The second part of our investigation will offer a detailed exegesis of Romans 2 based on the observations noted in the comparison table in the previous article. This will place the matrix of Pauline thought firmly within Deuteronomistic history; particularly within the Davidic royal court history (including the relevant psalms) recounting the Bathsheba incident.
The singular ‘the Jew’ is a rhetorical device often employed by Paul to address all Jews; however, he commences this section of his argument with what could be considered the more generic ‘man’. Paul deliberately prefaces ‘man’ with the interjection ‘O’ for emphasis:
“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.” Rms 2:1 (NKJV)
‘O man’ is an exclamation — suggesting equivalency with the accusation levied at David; “Thou art the man”. A particular man is here in view, namely the man who is in a position to pass juridical sentences,[1] yet neglects to pass judgement on his own law breaking behaviour. As king of all Israel, David was in the privileged position to pass judgement on the hand of the law; in Pauline theology he functions as a type of the nation, given a unique status, and placed in a privileged position over the Gentiles by reason of the holy law covenant that was vouched safe to them. The nation (like the king) had a special responsibility to act as ministers (priests and kings) to the surrounding Gentile nations.
Paul follows (v. 2) with the remark that God’s judgement is according to the truth:
“But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.” Rms 2:2 (NKJV)
Truth is OT terminology for the covenant promises to the patriarchs (*cf. Mic 7:20). J. D. G. Dunn comments, “Paul has in view a Jewish rationalization which could justify or excuse in itself what it condemned in others”. [2] In this section Paul is contrasting hypocritical human judgement under the law covenant (in this case typified by David) with divine judgement which occurs on the basis of faith in the covenant promises (truth). Paul’s next observation is about the inescapable consequences of such hypocrisy (v. 3) — the fact that a man (or nation) is granted a position of privilege (administering the holy law covenant) does not excuse them of the consequences of sin — “You shall surely die” (Gen.2:17).
“Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” Rms 2:4 (NKJV)
The echo here is to Moses on Sinai. God’s goodness (v. 4) is expressed in his grace, which was revealed to Moses; “I will make my goodness pass before thee…and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod 32:19). Paul is already anticipating the question of election in Rms 9:15. Paul’s mind is soaked in OT metaphor — divine goodness and truth find their concrete expression in the promised Messiah – the final unique self-revelation promised to the patriarchs. God keeps mercy (preserves mercy) for thousands…of generations….until Messiah. And it is the divine prerogative to forgive whomsoever he will (and that on the basis of faith in the promise not through the law). It was only the experience of personal sin that brought this lesson crashing home on David, as expressed in Psalm 51. That Paul has this also in mind cannot be doubted as he quotes Psalm 51 in Rms 3:4 and Psalm 32 in Rms 4:6-8.
Refusal (v. 5) to accept God’s goodness (his covenant mercy manifested in the messiah) results in the unrepentant sinner remaining under the law — the inevitable consequence is condemnation on the day of judgement.
“But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his deeds: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness — indignation and wrath…” Rms 2:5-8 (NKJV)
Everyone (v. 6) will get what they deserve – Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles, unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles – those under the law and those outside the law — the consequences of sin are universal and God will “reward” everyone according to their actions.
This seems to completely contradict the Pauline gospel of justification by faith alone, and the emphasis on works has exegetes in a quandary. It is such an embarrassment that leads some exegetes to place the complete chapter in parenthesis, or to dismiss it completely.[3] Paul explicitly quotes the Jewish theological opinion ‘that God will render to each one according to his deeds’ in order to combat Jewish hypocrisy that allowed justification and excused for itself what it condemned in the Gentiles.
At the heart of the Pauline gospel (v. 7) is the phrase, u`pomonh.n e;rgou avgaqou/ this is literally rendered (YLT); “in continuance of a good work”. However, it is an assumption to regard this “good work” as a human work. An alternative understanding is to regard the “good work” as the redemption that God wrought in Jesus Christ. This alternative is supported by the echo with Genesis, where it is stated that God saw everything that he had made and saw that it was good; this is described as a good work (Gen 1:31, 2:2). Thus, in the New Creation the believer continues this good work with “works of faith” (1 Thess 1:3) and not “works of law” (Gal 3:2).
Paul contrasts those who obey truth (v.8) with those who obey unrighteousness. Truth is a metaphor for the covenant promises — to “obey the truth” is to obey Jesus Christ, who is the embodiment of the truth (covenant promises):“I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The ellipsis must be supplied in the remainder of the phrase — to obey unrighteousness is to obey [the law that causes] unrighteousness — “for without the law sin was dead” (Rms 7:8). In Pauline theology the law becomes an instrument of God’s wrath and man’s unrighteousness.
Paul continues his argument as follows:
“…tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified…” Rms 2:9-13 (NKJV)
Dunn comments; “Paul attempts to undermine the confidence of those who think that because they have the Law they are advantaged in the judgement over those without the Law. On the contrary, Jewish teaching is precisely that doing the Law is more important than merely hearing it; the argument is ad hominem. The pride and the presumption of “the Jew”, by virtue of possessing the Law, becomes explicit in Romans 2:17-24. The intention of the forthright indictment of the typical Jewish interlocutor is not to condemn all Jews out of hand, but rather to argue that when the typical Jew breaks the Law in his presumption he undermines the whole basis of his privileged position”.[4]
“…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)” Rms 2:14-15 (NKJV)
Paul changes tack in vv. 14-15 by referring to Gentiles who act out of conscience — “who show the work of the law written in their hearts”. This is the New Covenant language expressed by Jeremiah (Jer 31:33) as reserved for the glorious future of Israel. But now it is employed by Paul to describe faithful Gentiles. Within the paradigm that Paul has established the faithful Gentile is represented by Uriah the Hittite.
T. Wright offers a different translation of the Greek underlying “do by nature the things of the law”. He proposes,
“For when the Gentiles, who by nature do not have the law, yet they do the things of the law.” Rms 2:14 (N. T. Wright)
He argues that it is by nature, (that is by birth), Gentiles are outside the covenant and not within the Torah, and yet Paul supposes that some do the things of the Torah”.[5] He is most certainly correct in this reading of the Greek as the construction has a parallel in v. 27:
“And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” Rms 2:27 (KJV)
The normal assumptions about “natural law” that exegetes bring to the table are therefore wrong. Paul employs the phrase “by nature” as a description of the natural state of the Jews — i.e. they are born into the covenant and circumcision from birth (circumcised 8th day) and the natural state of the Gentiles (born outside the covenant) it has nothing to do with “natural law”.
We can set this argument against the backdrop of David and Uriah the Hittite. In Paul’s typology, the Gentile is Uriah the Hittite, who has cast his lot in with Israel. His concern for the ark (dwelling in a tent) mirrors David’s concern for the ark. Here was no ordinary, idol worshipping, lascivious Gentile — but a man of integrity — not a mercenary or a hired gun.[6] Yet, this man was “by nature” outside the covenant (Torah) — contrast David, “by nature” privileged, yet plotting and scheming his Gentile servant’s downfall.
The apostle concludes (v. 15) with an observation about the conscience, which functions either as justifier or accuser (of the Gentile before God). In this Paul once again anticipates the role of the conscience that he develops in Rms 14:14 and particularly the qualifier in Rms 14:22b, “Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves”. This was uttered as a warning to Gentile Christians who might think their understanding and morality superior than their “weaker” Jewish Christian brethren, especially regarding dietary requirements and Sabbath keeping. In Paul’s gospel, the motivation behind the action was all important — both for Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul could be, “all things to all men” — not because he was a hypocrite — but because he understood both the value and meaning of the law (and respected it) and the importance of the messianic covenants. For him they were not in opposition, merely different operations of the one God. However, if Gentile Christians deliberately exercised their freedom in Christ against their consciences’ (or in order to deliberately antagonize their Jewish Christian brethren) then they would be condemned, as surely as any law breaker would.
Paul picks up the Davidic typology again, (v.16) with the law-breaking Jew being judged openly in the same manner that David’s secret sin was openly exposed (2 Sam. 12:12; 16:22).
“…in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. 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? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?” Rms 2:16-21 (NKJV)
Paul condemns those who boast in the law (v.v. 17-21), yet honour it only in the breach. These “have a form of knowledge and truth in the law”. Paul denounces the attitude that compromised the truth (covenant promises) and practiced a reductionism that allowed the truth to be compressed into law. For the rhetorical Pauline “Jew” the law had replaced the messianic hope. Not so for David, as he realised that the law could not save him — “For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it” (Pss 51:16) — no sacrifice under the law could atone for murder and adultery.
The Jews should have been a light[7] to the surrounding Gentile nations – but instead of illuminating darkness they were law breakers like David. The difference is that David was repentant when confronted with his sin and came to the realisation that he could only become a teacher once he had experienced divine grace: “Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners shall be converted to you.” (Pss 51:13). Unlike “the Jew” who taught the Gentile the law from the top of an ivory tower (while himself breaking the law), David, could teach from experience the meaning of grace (not law) and divine forgiveness — because not only had he had seen the risen Christ (2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 110), now and only now did he understand what the covenant promise truly meant — the truth had set him free. David could only expect condemnation under the law; it was faith in the redemptive work of the promised messiah that saved David.
“You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery’, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonour God through breaking the law?” Rms 2:22-23 (NKJV)
The charge of stealing and adultery (vv. 22-23) is in keeping with the Davidic undertone of the chapter – the charge of committing sacrilege is more difficult to place. Perhaps it is the occasion when David ate the showbread. If that is the case Paul is emphasizing the same point as Jesus in Matthew 12 namely, that his action was not lawful (even though on this occasion it was justifiable).
“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, as it is written.” Rms 2:24 (NKJV)
The same accusation of blasphemy (v.24) was levied against David by Nathan the prophet. Through his hypocrisy David had made the divine name a mockery in the eyes of the Gentiles.
“For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfils the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 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.” Rms 2:25-29 (NKJV)
The last section emphasises the Spirit not the letter, the inward not the outward; the same sentiment as David’s penitentiary prayer in Pss 51:10. “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me”.
[1] Compare the ironic compliment delivered to David by Joab’s proxy: “Your maidservant said, ‘The word of my lord the king will now be comforting; for as the angel of God, so is my lord the king in discerning good and evil. And may the Lord your God be with you’…” 2 Sam 14:17
[2] J. D. G. Dunn, “Letter to the Romans” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (eds., G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, D. G. Reid; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 838-850 (845).
[3] E. P. Sanders in Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (London: SCM Press, 1983) declared that the passage was not a legitimate part of Paul’s argument; it was an old synagogue sermon with minimal Christian updating.
[4] “Letter to the Romans”, 845.
[5] 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 (146).
[6] R. Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, (London: Norton & Company, 1999), 252, comments on Uriah’s question: “Shall I then come to my house to eat and drink and to lie with my wife”? If Uriah does not know that David has cuckolded him, he is the instrument of dramatic irony – the perfect soldier vis-à-vis the treacherous king who is desperately trying to manipulate him so that the husband will unwittingly cover the traces of his wife’s sexual betrayal. If Uriah does know of the adultery, he is a rather different character – not naive but shrewdly aware, playing a dangerous game of hints in which he deliberately pricks the conscience of the king, cognizant, and perhaps not caring, that his own life might soon be forfeit. Yet again, it might be that when Uriah first arrives from the front, he is unaware of what has occurred; but after the first night with his comrades at the palace gate, he has been duly informed of the sexual betrayal, so that in his second dialogue with the king, he cultivates a rhetoric of implicit accusation. After all, Uriah swares emphatically by David’s life but does not add the deferential “my lord the king”.
[7] Paul obviously intends to subliminally remind the reader of Uriah whose name means, “Yahweh is my light (flame)”.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One