Original Meaning
Self-Righteous Jews Are as Guilty as the Gentiles (2:1–5)
THE “THEREFORE” THAT opens this section is unexpected. How can Paul’s indictment of Jews be a conclusion drawn from his indictment of Gentiles in chapter 1? Two considerations provide the answer. (1) As we suggested in our interpretation of 1:23, Paul’s “target” in 1:21–32 may be a bit wider than Gentiles per se. What he does is demonstrate the plight of people in light of natural revelation—and Jews, of course, receive natural revelation along with all other people. Thus he may well claim that the general indictment of 1:21–32 justifies the conclusion that Jews, also, “have no excuse” before God.3
(2) Another consideration is even more to the point. In chapter 2, Paul is not picking up the argument in 1:21–32, but the universal indictment in 1:18–20: Jews are without excuse because they are, along with all people, guilty of suppressing the truth. We find, then, a general parallelism in Paul’s argument that matches a key concern of his throughout this section: Jews, like Gentiles (see 1:20), are “without excuse” before God and are therefore, in the long run, no better off than Gentiles.
By the time Paul writes Romans, he has been preaching the gospel for at least twenty-two years. He knows exactly how people will respond to the various points he makes. How often must Paul have condemned the Gentiles for their sin only to note Jews in the audience joining in with his criticism and priding themselves on being far superior to them. Thus, we can almost see Paul at the beginning of chapter 2 fixing his gaze on these self-satisfied Jews and blasting them in the same way he has condemned the Gentiles.
But how can Paul claim that Jews are doing “the same things” as the Gentiles (2:1)? Probably he means the same kinds of things. Jews in the first century were not idolaters, nor was homosexuality common among them. But they did commit many of the sins Paul lists in 1:29–31. Perhaps he even thinks of their preoccupation with the law as a kind of idolatry. In any case, their “judging” of other people rebounds directly onto them. For since they are doing the same things as these other people, they condemn themselves at the same time. No one can escape this judgment.
(1) God’s judgment is “based on truth” (aletheia; v. 2). It is just and impartial, based on the facts (Paul develops this point in vv. 6–11).
(2) Relying on “the riches of [God’s] kindness, tolerance and patience” to avoid judgment will not work (vv. 3–4). These words together connote God’s grace and willingness to forgive. “Kindness” (chrestotes) occurs again in Romans in 11:22, where it is the opposite of God’s “sternness,” and it appears regularly in the Psalms to denote God’s goodness to Israel.4 “Tolerance” (anoche) occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, where it refers again to God’s “forbearance” (Rom. 3:25). Paul’s use of this language suggests he is thinking at this point of the Jewish people. For we must remember that the Jews’ assumption of superiority over Gentiles was not a matter of ego or personal boasting. Out of all the nations of the earth, God had chosen Israel as his people. Surely, Jews may well have reasoned, as God’s chosen people, they are immune from judgment—his “tolerance” and “kindness” will always cause him to overlook our sins.
In fact, we have numerous Jewish texts from about this period that display precisely this attitude (see Bridging Contexts). It is this assumption Paul attacks here. Without denying the Jews’ special favor, he criticizes them for “showing contempt” (kataphroneo) for God’s goodness to them (v. 4). How? God’s kindness, Paul says, was intended to lead “you toward repentance.” Instead, apparently, the Jews were regarding it as a carte blanche to sin with impunity. As a result, concludes the apostle, the Jews are “storing up wrath” against themselves, a wrath that will be inflicted on the day of God’s coming righteous judgment (v. 5).
Bridging Contexts
TWO ISSUES, ONE hermeneutical and the other contextual, need to be tackled if we are to get the full force of Paul’s teaching in this paragraph. We begin with the contextual issue.
Jewish traditions behind 1:18–2:5. Paul’s indictment of the Gentiles in 1:21–32 and his shift of argument at 2:1 can only be fully appreciated when we recognize that he is adapting widespread Jewish teaching about Gentile sin and Jewish prerogatives. Many Jewish passages reflect this teaching in various degrees, but the clearest and most detailed example comes from an intertestamental book that is part of the Apocrypha. In Wisdom of Solomon 12:23–14:31, the author castigates the Gentiles for their depravity. We cannot quote this entire section, but a selection will reveal the extent of similarity with Paul’s indictment of the Gentiles in Romans 1:21–32.
Therefore those who lived unrighteously, in a life of folly,
you tormented through their own abominations.
For they went far astray on the paths of error,
accepting as gods those animals that even their enemies despised;
they were deceived like foolish infants. (12:23–24)
For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists,
nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works;
but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,
or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,
or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.
If through delight in the beauty of these things people assumed them to be gods,
let them know how much better than these is their Lord,
for the author of beauty created them.
And if people were amazed at their power and working,
let them perceive from them
how much more powerful is the one who formed them.
For from the greatness and beauty of created things
comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. (13:1–5)
Yet again, not even they are to be excused;
for if they had the power to know so much
that they could investigate the world,
how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things? (13:8–9)
For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication,
and the invention of them was the corruption of life. (14:12)
Then it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God,
but though living in great strife due to ignorance,
they call such great evils peace.
For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries,
or hold frenzied revels with strange customs,
they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure,
but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,
and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury,
confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors,
defiling of souls, sexual perversion,
disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery.
For the worship of idols not to be named
is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. (14:22–27)
But you, our God, are kind and true,
patient, and ruling all things in mercy.
For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power;
but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours.
For to know you is complete righteousness,
and to know your power is the root of immortality. (15:1–3)
Like Paul, the writer of this Jewish wisdom book criticizes Gentiles for idolatry, suggests that idolatry is the origin of many other sins (“the beginning of fornication,” 14:12), claims that the Gentiles are “not … to be excused” (13:8) because they have ample evidence for God’s existence and qualities in creation (13:1–5), and shows that the Gentiles’ rejection of knowledge of God leads to all kinds of evil (14:22–27).
This close degree of correspondence in the argument may imply that Paul is depending directly on this first-century B.C. book for his own teaching. But it is also possible that both Wisdom of Solomon and Paul reflect independently a widespread Jewish tradition about the Gentile world. In either case, Paul’s dependence on this teaching is obvious.
An appreciation of the background against which Paul writes here enhances the rhetorical effectiveness of his argument. What the apostle teaches about the Gentiles in 1:21–32 is probably not new to the Roman Christians. Though mainly Gentile themselves, they are undoubtedly well acquainted with both the Old Testament and Jewish traditions. As they read this part of the letter, they perhaps have a twofold reaction. While the teaching is familiar to them, they may be upset that Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, repeats this standard Jewish diatribe about Gentiles. Has not Christ broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, paving the way to bring both near to God through the cross (Eph. 2:11–18)? The Jewish Christians in the readership, by contrast, may be tempted to gloat a bit that Paul continues the traditional Gentile-bashing that they had been so familiar with from their days in the synagogue.
But the reaction of both groups takes a dramatic turn when they begin reading Romans 2. For the normal sequence of the tradition, reflected in Wisdom of Solomon 15, is that Gentiles are idolaters and fornicators, condemned to hell, but we Jews are God’s people, loved by him even when we sin (15:2). It is just this assumption of Jewish superiority that Paul attacks in Romans 2:1–5. He insists that too many Jews abuse their covenant status by viewing it as a guaranteed protection from God’s wrath no matter what they do.
The Old Testament prophets condemned such an attitude (see, e.g., Jer. 7), but it persisted as a widespread tendency right into the New Testament period. Yet Paul goes farther than the prophets, for he implies that the Jews have no real advantage over the Gentiles at all (see Rom. 2:6–11). This kind of argument will hearten the Gentile Christians in Rome and dismay the Jewish Christians. Is Paul denying the existence of God’s covenant with Israel? How can he do that without denying the Old Testament itself?
Paul does not resolve these questions at this point, although 3:1–8 shows he is aware of them and chapters 9–11 tackle the issue head-on. At this point, Paul’s purpose is to introduce a sudden and dramatic shift into a tradition that the Roman Christians are undoubtedly familiar with in order to bring home forcefully his contention, essential to the universal scope of the gospel, that all people are equal before God in the judgment.
The hermeneutical significance of the Jews. The biggest hermeneutical issue facing the interpreter of Romans who wants to make its message relevant to the church today is the role played by the Jews in the argument of the letter. Though not always fully appreciated in the past, the central role of the Jewish people in Romans is now almost universally recognized. Paul’s exposition of the gospel in this letter has the Jews as its constant backdrop. He refers to them constantly, talks repeatedly about their law, the Torah, and devotes three chapters to them (chs. 9–11). He wants to show that Jews, just as much as Gentiles, are sinful and in need of the gospel, that their law cannot protect them from judgment, and that the gospel provides for the true fulfillment of the promises God made to them in the Old Testament.
But the relevance of these points for a contemporary, usually non-Jewish, congregation is not always so clear. In 2:1–5, for instance, Paul criticizes Jews for an attitude of superiority arising from their covenant relationship to God. What point can contemporary preachers make to their congregations if there are no Jews present?
The problem we have briefly sketched is a big one, and we will have to come back to it repeatedly in different contexts. But we want to suggest two general principles here that can give us some guidance as we wrestle with these different passages.
(1) We cannot simply equate the Jews in Romans with any other group (except perhaps Jews) in our own day. The very reason why Paul must spend so much time discussing the Jews in Romans is because they have, by virtue of the Old Testament covenant, a unique status. No other people has been chosen by God as Israel was. No other group can simply be substituted for the Jews in Paul’s argument. This first point is the most important one to make, because it is the most neglected. In an understandable desire to make the text relevant, preachers will routinely apply to people generally, or to Christians, what Paul says about the Jews in Romans. As we will see below, such an application is not always wrong. But the preacher, if he or she is to be faithful to the text, must at least pause to ask the question whether such application is legitimate.
(2) We have some basis to think that the Jews in Romans have a paradigmatic significance. We will note several points at which Paul seems to imply that what is true for Jews is true also of people in general (e.g., 6:14; 7:4). As people blessed above all others with access to God and his Word, the Jews represent the very best of humankind apart from Christ. Without, therefore, forgetting for one minute that many things Paul says about them in Romans refer only to them, we have, I think, some reason to apply some of the general truths about them to people more generally. Abuse of this hermeneutical “opening” is easy, so we need to be cautious about applying it and must ground our applications clearly in the text. But we will suggest some specific places where analogies of this sort can be drawn—including one in this text.
Contemporary Significance
PRESUMING ON GRACE. With great caution I want now to apply the hermeneutical approach outlined above to 2:1–5. The main point of the paragraph is clear enough: Jews must not think they can sin with impunity just because they are in covenant relationship with God. Indeed, in light of verses 6–11, Paul appears to go one step farther: Jews have no right to think that the covenant, in itself, puts them in any better situation than the Gentiles before God.
This point remains, of course, entirely valid and applies to Jews today as much as it did in Paul’s day. Getting Jewish people to respond to the gospel often requires that we help them first sense their need of the gospel—a need they may not sense if they are convinced their own religion takes care of any sin problem. As I write, considerable controversy has arisen over a plan of the Southern Baptist Convention to conduct an evangelistic campaign in Chicago. Especially controversial has been the preparation of material targeted to religious people such as Jews. The Southern Baptists are being accused of “proselytizing,” a word that tends to have the negative nuance of forced conversion. Criticisms of this kind will grow over the next years as our culture becomes increasingly intolerant of any religion that claims to have the truth and seeks to win others over to that truth. But texts such as this one remind us that Jews need to experience God’s grace in Christ.
Can any further significance be drawn from this paragraph? Can we apply its principle to groups other than Jews? Some interpreters are sure that we can, because they think Paul is addressing prideful people of any nationality in this text. But if, as I have argued, his remarks are directed to Jews, the problem remains.
I readily admit that the text gives no explicit indication of any extended application. But I do think that Paul’s paradigmatic treatment of the Jews elsewhere may give us some basis to do so. For while the Jewish situation is in some respects unique, in others it is similar to people in other religions, including Christianity. We, too, can “show contempt” for God’s kindness toward us by using it as a “open sesame” for sin. “God will forgive; that’s his ‘business,’ ” the French skeptic Voltaire once said; and too many believers adopt just this attitude. We grow cavalier toward our sin because we think God will simply overlook it out of his love for us in Christ.
But sin is a serious matter, whether we are in Christ or not. To be sure, I think Scripture teaches that the believer is eternally secure in Christ; and this security puts the Christian in a different position than the Jew under the old covenant. But the Scripture also teaches that a lack of concern about sin is incompatible with true faith. Thus Paul’s warning in this text about “presuming on God’s grace” carries a warning for the Christian as well as for the Jew.
Salvation by works? In verses 6–11 Paul “levels the playing field” for Jew and Gentile. Both, Paul affirms, will be judged impartially by God on the basis of works. Doing evil will bring wrath, but doing good will bring “eternal life” (v. 7).
But how can Paul say that doing good will lead to eternal life? Does he not make clear elsewhere that our “works” can never put us in right relationship with God (cf. 3:20; Eph. 2:11)? His apparently optimistic view of the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in God surfaces later in this chapter (2:13–16, 26–27). It constitutes an explosive theological issue, especially in our day of pluralism. We will have to deal with each of these other texts in turn, but interpreters take five basic approaches to the problem here.
(1) Paul may be referring to faithful Jews and moral Gentiles before the coming of Christ. Living when they did, they would have had no opportunity to respond to the gospel; thus, God regarded their persistence in doing good as a sufficient basis for their salvation.7
(2) Paul may be referring to Christians whose works, produced by faith, are taken into account by God in his ultimate salvific verdict.8
(3) Paul may be referring to people generally who are saved by their works. His teaching here, then, contradicts his teaching on justification by faith alone elsewhere.9
(4) Paul may be referring to people who, without coming to know Christ explicitly, are enabled by God’s grace to be saved and so produce works that God approves in the judgment.10
(5) Paul may not be referring to anyone in particular. His purpose here is to enunciate the basis on which, outside of Christ, God judges people. Whether anyone actually persists in good works adequately enough to earn salvation Paul simply does not say. His subsequent argument reveals that, in fact, no one can do so (see 3:9, 20).11
View (3), positing as it does a contradiction in Paul’s teaching, should be set aside and only entertained as a last resort. Not only is it unlikely that Paul would contradict himself on so vital an issue within the same context, but such a contradiction also flies in the face of the truthfulness of Scripture that we think is abundantly attested. View (1) should also be set aside—nothing here suggests that Paul is looking only at the past. View (4) needs to be considered more seriously. Its advocates often insist that God will judge people on the basis of the light that they have received. But the context of Romans 1–3 reveals that only the light of the gospel truly saves. God’s grace works through that gospel. So it is unlikely that Paul countenances the idea that people may be saved apart from that gospel here.
Thus we are left with view (2)—that Paul refers to Gentile Christians—and view (5)—that he simply sets forth the criterion of salvation apart from gospel without implying that anyone meets that criterion. We think the latter is better. It is true that works, produced by faith, are taken into account by God in the judgment (see 2 Cor. 5:10; James 2:14–26). But assuming faith as the basis for those works in this context is a big assumption. Paul has not been talking about faith or about Christians. What he has been talking about is the standard by which God judges all human beings. That standard is works (v. 6). People who do evil works will suffer wrath. People who persist in doing good will gain eternal life. In both cases, it is the criterion of judgment, not the people who meet that criterion, that Paul has in mind. We must remember that Paul is in the process of building a case. It can be summarized like this:
Salvation for both Jew and Gentile is available only by doing good (2:6, 11, 13)
The power of sin prevents both Jew and Gentile from doing good (3:9–19)
Therefore: No one can be saved by doing good (3:20)
To think that in verses 8 and 10 Paul must be thinking of specific people who gain salvation by works is to miss the point of these verses in the larger argument.
To conclude, then: We do not think these verses give any grounds for thinking that salvation can be gained apart from the gospel. Paul’s argument in 1:18–3:20 is intended to establish the reason why God has unleashed his saving power in the gospel. Human beings are locked in sin and need to be rescued. For Paul to introduce at this point the possibility of salvation apart from the gospel would undercut his own argument.
What, then, do we say about people who have never had a chance to hear the gospel and either accept or reject it? Are they automatically excluded from salvation because they do not have a chance to hear? This very question was one of my key objections to the gospel when friends of mine in college first confronted me with the claims of Christ. The contemporary pluralistic environment has sharpened the question even further. Influential theologians—some within the evangelical movement—are arguing that people of genuine moral commitment can be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ. Karl Rahner, an influential Roman Catholic theologian, has coined the term “anonymous Christians” to describe such people.
While attractive for many reasons, this view simply does not square with the claims of Scripture. Paul’s argument in this part of Romans is straightforward: All people are under sin’s power and can escape the wrath that sin brings only by responding in faith to the gospel of God’s righteousness in Christ (see 3:9, 20, 21–22). To be sure, we cannot always know just how God may reveal his gospel to people. As Paul’s own example powerfully demonstrates, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries and others is God’s normal means of making his gospel known to people. But we must allow that God may have other ways of revealing his gospel to people that we do not know or even understand. So, while insisting that only faith in the gospel can save, we perhaps need to be open to different ways by which people may come to know the gospel.
One final point should be made. The problem of those who have not heard takes on a slightly different complexion depending on whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian. The Arminian, in a sense, has the bigger problem here. For Arminians believe that God’s prevenient grace puts all people in the position of being able to respond to the gospel. Their response is, therefore, the crucial factor. Calvinists, by contrast, while insisting on the need for response, also claim that the ultimate cause of salvation lies in God’s election, his specific choice of certain persons for salvation. The Calvinist can therefore argue that God will, in his sovereignty, see that every person he has chosen will also be exposed, in one way or another, to the gospel. Having determined the end, God will also enact the means.
I must confess that I am little closer to a compelling answer to my question about those who have not heard than I was when I was first converted. I think Scripture requires that we insist on faith in Christ as the necessary means of salvation. And I trust utterly in the absolute fairness of the God who has revealed himself to me in Jesus Christ. I am content to leave my questions in his hands and hope for clearer resolution in heaven.
Original Meaning
God Judges Every Human Being Impartially on the Same Basis (2:6–11)
THIS IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH supports a point that is implicit, but vital, to Paul’s indictment of self-righteous Jews in 2:1–5: God assesses Jews and Gentiles on the same basis. In effect, Paul argues, there is a level playing field when it comes to God’s ultimate verdict. The Jew, therefore, simply by virtue of being a Jew cannot claim immunity from judgment. The argument of these verses is clear and logical, following a pattern we label chiasm. This word comes from the name for the Greek letter that looks much like our “X.” It describes a structure in which the basic sequence follows an A-B-B′-A′ pattern. Note how verses 6–11 fall into such a pattern:
A God will judge everyone according to his works (v. 6)
B People who do good will attain eternal life (v. 7)
C People who do evil will suffer wrath (v. 8)
C′ Wrath for those who do evil (v. 9)
B′ Glory for those who do good (v. 10)
A′ God judges impartially (v. 11)
Sometimes in a chiasm, the main point comes at the center. In this case, however, the main point appears at the outer edges. In verse 6 Paul quotes from the Old Testament to show that “works” (NIV, “what he has done”) will be the basis for God’s judgment. The exact source of Paul’s quotation is not certain, since several verses (esp. Prov. 24:12; cf. also Ps. 62:12; Eccl. 1:14; Hos. 12:2) make a similar point. “Works” (erga) is a general term denoting anything a person does. Key to Paul’s argument is the word “each person”—including both Jews and Gentiles.
Paul makes a similar point in verse 11 by insisting that God “does not show favoritism.” The word for “favoritism” (prosopolempsia, lit., “receiving the face”) was apparently coined by Christians to translate a Hebrew expression that vividly conveys the sense of partiality: treating someone on the basis of outward appearance. God, Paul claims, does not do this. He will not let a person go free in the judgment simply because of some external circumstance.
The impartiality of God is not a new idea with Paul, for many Jews asserted the same thing (e.g., Sir. 35:15: “The Lord is the judge, and with him there is no partiality [lit., glory of the face]”). But Paul’s apparent application of the “partiality” principle to Jews in terms of their covenant privileges and the judgment is a new and radical concept. He seems to be denying the covenant itself and, implicitly, God’s own revelation in the Old Testament. Already, therefore, we see emerging the question of the continuity between the Old Testament and the gospel that becomes so central to the argument of Romans (see esp. 3:1–8; chs. 9–11).
In the middle of the chiasm Paul spells out the implications of God’s impartial judgment, based on works, for two opposite kinds of people. On the one hand (v. 7), God will “render eternal life” to those “who by their persistence in a good work are seeking glory and honor and immortality” (pers. trans.). On the other hand (v. 8) are “those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil.” The NIV’s rendering of “self-seeking” captures the sense of the Greek word (eritheia) well. The only pre-New Testament occurrence of the word is in Aristotle, who uses it to decry politicians who seek office for private gain rather than the public good.5 Such people earn for themselves “wrath and anger.” These two words do not have separate meanings here; they combine to emphasize the concept of condemnation.6
Just in case we missed the point, Paul goes over, more briefly, the same ground again in verses 9 and 10. His addition in each verse of the phrase “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile,” however, reveals the point of application he wants us to draw from the argument. Indeed, by applying the phrase to both salvation and condemnation, Paul extends the principle of “Jew first” (cf. 1:16) in a direction that no Jew would probably have anticipated. Paul’s point seems to be that, as God’s chosen people, the Jews are especially the addressees of God’s Word. When they respond positively, they are the first to receive blessing. But in the same way, they will also be the first to be judged for failure to respond.
Bridging Contexts
TWO ISSUES, ONE hermeneutical and the other contextual, need to be tackled if we are to get the full force of Paul’s teaching in this paragraph. We begin with the contextual issue.
Jewish traditions behind 1:18–2:5. Paul’s indictment of the Gentiles in 1:21–32 and his shift of argument at 2:1 can only be fully appreciated when we recognize that he is adapting widespread Jewish teaching about Gentile sin and Jewish prerogatives. Many Jewish passages reflect this teaching in various degrees, but the clearest and most detailed example comes from an intertestamental book that is part of the Apocrypha. In Wisdom of Solomon 12:23–14:31, the author castigates the Gentiles for their depravity. We cannot quote this entire section, but a selection will reveal the extent of similarity with Paul’s indictment of the Gentiles in Romans 1:21–32.
Therefore those who lived unrighteously, in a life of folly,
you tormented through their own abominations.
For they went far astray on the paths of error,
accepting as gods those animals that even their enemies despised;
they were deceived like foolish infants. (12:23–24)
For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists,
nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works;
but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,
or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,
or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.
If through delight in the beauty of these things people assumed them to be gods,
let them know how much better than these is their Lord,
for the author of beauty created them.
And if people were amazed at their power and working,
let them perceive from them
how much more powerful is the one who formed them.
For from the greatness and beauty of created things
comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. (13:1–5)
Yet again, not even they are to be excused;
for if they had the power to know so much
that they could investigate the world,
how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things? (13:8–9)
For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication,
and the invention of them was the corruption of life. (14:12)
Then it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God,
but though living in great strife due to ignorance,
they call such great evils peace.
For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries,
or hold frenzied revels with strange customs,
they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure,
but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,
and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury,
confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors,
defiling of souls, sexual perversion,
disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery.
For the worship of idols not to be named
is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. (14:22–27)
But you, our God, are kind and true,
patient, and ruling all things in mercy.
For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power;
but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours.
For to know you is complete righteousness,
and to know your power is the root of immortality. (15:1–3)
Like Paul, the writer of this Jewish wisdom book criticizes Gentiles for idolatry, suggests that idolatry is the origin of many other sins (“the beginning of fornication,” 14:12), claims that the Gentiles are “not … to be excused” (13:8) because they have ample evidence for God’s existence and qualities in creation (13:1–5), and shows that the Gentiles’ rejection of knowledge of God leads to all kinds of evil (14:22–27).
This close degree of correspondence in the argument may imply that Paul is depending directly on this first-century B.C. book for his own teaching. But it is also possible that both Wisdom of Solomon and Paul reflect independently a widespread Jewish tradition about the Gentile world. In either case, Paul’s dependence on this teaching is obvious.
An appreciation of the background against which Paul writes here enhances the rhetorical effectiveness of his argument. What the apostle teaches about the Gentiles in 1:21–32 is probably not new to the Roman Christians. Though mainly Gentile themselves, they are undoubtedly well acquainted with both the Old Testament and Jewish traditions. As they read this part of the letter, they perhaps have a twofold reaction. While the teaching is familiar to them, they may be upset that Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, repeats this standard Jewish diatribe about Gentiles. Has not Christ broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, paving the way to bring both near to God through the cross (Eph. 2:11–18)? The Jewish Christians in the readership, by contrast, may be tempted to gloat a bit that Paul continues the traditional Gentile-bashing that they had been so familiar with from their days in the synagogue.
But the reaction of both groups takes a dramatic turn when they begin reading Romans 2. For the normal sequence of the tradition, reflected in Wisdom of Solomon 15, is that Gentiles are idolaters and fornicators, condemned to hell, but we Jews are God’s people, loved by him even when we sin (15:2). It is just this assumption of Jewish superiority that Paul attacks in Romans 2:1–5. He insists that too many Jews abuse their covenant status by viewing it as a guaranteed protection from God’s wrath no matter what they do.
The Old Testament prophets condemned such an attitude (see, e.g., Jer. 7), but it persisted as a widespread tendency right into the New Testament period. Yet Paul goes farther than the prophets, for he implies that the Jews have no real advantage over the Gentiles at all (see Rom. 2:6–11). This kind of argument will hearten the Gentile Christians in Rome and dismay the Jewish Christians. Is Paul denying the existence of God’s covenant with Israel? How can he do that without denying the Old Testament itself?
Paul does not resolve these questions at this point, although 3:1–8 shows he is aware of them and chapters 9–11 tackle the issue head-on. At this point, Paul’s purpose is to introduce a sudden and dramatic shift into a tradition that the Roman Christians are undoubtedly familiar with in order to bring home forcefully his contention, essential to the universal scope of the gospel, that all people are equal before God in the judgment.
The hermeneutical significance of the Jews. The biggest hermeneutical issue facing the interpreter of Romans who wants to make its message relevant to the church today is the role played by the Jews in the argument of the letter. Though not always fully appreciated in the past, the central role of the Jewish people in Romans is now almost universally recognized. Paul’s exposition of the gospel in this letter has the Jews as its constant backdrop. He refers to them constantly, talks repeatedly about their law, the Torah, and devotes three chapters to them (chs. 9–11). He wants to show that Jews, just as much as Gentiles, are sinful and in need of the gospel, that their law cannot protect them from judgment, and that the gospel provides for the true fulfillment of the promises God made to them in the Old Testament.
But the relevance of these points for a contemporary, usually non-Jewish, congregation is not always so clear. In 2:1–5, for instance, Paul criticizes Jews for an attitude of superiority arising from their covenant relationship to God. What point can contemporary preachers make to their congregations if there are no Jews present?
The problem we have briefly sketched is a big one, and we will have to come back to it repeatedly in different contexts. But we want to suggest two general principles here that can give us some guidance as we wrestle with these different passages.
(1) We cannot simply equate the Jews in Romans with any other group (except perhaps Jews) in our own day. The very reason why Paul must spend so much time discussing the Jews in Romans is because they have, by virtue of the Old Testament covenant, a unique status. No other people has been chosen by God as Israel was. No other group can simply be substituted for the Jews in Paul’s argument. This first point is the most important one to make, because it is the most neglected. In an understandable desire to make the text relevant, preachers will routinely apply to people generally, or to Christians, what Paul says about the Jews in Romans. As we will see below, such an application is not always wrong. But the preacher, if he or she is to be faithful to the text, must at least pause to ask the question whether such application is legitimate.
(2) We have some basis to think that the Jews in Romans have a paradigmatic significance. We will note several points at which Paul seems to imply that what is true for Jews is true also of people in general (e.g., 6:14; 7:4). As people blessed above all others with access to God and his Word, the Jews represent the very best of humankind apart from Christ. Without, therefore, forgetting for one minute that many things Paul says about them in Romans refer only to them, we have, I think, some reason to apply some of the general truths about them to people more generally. Abuse of this hermeneutical “opening” is easy, so we need to be cautious about applying it and must ground our applications clearly in the text. But we will suggest some specific places where analogies of this sort can be drawn—including one in this text.
Contemporary Significance
PRESUMING ON GRACE. With great caution I want now to apply the hermeneutical approach outlined above to 2:1–5. The main point of the paragraph is clear enough: Jews must not think they can sin with impunity just because they are in covenant relationship with God. Indeed, in light of verses 6–11, Paul appears to go one step farther: Jews have no right to think that the covenant, in itself, puts them in any better situation than the Gentiles before God.
This point remains, of course, entirely valid and applies to Jews today as much as it did in Paul’s day. Getting Jewish people to respond to the gospel often requires that we help them first sense their need of the gospel—a need they may not sense if they are convinced their own religion takes care of any sin problem. As I write, considerable controversy has arisen over a plan of the Southern Baptist Convention to conduct an evangelistic campaign in Chicago. Especially controversial has been the preparation of material targeted to religious people such as Jews. The Southern Baptists are being accused of “proselytizing,” a word that tends to have the negative nuance of forced conversion. Criticisms of this kind will grow over the next years as our culture becomes increasingly intolerant of any religion that claims to have the truth and seeks to win others over to that truth. But texts such as this one remind us that Jews need to experience God’s grace in Christ.
Can any further significance be drawn from this paragraph? Can we apply its principle to groups other than Jews? Some interpreters are sure that we can, because they think Paul is addressing prideful people of any nationality in this text. But if, as I have argued, his remarks are directed to Jews, the problem remains.
I readily admit that the text gives no explicit indication of any extended application. But I do think that Paul’s paradigmatic treatment of the Jews elsewhere may give us some basis to do so. For while the Jewish situation is in some respects unique, in others it is similar to people in other religions, including Christianity. We, too, can “show contempt” for God’s kindness toward us by using it as a “open sesame” for sin. “God will forgive; that’s his ‘business,’ ” the French skeptic Voltaire once said; and too many believers adopt just this attitude. We grow cavalier toward our sin because we think God will simply overlook it out of his love for us in Christ.
But sin is a serious matter, whether we are in Christ or not. To be sure, I think Scripture teaches that the believer is eternally secure in Christ; and this security puts the Christian in a different position than the Jew under the old covenant. But the Scripture also teaches that a lack of concern about sin is incompatible with true faith. Thus Paul’s warning in this text about “presuming on God’s grace” carries a warning for the Christian as well as for the Jew.
Salvation by works? In verses 6–11 Paul “levels the playing field” for Jew and Gentile. Both, Paul affirms, will be judged impartially by God on the basis of works. Doing evil will bring wrath, but doing good will bring “eternal life” (v. 7).
But how can Paul say that doing good will lead to eternal life? Does he not make clear elsewhere that our “works” can never put us in right relationship with God (cf. 3:20; Eph. 2:11)? His apparently optimistic view of the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in God surfaces later in this chapter (2:13–16, 26–27). It constitutes an explosive theological issue, especially in our day of pluralism. We will have to deal with each of these other texts in turn, but interpreters take five basic approaches to the problem here.
(1) Paul may be referring to faithful Jews and moral Gentiles before the coming of Christ. Living when they did, they would have had no opportunity to respond to the gospel; thus, God regarded their persistence in doing good as a sufficient basis for their salvation.7
(2) Paul may be referring to Christians whose works, produced by faith, are taken into account by God in his ultimate salvific verdict.8
(3) Paul may be referring to people generally who are saved by their works. His teaching here, then, contradicts his teaching on justification by faith alone elsewhere.9
(4) Paul may be referring to people who, without coming to know Christ explicitly, are enabled by God’s grace to be saved and so produce works that God approves in the judgment.10
(5) Paul may not be referring to anyone in particular. His purpose here is to enunciate the basis on which, outside of Christ, God judges people. Whether anyone actually persists in good works adequately enough to earn salvation Paul simply does not say. His subsequent argument reveals that, in fact, no one can do so (see 3:9, 20).11
View (3), positing as it does a contradiction in Paul’s teaching, should be set aside and only entertained as a last resort. Not only is it unlikely that Paul would contradict himself on so vital an issue within the same context, but such a contradiction also flies in the face of the truthfulness of Scripture that we think is abundantly attested. View (1) should also be set aside—nothing here suggests that Paul is looking only at the past. View (4) needs to be considered more seriously. Its advocates often insist that God will judge people on the basis of the light that they have received. But the context of Romans 1–3 reveals that only the light of the gospel truly saves. God’s grace works through that gospel. So it is unlikely that Paul countenances the idea that people may be saved apart from that gospel here.
Thus we are left with view (2)—that Paul refers to Gentile Christians—and view (5)—that he simply sets forth the criterion of salvation apart from gospel without implying that anyone meets that criterion. We think the latter is better. It is true that works, produced by faith, are taken into account by God in the judgment (see 2 Cor. 5:10; James 2:14–26). But assuming faith as the basis for those works in this context is a big assumption. Paul has not been talking about faith or about Christians. What he has been talking about is the standard by which God judges all human beings. That standard is works (v. 6). People who do evil works will suffer wrath. People who persist in doing good will gain eternal life. In both cases, it is the criterion of judgment, not the people who meet that criterion, that Paul has in mind. We must remember that Paul is in the process of building a case. It can be summarized like this:
Salvation for both Jew and Gentile is available only by doing good (2:6, 11, 13)
The power of sin prevents both Jew and Gentile from doing good (3:9–19)
Therefore: No one can be saved by doing good (3:20)
To think that in verses 8 and 10 Paul must be thinking of specific people who gain salvation by works is to miss the point of these verses in the larger argument.
To conclude, then: We do not think these verses give any grounds for thinking that salvation can be gained apart from the gospel. Paul’s argument in 1:18–3:20 is intended to establish the reason why God has unleashed his saving power in the gospel. Human beings are locked in sin and need to be rescued. For Paul to introduce at this point the possibility of salvation apart from the gospel would undercut his own argument.
What, then, do we say about people who have never had a chance to hear the gospel and either accept or reject it? Are they automatically excluded from salvation because they do not have a chance to hear? This very question was one of my key objections to the gospel when friends of mine in college first confronted me with the claims of Christ. The contemporary pluralistic environment has sharpened the question even further. Influential theologians—some within the evangelical movement—are arguing that people of genuine moral commitment can be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ. Karl Rahner, an influential Roman Catholic theologian, has coined the term “anonymous Christians” to describe such people.
While attractive for many reasons, this view simply does not square with the claims of Scripture. Paul’s argument in this part of Romans is straightforward: All people are under sin’s power and can escape the wrath that sin brings only by responding in faith to the gospel of God’s righteousness in Christ (see 3:9, 20, 21–22). To be sure, we cannot always know just how God may reveal his gospel to people. As Paul’s own example powerfully demonstrates, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries and others is God’s normal means of making his gospel known to people. But we must allow that God may have other ways of revealing his gospel to people that we do not know or even understand. So, while insisting that only faith in the gospel can save, we perhaps need to be open to different ways by which people may come to know the gospel.
One final point should be made. The problem of those who have not heard takes on a slightly different complexion depending on whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian. The Arminian, in a sense, has the bigger problem here. For Arminians believe that God’s prevenient grace puts all people in the position of being able to respond to the gospel. Their response is, therefore, the crucial factor. Calvinists, by contrast, while insisting on the need for response, also claim that the ultimate cause of salvation lies in God’s election, his specific choice of certain persons for salvation. The Calvinist can therefore argue that God will, in his sovereignty, see that every person he has chosen will also be exposed, in one way or another, to the gospel. Having determined the end, God will also enact the means.
I must confess that I am little closer to a compelling answer to my question about those who have not heard than I was when I was first converted. I think Scripture requires that we insist on faith in Christ as the necessary means of salvation. And I trust utterly in the absolute fairness of the God who has revealed himself to me in Jesus Christ. I am content to leave my questions in his hands and hope for clearer resolution in heaven.