the noun (not the adjective, as NIV) with a meaning like “those who are of” the quality, “those whose conduct is rooted” in it.⁵² People thus motivated reject⁵³ the truth. How can they obey it? They have put themselves in the opposite camp; they have given their allegiance to evil, not to God. Out of their wrong motive they disobey the truth and give their obedience to unrighteousness. For evil see the note on 1:29 (where it is translated “wickedness”).

At this point there is an interesting change of construction. Paul said that God “will give eternal life” (v. 7), but when he comes to wrath and anger he has no verb and most translators supply there will be.⁵⁴ It may be that Paul is reluctant to ascribe this punishing activity to God in quite as direct a manner as the giving of eternal life (cf. 9:22–23 where he has the active with God as subject when he speaks of “the objects of his mercy” but the passive when he turns to “the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction”).⁵⁵ For wrath see the note on 1:18. The word translated anger⁵⁶ is very close in meaning, and indeed many assert that there is no difference between them.⁵⁷ Etymologically there is, for anger derives from a root conveying the idea of boiling up. It is thus suited to the idea of a passionate outburst. It is the more vivid term. Wrath has about it the idea of a swelling, such as the swelling of buds as the sap rises and in due course causes them to burst. This word is more readily applicable to an anger that proceeds from one’s settled nature. It is more suited to the thought of the wrath of God and in fact is almost always the word used for this wrath.⁵⁸ In the present passage there is no great difference in meaning; the two words reinforce one another and give emphasis to the thought. When they come together they may be set side by side as passions Christians should avoid (Col. 3:8); or they may occur in parallel clauses (Rev. 14:10); there may also be a genitive relation, “the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19; 19:15). Thus the expression used here has no real parallel. The linking of the two words gives emphasis to the reality of the wrath that will be poured out on sinners.

9. Paul rushes on with no proper connective. He is not bothered by grammatical niceties; great thoughts come pouring out with scant regard for syntax. Trouble⁵⁹ is a strong word, with a meaning like pressure to the point of breaking; it is thus used of dire calamity. Distress⁶⁰ is not nearly as common a word. It conveys the idea of being cramped for lack of space, and thus of extreme affliction.⁶¹ The combination (found again in 8:35; 2 Cor. 6:4) adds up to rather severe trouble, and this Paul tells us is for every human being⁶² who does evil. The universality of this punishment is further brought out with first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. The word Jew occurs first in 2 Kings 16:6. Strictly it means a member of the tribe of Judah, but it came to be used of all Israelites. They clearly accepted it gladly and took pride in it (v. 17). The meaning is connected with praise (cf. v. 29). In the New Testament the word has a curious distribution. It is used 79 times in Acts and 71 times in John, apart from which Romans with 11 instances uses it more than any other book. Paul has an interest in the Jews (all told he uses the word 26 times),⁶³ and it certainly comes out in this epistle. In view of the Jewish expectation that it was the Gentiles who would be judged by God, while they themselves would escape, it is noteworthy that Paul sees the Jew as the first recipient of judgment. This accords with the teaching of the Old Testament (e.g., Jer. 25:29; Amos 3:2).⁶⁴ But first-century Judaism did not find this strand of Old Testament teaching congenial and neglected it. The combination of Jew and “Greek”⁶⁵ here embraces the whole of mankind, for “Greek” is used in the sense Gentile (as NIV). It may perhaps put some stress on culture, for “Greek” could denote the cultured as against the uncultured (cf. 1:14). If Paul has this in mind he will be hinting that people, even at their cultural best, do not naturally belong to the people of God, and, further, that no matter how cultured they are, they stand under judgment.

10. Once again but introduces a contrast. Paul is turning from those who do evil to those who are right with God. For glory and honor see the notes on verse 7, and for peace see on 1:7. The combination points to a totality of bliss and blessing. Perhaps the first two refer mainly to what is outward and stress status, whereas peace is more the inward state, though the external relationship of peace with God will not be out of mind. As with the troubles of the previous verse, the blessings of this verse are not restricted, as is brought out in their application to both Jew and Greek.⁶⁶

11. God’s judgment is impartial. The word translated favoritism⁶⁷ has so far been found only in Christian writers and does not occur before the New Testament; it is apparently a Christian coinage. It is made up of two words meaning “to receive” and “face”. It thus signifies giving someone a gracious reception, but in the New Testament it is always used in the bad sense of showing partiality or preferring someone without good reason. In the ancient world it was far from axiomatic that justice would be done in the law courts. In fact the opposite would be expected. Why would anyone think that a judge would treat a rich and important person in the same way as a poor and insignificant person? There are many exhortations to just judgment in the Old Testament; for example, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly” (Lev. 19:15). It is this kind of evenhanded justice that Paul ascribes to God. He will not weight things in favor of the rich or the poor. Nor will he favor any one nation, be that nation Jew or Greek. In the end we can rely on the fact that justice will be done. And for the sinful that is very frightening.

12. Paul now proceeds to show that it does not matter greatly whether people have received the law in a formal sense or not: all are under condemnation. The Gentile, it is true, cannot be accused of breaking the law, for he does not have the law. But when he does the right, as he sometimes does, this shows that he in fact knows what right is. He may not have the law, but his conduct shows that what the law requires is written in his heart. He is guilty when he does wrong. The Jew cannot claim that he will automatically be saved because God has given him the law: he has not kept it! Nor can the Gentile automatically be saved because he never had the law and so did not break it: he sinned against the light he had. People are judged according to the light they have, not according to the light they do not have.⁶⁸ So all are caught up in final condemnation.

Paul first sets forth in general terms the point of the paragraph: those who sin⁶⁹ suffer the consequences, whether they know the law or not. Apart from the law renders an adverb that is found twice in this verse and nowhere else in the New Testament.⁷⁰ In the classics it appears to have the meaning “impiously”, but here the meaning is clearly “without having the law”. Paul is speaking of people outside Israel who do not know the law that God has revealed to his ancient people. These, he says, will also perish apart from the law. He does not explain what he means by perish, but this verb is used at times for the ultimate fate of the wicked (e.g., John 3:16; 1 Cor. 1:18). It signifies eternal loss without defining that loss. We should not, of course, take perishing as an exact description of the final fate of the impenitent and conclude that they simply cease to exist. Their fate is spoken of elsewhere in terms of “hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’ ” (Mark 9:47–48). It is described as the darkness outside (Matt. 8:12) and in many other ways. The New Testament does not tell us how the same reality can be described by such different pieces of imagery, but it warns us that the fate of the finally impenitent is a horrible one.

When Paul speaks of those who sin under the law⁷¹ (see Additional Note C), it is clear that the law in mind is the law of Moses. The Gentiles are not under this law, but the Jews are. The mere possession of the law does not mean eternal security (as some Jews thought). Law means judgment. Because they have the law and know what God demands in the law, they will be judged by the law (cf. Acts 7:53). Paul’s Greek means “through (the) law”.⁷² He is not saying that the law itself judges, and his “through” points to the truth that God is the Judge. The law is the means God uses; it is his instrument to direct those to whom he has given it. It is not a charm guaranteeing salvation. On the contrary, it means condemnation for those who have it and do not obey it.

In this verse we see clearly that all will be judged according to their response to the revelation God has given them. The Gentiles have not been given the law. Therefore they will not be judged by the law. They will be judged by the light they have, and, because they have not acted in accordance with that light (as Paul has shown in ch. 1), this means that they will be condemned. The Jews have the law. They were tempted to say, “even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy power” (Wis. 15:2). Paul reasons differently. They have not kept the law God has given them; therefore that power of God which they valued so highly will be exercised for their condemnation. People will be condemned, not because they have the law or do not have the law, but because they have sinned.

13. For ties this in with the preceding and explains it. Those who hear the law⁷³ reminds us of the circumstances of the day. People did not normally read for themselves (the scribe was a member of a skilled profession). They heard it read. For righteous see the note on 1:17. It means the state of being “right” with God, of being acquitted when tried by him. The hearing of the law is not enough to bring this about; it is those who obey the law who are accepted (cf. Lev. 18:5). The expression is more exactly “the doers of the law” (AV, NASV). The word “doers” is not common; in fact Paul uses it only here (James has it on four of its six occurrences; cf. Jas. 1:22–25 for the importance of “doing”). When he says that doing the law matters much more than hearing it, Paul is stating a position often put forward by Pharisaic teachers. tells us that Eleazar of Galilee said to Izates (a convert to Judaism who became king of Adiabene in A.D. 31), “you ought not merely to read the law but also, and even more, to do what is commanded in it” (Ant. xx.24). Similarly the Mishnah cites a saying of Simeon, son of Rabban Gamaliel (under whom Paul studied, Acts 22:3): “not the expounding (of the Law) is the chief thing but the doing (of it); and he that multiplies words occasions sin” (Ab. 1:17).⁷⁴ But there seems to have been some dispute, at any rate in the early second century, and sometimes hearing was regarded as most important. Thus Eleazar of Modiim said, “ ‘If you will hear’ (Exod. 15:26) is the most universal rule (the fundamental principle), in which the (whole) Law is contained.”⁷⁵ Such a position must have had its attractions. But actions speak louder than words, and Paul is making it clear that the Jew cannot plead his privileged position. If he is relying on the law as his way of salvation, then his concern must be with keeping the law, not preening himself on the fact that he possesses it; even hearing it constantly will not do. Paul is not saying that people are saved by law-keeping. He is laying down the principle from the standpoint of law. Where the law is concerned, deeds, and deeds only, matter.⁷⁶ For declared righteous (= “justified”) see Additional Note D.

14. NIV makes a parenthesis of vv. 14–15, and many others as well hold that these verses are an aside. But it seems better to take them as a continuation of the argument. The word “for” (which NIV renders Indeed and JB “For instance”) ties the following words into the argument. Paul has just shown that for the Jew it is not a matter of hearing the law but of doing it. What then of the Gentiles who do not have the law?⁷⁷ Paul proceeds to show that they know enough about what is right for them to be judged by the same general principle, if not the same precise law.

When is more exactly “whenever”.⁷⁸ Gentiles do not always do what is right, but sometimes they do. Gentiles really brings us to one of Paul’s deep interests. As we saw in 1:5 (where see note), he uses the term in one third of all its New Testament occurrences, and he uses it especially often in Romans times). The word is always plural in Paul (except in two quotations from LXX, both in 10:19), and most frequently it has the article,⁷⁹ but here it lacks it. As he is thus departing from his custom of seeing the Gentiles as a definite group, we must take this as significant. It is not the Gentiles as a whole that Paul has in mind here, but people who have the quality of being Gentiles. Hodge denies that the form without the article means here “some Gentiles”. It includes them all, for “Men generally, not some men, but all men, show by their acts that they have a knowledge of right and wrong.” We should probably deduce this also from the absence of the article with law. While the reference is to the law of Moses, it is its quality as law, and not this particular law as distinct from all other law, on which the emphasis falls. Doing by nature⁸⁰ things required by the law⁸¹ refers to those occasions when a Gentile does something that is also prescribed in the law. Thus he may honor his parents or refrain from stealing.⁸² He does these things by nature (i.e., “by native instinct or propension, by spontaneous impulse as distinguished from what is induced by forces extraneous to ourselves”, Murray), not because he is trying to obey the divinely given law. He cannot. He does not know it. Many commentators point out that this is not unlike “the unwritten law” mentioned by many pagan authors. They think of something within people that points them to the right way, though it is not embodied in written statutes, and often see that something as more important than any written code. Paul’s point is that the Gentile knows enough to know that this is the kind of thing he ought to do. He is not consciously fulfilling the law, but nevertheless he is keeping some of the law’s provisions (some only, for his thoughts still “accuse” him, v. 15). Paul does not say that he has a law of his own; in fact, twice he says that he does not have a law. He says that he is a law in himself, or perhaps for himself or to himself.⁸³ As Barrett puts it, “The fact is that the Gentile is not really outside the sphere of law, though he is of course outside the sphere of the law of Moses.”⁸⁴ We see the sort of thing Paul has in mind in the words of Peter in the house of Cornelius, “God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34–35).⁸⁵ The Gentile does not have the law revealed in the Old Testament, but his conduct shows that he knows right from wrong. God is at work in him. He knows enough of “law” to be guilty when he sins, even though he may not know the God who prescribes right conduct, or even that there is a God who prescribes it.⁸⁶ Manson comments, “If they are loyal to the good they know, they will be acceptable to God; but it is a very big ‘if’.”

15. Since⁸⁷ ties the words that follow to the preceding, and show⁸⁸ points to a continuing reality. The expression translated the requirements of the law is more exactly “the work of the law” (KJV), an unusual expression found here only in the New Testament (though the plural, “works of law”, occurs in 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16 [ter]; 3:2, 5, 10, and the reverse, “law of works”, in 3:27). NIV gives the sense of it. The singular “work” may hint at the unity of the law—it is not a haphazard series of unrelated regulations; but perhaps this is reading too much into it. Though they are not trying to obey God’s revealed law, Gentiles at times do the thing the law requires. And this, Paul says, is written on their hearts (cf. Jer. 31:33; 2 Cor. 3:3). There seems to be a mixture of two constructions here; Paul is saying two things at once: these people manifest the work of the law (they do what the law requires), and second they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts (they act out of a deep-seated conviction that such-and-such things are right). He is not saying that the law is written on their hearts,⁸⁹ as people often say, but that “the work of the law”, what the law requires of people, is written there. Theodoret pointed to Joseph’s brothers and to Abimelech (Gen. 20:4–5) as people who gave evidence of knowing right and wrong and who lived long before the giving of the law by Moses.

Their consciences also bearing witness (cf. 9:1). Conscience is not an Old Testament concept; it is one of the few Pauline concepts that are Greek rather than Jewish (though Leenhardt does not agree; he says, “the Pauline conscience is a ripe fruit of the Israelite ethic”).⁹⁰ The word translated “consciences” can have any one of a number of meanings. It sometimes refers to consciousness, as in “consciousness of sin” (Heb. 10:2, see RSV). Or it can denote moral consciousness or conscience. Sometimes it means “conscientiousness”, but this does not seem to occur in the New Testament (it is found in the late papyri; see BAGD). Here the meaning is “conscience”, but this must be properly understood.⁹¹ V. P. Furnish notes the opinion of M. Enslin that the term always looks back on completed acts, and that of W. D. Davies that it sometimes has a future reference. He himself thinks that Paul “never establishes conscience as a firm principle or guide for moral action. Its chief function is to evaluate actions (e.g. Rom. 2:15; I Cor. 8:7ff.; 10:25ff.) or persons (e.g. Rom. 9:1; II Cor. 4:2; 5:11), not to identify and define ‘the good’ or ‘God’s will’ either abstractly or concretely. Conscience has a strictly limited and provisional place in the Christian’s life.”⁹²This should be pondered in an age like ours when the conscience of the individual is often elevated to the supreme place and almost any course of action becomes permissible on the grounds that it does not offend one’s conscience. No one, of course, argues that conscience may be ignored. If a prospective course of action troubles one’s conscience, then it should not be pursued. But if we are looking for the proper line of conduct, we should notice that in the Bible it is the revelation God has made that is to be our guide, not any subjective process. A conscience may be oversensitive (1 Cor. 10:25) or not sensitive enough (1 Tim. 4:2); it pronounces on other people’s activities (2 Cor. 4:2; 5:11) as well as one’s own (2 Cor. 1:12). Certainly here Paul is using the term for passing judgment on actions already committed, not as expressing a preference for actions yet to be performed.⁹³

Bearing witness translates a Greek word meaning “bearing witness with”, but Paul does not add what it is with which conscience is in accord. It may well be the law of which he has just spoken (so Barrett), or the good life (Hodge), or the “heart” (Leenhardt).⁹⁴ In general it seems either that Paul is using the verb in the sense “witness” (“with” simply strengthening the idea),⁹⁵ or that he is linking conscience with the act that shows that the work of the law is written on people’s hearts. Both form evidence that the Gentile has no excuse when he does wrong. And Paul proceeds to a third witness.

There is a problem, for some hold that we should understand the apostle to refer to “conflicting thoughts” (RSV), a process that takes place within the individual, others that we should see the meaning as, “their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” (KJV),⁹⁶ a process involving other people. The context favors RSV, for Paul is not speaking of the way we regard or should regard our neighbor; he is speaking of the way a person’s thoughts back up the witness of his better actions and his conscience in pointing to what is right. It does this whether these thoughts accuse or excuse him. Leenhardt comments, “This dialogue which man conducts with himself, this debate in which he is in turn the accuser and the defender of himself, shows that, for the appreciation of his conduct, he has at his disposition some objective term of reference, something in fact which God has ingrained in his heart and to which his conscience brings a subjective confirmation”.⁹⁷ The verbs Paul uses, accusing and defending, are both legal terms, used for bringing charges in court and for offering a defence in court. Paul is fond of imagery from the law courts, though here this cannot be pressed. He is simply pointing out that those who have no law nevertheless have convictions about what they do. Their thoughts about their actions sometimes take the form of severe accusation and sometimes of acquittal.

The Gentile, though he lacks the divinely given law that was so important for the Jew, is not without guidance: “there are criteria for a person which he himself has not set” (Käsemann, p. 66). His upright actions show that deep down in his heart there is that which points to the right. His conscience bears witness to him of his past acts. And there are his conflicting thoughts. Often they accuse him, sometimes they excuse⁹⁸ him, but all the time they form a witness to right and wrong. This threefold witness shows quite clearly that the Gentile has all he needs to guide him along the right way and to leave him without excuse when he does the wrong. He cannot say: “I did not have the law, and therefore I did not know what was right.”

16. The day is the Day of Judgment. Paul does not use this name, but he describes the day with reference to its function. Most interpreters connect this rather closely with verse 13 and take verses 14–15 as a parenthesis (as NIV does); KJV makes the parenthesis verses 13–15. O’Neill removes verses 14–15 as a marginal gloss. Moffatt puts verse 16 before verse 14, as does Barclay. As one can see, there is a good deal of confusion among expositors. At the same time there is a tendency to overlook the fact that we must not always expect perfect connections in a lengthy piece of dictated matter. Perhaps we would have expressed it otherwise, but the connection is there. Parry, for example, regards verses 14–15 as “strictly necessary to the argument”, and Black can say, “there is no justification for detaching the clause from its present place” (he rejects Moffatt’s suggestion). The connection between verses 15 and 16 is in fact quite a good one. Whatever their conscience may do in the meantime, it will certainly be a witness against sinners on Judgment Day. The strong eschatological note runs through the whole section.

The connection of judgment with the gospel should not be overlooked.⁹⁹ We are apt to set the two in opposition to one another and to think that the one excludes the other. But the gospel does not preclude the thought of judgment. Indeed, it demands it. Unless judgment is a stern reality, there is nothing from which sinners need to be saved and accordingly no “good news”, no gospel (for gospel see the note on 1:1). Paul speaks here of my gospel (as in 16:25). He has appropriated it and made it his own. He does not mean that he thought it up or that it belongs to him in any special way or that there is some peculiarity in the way he sets it forth.¹⁰⁰ He means that he knows it really and not theoretically. He espouses it wholeheartedly and not formally. To preach the gospel effectually it is necessary to make it one’s own.

It is God who will judge. The verb may be a present (as RSV) or a future (as NIV),¹⁰¹ but the meaning will be the same. Paul is not speaking of judgment as a present activity but of the judgment that will take place at the end of the age; if his verb is present, that is for greater vividness. Men’s secrets reminds us of the searching nature of that judgment. Nothing can be kept hidden on that day. It is this that makes it so serious. We may present a respectable front to the world so that people do not know about the things of which we are ashamed. If those things could remain hidden we would fare so much better in any judgment. But they cannot remain hidden at the end. God will judge all things, hidden from men or not. This judgment will be done through Jesus Christ (cf. John 5:27; Acts 17:31). This is the distinctive Christian teaching about judgment. The Jews taught that in the end God alone would judge the world; he would commit judgment to no one, not even the Messiah. When the Christians taught that God would judge through Jesus the Messiah, they were introducing a new teaching (cf. John 5:22).¹⁰² In one sense it mitigates the judgment. Our Judge will be the one who died for us, so we could not look for anyone more predisposed in our favor. All that can be done for sinners he will certainly do. But this adds a note of solemnity to the judgment. Since he has done so much for us, we cannot expect to get by with a shabby attainment, a half-hearted attitude to the duties we have shirked.

3. The Jew, 2:17–3:8

As we have seen, Paul appears to have the Jew basically in mind from the beginning of this chapter. But some of what he has said refers to the Gentile and some is perfectly general, which leads some scholars to conclude that Paul is not thinking about the Jew in that section. But there can be no doubt about what he says from this point on. He names the Jew explicitly, and the way he writes about circumcision and the like makes it plain that he is talking about the Jew. He emphasizes that to be a member of a chosen race is to have a position of responsibility, not simply of privilege. One must not only know the right but do it.¹⁰³

a. The Jew’s confidence, 2:17–20

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—…

The apostle begins this section with an enumeration of those things on which the Jew typically prided himself, and which he thought gave him superiority over the Gentile.¹⁰⁴

17. Paul’s if¹⁰⁵ throws no doubt on the proposition.¹⁰⁶ The construction implies the truth of what is supposed. Then he reverts to the construction he has already used in verse 1 (where see note) whereby an imaginary opponent is addressed for the sake of greater vividness. For Jew see the note on verse 9. Call yourself is probably the right way to translate the verb, though some see it as passive (cf. KJV, “art called a Jew”). But NIV is probably correct; it is the claim of the Jew, not the way others look at him, that is in mind (cf. Rev. 2:9; 3:9). The verb incidentally is found here only in the New Testament. The following verb, rely on, is also unusual, being found elsewhere in the New Testament only once (Luke 10:6). It conveys the notion of “rest upon”, which aptly characterizes the attitude of the Jew to the law. It was the basis of all his hopes, for he did not see the law as his accuser (cf. John 5:45). For him it was the most signal mark of God’s favor to the nation.

The verb brag is a favorite word of Paul’s.¹⁰⁷ Sometimes it has a meaning like “rejoice”, but typically it signifies “boast”, as here. The Jew thought of one God and of that one God as having a special regard for this one nation among men, so he took pride in that God. “Boast” does not here have the meaning of a vainglorious but empty utterance; rather, it conveys the notion of a deeply felt pride, almost legitimate. The form of expression is “boast in God”, rather than about your relationship to God. Paul is not referring to relationship to God, but to God himself; cf. NEB, “are proud of your God”.¹⁰⁸ The Jew thought he knew God and exulted in the thought (cf. Jer. 9:24; Mic. 3:11).¹⁰⁹ His boast was in the God whom he knew and whom he thought nobody else knew. But he did not take sufficiently into consideration the character of God: God is the Judge, the Judge of Jew as well as of Gentile (cf. Hos. 12:2; Amos 3:2, etc.).

18. The Greek says simply “know the will”, but no doubt NIV is right with know his will. The will of God is so central for Paul that when he says simply “the” will, it can be only the divine will.¹¹⁰ He is very interested in God’s will and the way it works out in this world. Notice that he does not say only that the Jew claims to know the will, but that he actually does know it. In that, of course, is his high privilege (and his severe condemnation when he fails to act on it).

The word translated approve (see on 1:28, where it is translated “think worthwhile”) basically means “to test”. But it is to test with a view to approving, and thus the word acquires the secondary meaning “to approve”. There is a similar ambiguity about what is superior. This translates a participle from a verb¹¹¹ which means first “to differ”, and then (since when things differ one is better than another, a usage we have in English when we speak of “someone who is different”) “to excel”. The total expression then might mean “You test out the things that differ”,¹¹² in which case Paul would be saying that the Jew does not take things at face value but tests them to see what is right. This is possible, but it seems more likely that we should accept the meaning “approve what is excellent” (RSV; cf. Phil. 1:10).¹¹³ It is more probable that the Jew would pride himself on giving approval to what is really excellent than simply on knowing right from wrong. And this is more likely to follow know his will than a reference to expertise in casuistry.

The verb instructed¹¹⁴ strictly means “instructed orally”, “instructed by word of mouth”, though there is no emphasis here on the manner of the teaching. Yet we should remember that teaching at that time was normally done orally. The teacher spoke what had to be learned, and the class echoed it until it had learned it. More important than the method was the subject matter, and Paul goes on to tell us that this was the law. We make a distinction between worship and education, but it is worth bearing in mind that the synagogue was both a school and a place of worship. And the law was both the center of education and the heart of worship.

19. From the way the Jew sees himself over against God Paul turns to his attitude to people of other races than his own, an attitude of certainty regarding his inherent rightness: Paul says, you are convinced.¹¹⁵ This is the apostle’s one use of the term guide, and also of blind¹¹⁶ (this latter term is fairly common in the New Testament; for the combination cf. Matt. 15:14; 23:16, 24). He maintains, then, that the Jew sees his position as one of superiority. All other people are blind, and he, the sighted one, is their guide. There is, of course, an important truth in this. The Servant was to be “a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind” (Isa. 42:6–7; cf. Isa. 9:2; 49:6; 60:3), and in part, at any rate, this sets before us the role that Israel should perform. To this nation was given the revelation that was to teach all mankind about God. That revelation was never meant to be the private treasure of one nation, which it could withhold from all others. Israel was to bring the light of God into the world’s darkness; it was to share its revelation with the multitudes that did not have it.¹¹⁷ But this could be done only in a spirit of humility, always bearing in mind that the Jew who had received the revelation would have been just as much in the dark as any Gentile, were it not for what God had done. There should accordingly be exultation in what God had done, not in the Jew’s privileged position. The trouble with assuming that one is a guide to others is that it so easily leads to the assumption that one is naturally superior to them. But the Jew had no natural superiority, and Paul complains accordingly.

A light for those who are in the dark makes essentially the same point, but the imagery is more congenial to Paul than that in the previous expression (he uses light 13 times and darkness 11 times). He now sees the Jew as proud of the fact that he lives in the light while Gentiles inhabit darkness. The Jew does not take account of the fact that the light is not of his making. It is the gift of God, and should therefore be received with gratitude and humility.

20. The instructor disciplines and corrects as well as teaches, and the term not uncommonly has the idea of correction or discipline (as in Heb. 12:9, its only other New Testament occurrence). Here, however, Paul has instruction in mind. The foolish strictly are the unintelligent (NEB, “stupid”), those lacking the ability to think things out. But clearly Paul is not contrasting the Jew with the Gentile as the intelligent over against the unintelligent. The thought is rather that of perception in spiritual things (Phillips, “You can instruct those who have no spiritual wisdom”).¹¹⁸

Paul uses the word teacher here only in Romans (and six times elsewhere). It is, of course, most common in the Gospels. Infants is more Pauline (ten times out of 14 in the New Testament). Strictly it denotes very little children, babies, or infants (cf. Matt. 21:16). But it is also used metaphorically of those who have little knowledge of the subject being discussed. Paul uses it of those who are “babies in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1; cf. Eph. 4:14; Heb. 5:13). It may be used in a good sense (as of those unspoiled by sophistry, Matt. 11:25). But it is also used quite often of the immature, and that will be the sense of it here.¹¹⁹ Since he had the treasure of the law, the Jew saw himself as the teacher of the immature Gentiles, people with no knowledge of the living God.

Paul goes on to what it means to have the law.¹²⁰ Embodiment is a good translation of an uncommon Greek word.¹²¹ It refers to the outward, but to the outward as giving expression to the inward rather than the merely outward that contrasts with the inward. Knowledge is another of Paul’s characteristic words (he has it 23 times out of its 29 New Testament occurrences). It can be used of specific knowledge such as that of the Christians. At a later time it became a technical word for the “knowledge” of the Gnostics (who, indeed, derived their name from this word, gnōsis). Here, however, it does not appear to be used in any technical sense; it is the general sense that is meant, though with some relationship to the law. For law see Additional Note C, and for truth Additional Note B. Paul is not speaking of one form of knowledge among many, one piece of truth among the rich deposits of truth in the world.¹²² It was the pride of the Jew that in the law he had the very embodiment of fundamental knowledge and truth (Phillips, “the basis of true knowledge”). The Jew saw himself not as having produced yet another form of knowledge and truth which might compete with the various philosophies of the day. He saw himself as standing before the world holding in the book of the law that truth which is God’s truth, the knowledge which God himself has made known. His place was thus supreme.¹²³ Paul is not disagreeing. He saw the advantage of the Jew as a very real one (3:2). It is a priceless privilege to be the recipient of God’s revelation.

b. The Jew’s failure, 2:21–24

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.”^a

There is a considerable measure of truth in the position taken up by Paul’s Jew.¹²⁴ In the law he did have a revelation from God, a special treasure, rightly to be valued above all earthly possessions. But for this treasure to be of any value it had to be used rightly. Paul now comes to the point that the Jew has not done this.¹²⁵ In a series of biting questions the apostle makes it plain that at point after point the Jew has failed to live up to the teaching of the law. Instead of being humble at the condescension of God and seeking to show his gratitude by living in accordance with the precepts contained in the revelation, the Jew gloried in his position of spiritual privilege and displayed a totally unwarranted spiritual pride. He did not realize that in his conduct he was denying the teaching of the law on which he prided himself and causing the name of the great God he worshipped to be blasphemed by the heathen.¹²⁶

21. Paul breaks off his construction. His “if” of verse 17 is not followed up in strict grammatical sequence.¹²⁷ Clearly Paul feels deeply about this matter, and he is not concerned to express himself in the tidy way the grammarians would wish. He begins with a general question. The Jew has a place as a teacher¹²⁸ of the nations, as Paul has just pointed out. Now he asks whether the teacher teaches¹²⁹ himself (cf. Matt. 23:1–3). RSV makes the question a future (or an exercise of the will), but Paul uses the present tense. Phillips brings out the sense of it: “But, prepared as you are to instruct others, do you ever teach yourself anything?” The verb preach¹³⁰ is perhaps unexpected in this context. The term applied originally to the proclamation of a herald (cf. Rev. 5:2), and it came to be used of public proclamation in general. Since the herald did not originate the message, but simply proclaimed authoritatively what had been given him to say, the word was a very suitable one for the proclamation of the gospel and is normally used in this way in the New Testament. The object of the preaching that Paul singles out is that a person should not steal. The verb¹³¹ properly denotes the activity of a sneak thief (rather than, say, a bandit), but here the thought is that of dishonesty generally. It is easy to preach honesty to other people, but not nearly so easy to be scrupulously honest in all one’s own dealings. We are always tempted to grade honesties. And by a strange coincidence our own dishonesties have a way of coming out as the minor ones, while those of other people are serious.

22. Paul changes his verb to say, but the essential meaning is the same. Adultery¹³² was widely practised in the ancient world and in many places was taken as quite normal (i.e., for a man; with a curious lack of logic it was reprobated in a woman). The Jews had a higher standard than the Gentile world in this respect, but were far from blameless (cf. Ps. 50:18).¹³³

The Jews were known for their abhorrence¹³⁴ of idols. They prided themselves on their monotheism, and it was a major plank in their religious platform that they totally rejected all idols. But Paul can ask whether their practice was all that it should be. He does not speak of worshipping idols, for Jews would not do that. But they might profit from idols; they might rob temples.¹³⁵ This may be meant to be understood of pecuniary profit. It would not be easy for a Jew literally and physically to rob a temple, though some see this as the meaning. Thus Parry says, “The charge seems to be that, though they regard idols as ‘abominable’ things, they do not hesitate to make pecuniary advantages out of robbing temples”. But the tractate Abodah Zarah, both in the Mishnah and the Talmud, has a good deal to say about Israelites and idols, and, for example, speaks of an Israelite as taking an idol and selling it to a Gentile (53b). The Israelite would profit and the Gentile would worship the idol. In such ways a Jew might profit from promoting idolatry even though he himself did not make or worship the idol.¹³⁶ The town clerk at Ephesus thought that “robbing temples” was an accusation that might well be brought against a Jew, and he says that Paul and his companions have not been guilty of it (Acts 19:37). Clearly some people held that a Jew might well make profits from dishonest practices connected with idolatry, and Paul may well have had this in mind.¹³⁷

But some scholars think that we should see the meaning in a radical approach to the commandments like that found in the teaching of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 5:21–48). On this view Paul is not referring to a literal robbing of temples, but to the withholding of what is due to God (cf. Mal. 3:8), what Hodge calls “profanation, the irreverent disregard of God and holy things”. To rob God of his due is to act sacrilegiously. When we take seriously what God demands of us, we see that we are sinners all. Paul is saying, then, that the Jews were in their own way sacrilegious.¹³⁸ Since both ways of understanding the verse have supporters, I see no way of deciding the point. We must keep both possibilities in mind.

23. Now Paul points to inconsistency at the heart of the Jewish way, the practice of the law.¹³⁹ Paul has spoken about the Jewish boast in God (v. 17); now he refers to boasting in¹⁴⁰ God’s supreme revelation, the law. But, as he has been insisting, it is one thing to have the law and quite another to keep it. As the law was God’s supreme gift, to break the law is to dishonor God. The Jew held that he alone of all people had the right attitude to the one God, so this accusation hits at the heart of his religious understanding. Whatever else he did or did not do, he would have held that he gave God the place of highest honor. Paul maintains that his practice denies his profession.

24. Paul proves¹⁴¹ his accusation with a quotation (which seems to be from Isa. 52:5, though it also resembles Ezek. 36:20, 23).¹⁴² The accusation is made the more serious by this demonstration that it has scriptural support. For name see the note on 1:5; it stands for the whole person. The verb “blaspheme” may be used of defaming people (3:8), but more usually and more seriously it is used of a wrong attitude to God, as here. For Gentiles see the note on 1:5. Israel should have been the source of blessing to the Gentiles, bringing them to praise God. Instead, Israel caused them to blaspheme.¹⁴³

How accurate was Paul in making such a charge? Barrett thinks that Jewish living as well as Jewish monotheism impressed the Gentiles. He sees the point of Paul’s charge in the fact that “there is no man who is not guilty” of theft, adultery, and sacrilege when these are “strictly and radically understood” (cf. for theft Mal. 3:8–9, and for adultery Hos. 1–3; Jer. 3:8). The other point of view is put by Dodd, who says that charges “are startling, but Paul would have stultified himself by making them if they had no ground…. There is in Paul’s words an added tone of bitter indignation—the indignation of the high-minded Jew who moved about among the great cities of the pagan world and found the very name of Jew made a byword by the evil ways of its bearers”. Gifford points out that Paul does not say that the Jews’ sins were more flagrant then than at other times or than those of other nations, only that they were flagrant.¹⁴⁴

The apostle ends with his usual formula when quoting Scripture, As it is written. NIV has moved it to precede the quotation, which is its normal position; indeed, this appears to be the only place where Paul has it after the quotation. The reason for this is not clear.¹⁴⁵

c. The inward and the outward, 2:25–29

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^a 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.

Circumcision, the sign of admission to the covenant (Gen. 17:9–14), was regarded by the Jews as having the utmost importance. It was unthinkable that a man, duly circumcised and admitted to the covenant, should fail of his salvation. Paul now takes this central ceremony and points out that it is completely ineffective if the spiritual state to which it points is not a reality. The inward is more important than the outward.

25. Circumcision¹⁴⁶ may mean the act of circumcising, the state of being circumcised, or those who have been circumcised. The word may also be used metaphorically to denote those in a right relationship to God (Phil. 3:3; cf. Gal. 6:15). Here the physical act is in mind. Paul sees circumcision as profitable, but only if the law is kept (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:3). It admitted to membership of the covenant people, but this is of no avail unless one lives as a member of that covenant people. Theodoret likens circumcision to a seal, and points out that the use of the seal depends on having something valuable to seal: “When we have gold, silver, precious stone, or expensive clothing, we usually attach seals, but when none of these is stored within, the attaching of seals is superfluous.”¹⁴⁷ Paul’s “if” construction is quite general; it implies nothing as to the fulfilment or nonfulfilment of the condition.¹⁴⁸ The rabbis attached great value to circumcision and made many statements like this one of R. Levi: “In the Hereafter Abraham will sit at the entrance to Gehenna, and permit no circumcised Israelite to descend therein” (Gen. Rab. 48:8).¹⁴⁹ Paul’s view is in sharp contradiction: for the circumcised to break the law¹⁵⁰ is for them to become uncircumcised.¹⁵¹ He does not attach saving value to the physical act. He looks for obedience to the revealed will of God, not simply the acceptance of a privileged position. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that circumcision did not originate with Israel nor end there. The Egyptians, for example, practised it, and Ishmael was circumcised (Gen. 17:23). It was membership in the covenant of which circumcision was the sign that mattered. And covenant membership meant keeping the covenant. Without that, even the circumcised Israelite had no standing with God. Many commentators point out that Christian readers should remember that what is said here of circumcision applies with equal force to baptism.

26. Now we have the other side of the coin. If the circumcised can by their deeds become effectually uncircumcised, is not the reverse process just as possible?¹⁵² Those who are not circumcised (actually Paul says “the uncircumcision”) may keep¹⁵³ the law’s requirements.¹⁵⁴ He is not, of course, advocating salvation by works and saying that those outside Israel may live such good lives that they merit salvation. The law is God’s revealed will; it points to the way in which God would have people go, and this way is the way of trusting him, as the fuller revelation in the gospel makes so plain. The Gentile, despite his lack of the law, may respond to what God has made known to him, and this, for Paul, is the real circumcision. To respond with love and faith is to possess all that circumcision means (cf. Col. 2:11).¹⁵⁵ Murray follows Godet in seeing a reference to Gentile Christians. This may be the correct way to understand it, but it seems that Paul’s words are wide enough to include people like Cornelius (Acts 10:34–35). See the notes on verses 7 and 14 above.

27. NIV makes this a statement (as do RSV, NEB, JB, Gifford, SH, etc.), but others see the words as a question (KJV, ARV, Moffatt, Godet, etc.). The Greek is capable of either meaning; Paul’s “and” (which NIV omits and RSV renders with “Then”) may carry on the question, or it may introduce the conclusion. If it is a question it is rhetorical and the answer is not in doubt. The people he has described in verse 26 are a standing condemnation of those in verse 25. It is not the one who is not circumcised physically¹⁵⁶ as such, but the one who in addition obeys the law who brings about the condemnation. The verb rendered obeys¹⁵⁷ may be used here in something like its strict sense, “bring to its appointed end”.¹⁵⁸ The uncircumcised man that Paul has in mind trusts God and obeys him, which is what the law is all about. Paul’s you keeps up the personal address to the Jew. He will not let him evade the point. The Greek has the forceful expression, “you, the transgressor through letter and circumcision”. Paul is saying that the Jew, for all his possession of the letter of the law and the physical act of circumcision,¹⁵⁹ cannot be described as anything other than “the transgressor”. He is guilty before God. The “letter”¹⁶⁰ is “the literally correct form of the law” (BAGD); we might say it is the physical and external form of the law, just as circumcision is the physical and external form of covenant membership. Paul is emphasizing that the physical and external (on which it was so easy for the Jew to rely) is not enough. The man who lacks the written law and has never received physical circumcision but who acts in accordance with the spirit of the law will by that fact stand in judgment¹⁶¹ on those privileged members of the circumcised group who for all their privileges transgress before God (cf. Matt. 12:41–42).

28. Parry’s comment hits the mark: “The grammar is ambiguous, but the sense is clear.” Since Paul is using an elliptical construction, we can fill in the gaps in more ways than one. We can take the words to mean “For not the Jew in what is outward is (the Jew)”, or “For not he who is outwardly (a Jew) is a Jew”; there is a similar ambiguity about the reference to circumcision. But, though we cannot be sure where we should supply the missing words, the meaning is not in doubt. Paul is saying that it is not the outward but the inward that matters, and this whether we are talking about being a Jew or about circumcision. Outwardly¹⁶² translates an expression that points to what is in the public domain, what is open and visible and thus known widely. Outward has a similar meaning, but physical is rather “in the flesh”.¹⁶³ But the important thing is not there. It is in that which is inward and thus not open to public inspection.

29. No is really “But”, the justification for NIV being that the strong adversative is used.¹⁶⁴ Paul is setting forth the opposite and doing so emphatically. The essence of being a Jew is that which is inward, and so with circumcision, which in this context means much the same as being a Jew (cf. Gal. 6:15–16; Phil. 3:3). Of the heart points to the inward and recalls some Old Testament passages (e.g., Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25–26; Ezek. 44:7; cf. also Acts 7:51). Then comes a contrast between “spirit” (which it is) and “letter” (which it is not). There is a difference of opinion whether we should understand a reference to the Holy Spirit (as NIV)¹⁶⁵ or in some such way as RSV, “spiritual and not literal”.¹⁶⁶ That is to say, Paul’s contrast may be between the Jew’s strict adherence to the letter of the law and the action of the Holy Spirit which takes place within a person, or it may be between the outward and the inward. Possibly there is more to be said for a reference to the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6). Either way gives a good sense. And either way Paul is making the point that there can be a scrupulous conformity to the outward requirements of the law which completely misses the point. He goes on to say that the person¹⁶⁷ who is in the right gets praise not from men (cf. Matt. 23:5; John 5:44), but from God. There appears to be a play on the meaning of the name “Jew”, which derives from “Judah” = ”praise” (cf. Gen. 29:35; 49:8).¹⁶⁸ The right kind of praise has its origin¹⁶⁹ not in men, but in God. It is the contrast between the inward and the outward again. It is not the outward, which alone people see, that counts, but the inward, that which only God sees, and which he esteems of greater significance than the outward.

↑ Back to top