Introduction
Modern Pauline scholarship is in a state of flux between more traditional views and that of the “New Perspective” on Paul.[1] Within this debate Romans 2 and 3 play a crucial role. N.T. Wright calls Romans 2 “the joker in the pack”[2] and James Dunn observes that Romans 2 has,
“…caused more difficulties than any other chapter for commentators, particularly because it seems to envisage final justification as depending on human deeds rather than on faith, and because its argument seems to depend on a far too sweeping indictment of Jews at large. The key is to note that the chapter is framed, on the one side, by a typically Jewish attack on Gentile lifestyle (Rom 1:18-32)[3] and, on the other, by a protest that Jewish privilege has been undermined (Rom 3:1). What is in view in Romans 2, therefore, is almost certainly the very sense of Jewish privilege and distinctiveness which was so clearly echoed in Romans 1.”[4]
S.J. Hafemann remarks, “Even adherents to the “New Perspective” on Paul, who have worked hard to renew our understanding of Paul within the Judaism of his day, have often not taken the Jewish matrix of Paul’s own thinking seriously enough as the decisive conceptual source for Paul’s thinking. Moreover, at the heart of the debate concerning the Law and justification in Paul’s thought is Paul’s understanding of redemptive history (cf. Gal 3-4; 2Cor 3:7-18; Rom 3:21-16; 9-11), which itself can only be solved by a renewed study of Paul’s use and understanding of the OT within the larger question of the relationship of Paul and his gospel to Israel as the old covenant people of God.” [5] It is the intention of this article to “take the Jewish matrix of Paul’s own thinking seriously” in order to discover the OT roots of Romans 2 and 3.
Working Hypothesis
This paper will propose (in three parts) that Romans 2 and 3 can only be properly understood against the Deuteronomistic History (with the accompanying Psalms) that records the Davidic covenant and David’s subsequent fall from grace. It has already been suggested that the background to Romans 1:18-32 is the golden calf incident [6] – this places Romans 2 and 3 firmly within an argument that examines the failure of Israel to keep the law of the covenant. Our new proposal is that in addition to this background typology, David’s sin against Uriah the Hittite informs Paul’s theology in Romans 2-3. A simplified overview would look something like this:
Rom 1 – Jewish National failure to receive the Law – background the golden calf incident, Jews sinning like Gentiles
Rom 2/3 – Jewish Institutional failure (monarchy) to keep the law – background David’s sin against a “faithful” Gentile
Rom 4 – The Law cannot justify – both Jew and Gentile saved by faith — background Abraham and David (vv. 6-7)
N.T. Wright has called to notice the importance of David to Romans:
“…we must also notice Romans 1.3-4, the one Pauline passage outside the Pastorals which mentions David specifically as Jesus’ ancestor. Of course this passage has been routinely marginalized, and treated as if it were a mere throwaway introductory line, designed to curry favour with Jewish Christians in Rome for whom such ideas were still important while for Paul, of course they were not. But there are four arguments which tell very strongly against this. First, we know from many of Paul’s letters that his opening passages are often carefully crafted with an eye to what he wants to say in the rest of the letter. It seems very unlikely that he would place in such a prominent position an explicit statement of something he regarded as at best inadequate and at worst misleading. Second, what Paul says about Jesus as the letter develops, not least in chapters 6-8, can be seen as drawing out the implications of this opening statement, not simply of the passage more usually said to be thematic, namely 1.16-17. Third, Paul seems to be alluding to various biblical passages (Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 come obviously to mind) which we know as messianic proof- texts in Qumran. Fourth, at the letter’s thematic conclusion in 15.12, Paul quotes Isaiah’s prophecy about ‘the root of Jesse.’ Again, unless we are to say that Paul chose to end his longest and most carefully structured theological argument with a quotation designed to put his readers on exactly the wrong train of thought, we find ourselves compelled to the view that he really does see the argument of Romans framed by, and hence by implication consisting in, an exposition of the Messiahship of Jesus and its meaning and effects.” [7]
Although N.T. Wright does not realise the full import of his observations he intuitively recognises the covenantal connections and messianic implications of the introductory mention of David. Pauline theology employs a paradigmatic approach to the problem of covenantal nomism with David and Abraham functioning in typical fashion or employed normatively to his developing argument.
The following comparison table sets out the typology which will be discussed in the next part of this paper.
| Romans 2/3 | Deuteronomistic History and Psalms |
|---|---|
| NKJ Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. | NKJ 2 Samuel 12:7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!” |
| NKJ Romans 2:2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. | Truth is a technical term denoting the covenant promises |
| NKJ Romans 2:3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? | NKJ 2 Samuel 12:5 So David’s anger was greatly aroused against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this shall surely die! |
| NKJ Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? | NKJ Psalm 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, According to Your lovingkindness; According to the multitude of Your tender mercies, Blot out my transgressions. |
| NKJ Romans 2:14-15 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) |
URIAH THE HITTITE NKJ 2 Samuel 11:11 And Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.” |
| NKJ Romans 2:16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. | NKJ 2 Samuel 12:12 ‘For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’ “ |
| NKJ Romans 2:17-21 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light (Uriah’s name means light) to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law. You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? |
NKJ Psalm 51:12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, And uphold me by Your generous Spirit. NKJ Psalm 51:13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, And sinners shall be converted to You. |
| NKJ Romans 2:22-23 You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples (commit sacrilege) You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonour God through breaking the law? | NKJ 2 Samuel 12:9 ‘Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. |
| NKJ Romans 2:24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written. | NKJ 2 Samuel 12:14 “However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” |
| NKJ Romans 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. | NKJ Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. |
|
NKJ Romans 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” (when you judge??) |
NKJ 2 Samuel 7:28 “And now, O Lord God, You are God, and Your words are true, and You have promised this goodness to Your servant. NKJ Psalm 51:4 Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight — That You may be found just when You speak, And blameless when You judge. |
Conclusion
In the next part of this paper, we will present the detailed exegesis of Romans 2 and 3 and how this Davidic typology informs Paul’s thought.
[1] Reformation understanding of Paul’s theology contrasts law and grace in a doctrine of justification by faith. On this view, Paul’s opponents are legalistic Judaizers. The “New Perspective” on Paul can be traced back to Sanders seminal work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) where he views the Pauline opposition as supporting covenantal nomism. Rather than demanding perfect works-righteousness covenantal nomism regards the law as the basis of the covenant. According to Sanders, “the intention and effort to be obedient constitutes the condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it” (180, emphasis his). If Sanders assessment of the first century setting is correct, then Paul’s objections are not, per se, against using the law as a vehicle for self-justifying works, but against deployment of law as a badge of privilege and as a sign of Jewish exclusivity.
[2] N.T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 131-150.
[3] Romans 1:18-32 is not an attack on Gentile lifestyle – it is based on the golden calf apostasy and orgy at the giving of the law, more on this anon.
[4] J.D.G. Dunn, “Letter to the Romans” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (eds. G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, and D.G. Reid; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 838-850.
[5] S.J. Hafemann, Paul and his Interpreters, Ibid, 678
[6] As far as I am aware this approach to Romans 1 was first propounded by H. A. Whittaker, in his reassessment of the chapter—Bible Studies (Cannock: Biblia, 1987), 305-308.
[7] N.T. Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives (London: SPCK, 2005), 44.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One