Romans 2:17–29

NOW 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—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.”

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 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.

Original Meaning

The Law (2:17–24)

IN A SERIES of “if” clauses, Paul begins by enumerating many of the privileges enjoyed by the Jews (vv. 17–20). Some interpreters think Paul is engaging in a certain amount of sarcasm here, as if these privileges were ones the Jews bragged about but were not really theirs at all. But this misses the point of the text.1 All the privileges Paul lists are legitimate, and almost every one has explicit Old Testament warrant. The problem is not that the Jews are illegitimately boasting in what is not really theirs. The problem, rather, is that they are not living up to their claim. Paul’s choice of the diatribe style, with its second person address and back-and-forth dialogical character, is particularly appropriate for this kind of argument. We find the second-century writer Epictetus using the same kind of style to contest the claim of some philosophers to be “true Stoics” because they did not live out their philosophy.2

In verses 17–20 Paul enumerates nine privileges the Jews enjoy:

(1) They possess the name “Jew” (Gk. Ioudaios). This first privilege is also the most general. The term Jew originally referred to a person from the region occupied by the descendants of Judah, but it was applied generally to Israelite people after the Exile. By Paul’s day, the term was widely used in this more general sense. The name signified that one belonged to that people, distinct from all others, whom God had chosen to be his own. All other benefits flow from this fundamental one.

(2) They “rely on the law.” The law, as we have seen, is the law of Moses, the Torah. Jews were proud that they alone had been entrusted with this record of God’s character and will. They therefore tended to “rely” on it for deliverance from judgment. Paul implicitly makes the same point as Micah made six centuries earlier. After rebuking the leaders of Israel for their sin, the prophet said, “Yet they lean upon the LORD and say, ‘Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us’ ” (Mic. 3:11).

(3) They “brag about [their] relationship to God.” The NIV “brag” suggests the idea of improper pride. But the Greek word used (kauchaomai) is perhaps better translated “boast.” Boasting is not always a bad thing. Paul’s use of the word is decisively influenced by Jeremiah 9:23–24, which he quotes in 1 Corinthians 1:31 and 2 Corinthians 10:17:

This is what the LORD says:

“Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom

or the strong man boast of his strength

or the rich man boast of his riches,

but let him who boasts boast about this:

that he understands and knows me,

that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,

justice and righteousness on earth,

for in these I delight,”

declares the LORD.

Boasting, in other words, is not always wrong; it depends on what one is boasting in. It does not appear wrong for Jews to boast in their relationship to God, for God himself has established a relationship with them.

(4) They know God’s will (v. 18). Paul began this section of the letter by announcing that God has given to all people knowledge about himself (1:19). Now he specifically includes the Jews.

(5) They “approve of what is superior.” Although the difference is not great, this can also be translated, “distinguish the things that really matter.”3 In either case, the point is that the Jews are able to discern right from wrong. They can do so because, Paul adds, they are “instructed by the law.”

The next four matters of Jewish pride flow from the prerogatives Paul has enumerated in 2:17–18. They all involve the Jews’ sense of superiority with respect to other peoples.

(6) and (7) They are “a guide for the blind” and “a light for those who are in the dark” (2:19). These are two ways of saying the same thing. As a natural outcome of the Jews’ knowledge of God through the law, they are in a position to help others understand the truth about God. The language echoes Old Testament descriptions of the mission of Israel to the nations. Note Isaiah 42:6–7, for example:

“I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;

I will take hold of your hand.

I will keep you and will make you

to be a covenant for the people

and a light for the Gentiles,

to open eyes that are blind,

to free captives from prison

and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”

(italics added)

While Jesus gave an ironic twist to this claim, calling the Pharisees “blind guides” (Matt. 15:14), there is nothing to suggest that Paul uses similar irony here. The Jews are convinced they are the religious instructors of the world, according to God’s own appointment.

(8) and (9) The Jews are also convinced that they are “instructors of the foolish” and “teachers of infants” (v. 20a)—two more claims that obviously go together. “Foolish” (aphron) is not as pejorative as this word group is, for instance, in Proverbs, where it denotes the person who rebels against God’s standards and goes his or her own way. Here it refers to Gentiles as people who, without detailed knowledge of God and his Word, inevitably fall into wrong forms of worship and behavior (see 1:22). Similarly, from a Jewish point of view, Gentiles are “infants” in terms of their religious sensibilities. They need to be taught true knowledge of God.

Many Jewish texts from this time show this attitude was typical. We may cite two as illustrative: “In those days, he says, ‘The Lord will be patient and cause the children of the earth to hear. Reveal it to them with your wisdom, for you are their guides’ ” (1 Enoch 105:1). “The people of the great God will again be strong who will be guides in life for all mortals” (Syb. Or. 3.194–95).

The end of verse 20 reveals again Paul’s preoccupation with the law in this section. His enumeration of general Jewish blessings ended with the words “because you are instructed by the law” (v. 18); now he states: “because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth.” In “natural revelation” the Gentiles have knowledge of God and are therefore “without excuse” when they sin (1:20). Jews have knowledge of God in the special revelation of God’s law so that they, likewise, “have no excuse” (2:1) when they sin.

Paul breaks off his conditional sentence at the end of 2:20 (the break is marked in the NIV with a dash). He does this so that he can get the maximum rhetorical effect from the charge that he now levels against the Jews. By repeating in summary form some of the privileges he listed in verses 17–20, Paul highlights effectively the contrast between claim and reality:

You, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

Only two points in these fairly obvious charges need comment. (1) What Paul means by accusing the Jews of robbing temples (v. 22) is unclear. The obvious interpretation, of course, is that the Jews are guilty of robbing pagan temples. We have some evidence that Jews at this time were relaxing the Old Testament strictures against using precious metals melted down from idols. So Paul may be citing this practice as evidence that their horror of idolatry is insincere.4 Other interpreters think Paul may be referring to the Jerusalem temple and that their robbery consists in holding back the taxes imposed on them for its upkeep. A third possibility is that Paul is speaking metaphorically of sacrilege committed by the Jews—as, for instance, when they elevate the law to such a position that it challenges God’s own unique status.5 The first interpretation is really the only one that fits the context, since the action of robbing temples must be the opposite of the Jews’ abhorrence of idols.

(2) Note the summarizing character of verse 23. The NIV takes this verse as a question, but it may be an assertion, giving even more weight to it. Here is the essence of the matter for Paul: The Jews’ legitimate boasting (NIV “brag”; see comments on v. 17) about the law means that their failure to obey it brings dishonor on God himself. By failing to demonstrate in day-to-day living the qualities that the law they profess to love, they not only fail to be the light that God wants them to be—they actually harm the reputation of God.

Paul highlights this point in verse 24 with his quotation of Isaiah 52:5. Although the blaspheming of God’s name in Isaiah comes about because of pagan oppression of Israel, Paul creates an ironic twist by attributing this blasphemy to Israel’s sinfulness in the midst of pagans. But he is still fair to the larger context from which he draws the quotation, for Israel’s oppression by pagan nations is itself a result of her sin.6

Bridging Contexts

CIRCUMCISION. CIRCUMCISION WAS first instituted by God as a sign of his covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:9–13:

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.

Circumcision was routinely practiced in Israel from that time on. But the crisis during the Maccabean Revolt (166–160 B.C.) elevated it to a new level of significance. There was a growing movement among Jews to adopt Hellenistic ways of thinking and to abandon their Jewish faith. Therefore, says the historian who wrote 1 Maccabees, they “removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil” (1 Macc. 1:15).

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid tyrant who sought to eradicate the Jewish religion, was well aware of the immense symbolic value of the rite. He accordingly made circumcision of a child a capital offense (1 Macc. 1:48, 58–61). Pious Jews rose up in resistance, “choos[ing] to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant” (1:63). Eventually successful in restoring the Jewish faith, pious Jews naturally accorded to circumcision an even greater importance than before.

At about the same time, more and more Jews living in the Diaspora mingled with Gentiles. In such a situation, physical rites like circumcision took on increasing importance as a way of keeping strict adherents of a religion separate from the pagan influence all around. One can cite the traditional hair and clothing styles maintained in our day by orthodox Jews as a similar response.

Against this background, then, we can understand why circumcision was so central and emotional an issue in the debates between Jews and Christians, and between Judaizers and other Christians, in the early days of the church (e.g., Acts 15; Galatians). Allowing Gentiles to become God’s people without being circumcised was tantamount to denying the Jewish faith. At the same time, the term circumcision sometimes stood for the Jewish faith generally (cf. Eph. 2:11). His discussion of the rite in 2:25–29 grows out of this background.

The polemic of Romans 2. Most Christians reading Romans 2 probably accept Paul’s indictment of the Jews at face value. But those who know either ancient Judaism or contemporary Jews and who read carefully what Paul is saying may have some uneasiness. Take verses 17–24. How can Paul utter so blanket a condemnation of the Jews? He seems to suggest that Jews routinely steal and commit adultery. Yet this is manifestly unfair, since most Jews in Paul’s day, in fact, led moral lives and were often model citizens.

Similar problems emerge at other places in Romans 2. As we have noted in our exposition, Paul seems to discount any real value in the Mosaic covenant, arguing that it gives the Jews no real advantage vis-à-vis Gentiles (vv. 6–11, 12, 25–27). At the same time, he appears to paint a rosy picture of the Gentiles, seemingly attributing to them the ability to obey the law and to be saved (e.g., vv. 8, 10, 14–15, 26–27). In an effort to level the playing field between Jews and Gentiles, in other words, Paul appears to have both unfairly criticized the Jews and given the Gentiles far too much credit.

Is Paul then guilty of unfair exaggeration? If so, how can his argument in this paragraph possibly have any effect on people who know that things are not as Paul suggests? To bring the issue home to us: How can we give credit to a text that appears to indulge in some unfair “religion bashing?” Only if we can remove these obstacles to hearing the text will the contemporary reader be able both to understand and accept the teaching of this chapter.

Scholars have given a lot of attention to these matters in recent decades, and they have come to very different conclusions. Some have indeed decided that Paul distorts the situation in the interests of making Christianity seem as superior to Judaism as possible.9 But we think Paul’s polemic in chapter 2 can be justified in its context when we consider four factors.

(1) In vv. 21–22, Paul is not describing all Jews or even a typical Jew. Rather, he is choosing an extreme illustration of the point he wants to make, namely, that the practice of Jews does not match their talking. It is no accident that two of the activities the apostle uses as illustrations—stealing and adultery—are prohibited in the Ten Commandments and cited elsewhere in the New Testament in just this kind of exemplary manner (see Matt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9). Some scholars have further reduced the strength of these accusations by suggesting that Paul may imply in his accusation Jesus’ “interiorising” interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:21–48);10 that is, what Paul accuses the Jews of doing is not the outward acts of theft and adultery, but the inner attitude of greed and lust. What Jew—or any human being—is immune from such sins? We are not sure that Paul intends this kind of spiritual interpretation, but we are sure he does not intend to suggest that Jews generally commit such acts.

(2) As we have argued at length, many scholars are guilty of overemphasizing Paul’s teaching in this chapter on the spiritual potential of the Gentiles (see esp. Contemporary Significance section on 2:1–11; also Original Meaning notes on 2:13–15, 26–27). Paul clearly affirms that they have access to divine moral law (2:14–15) and can sometimes exhibit such sterling behavior so as to put Jews to shame (2:26–27). But he does not claim that they can be saved apart from the gospel, and he certainly does not suggest that, overall, they are in a better religious position than the Jews.

(3) Although he never comes out and says it in so many words, Romans 2 clearly indicates that Paul does, indeed, deny Jews can be saved through the Mosaic covenant. This, we must remember, is the view he is attacking: the widespread belief among Jews that their salvation was virtually guaranteed simply because they were Jews. Moreover, Jewish identity in Paul’s day was increasingly connected to the law of Moses. Even circumcision, though instituted long before the law was given, was linked in Jewish thinking to obedience to the law.11 So in denying that circumcision, the mark of the covenant, is without value if the law is not obeyed, Paul is in effect denying that the Mosaic covenant can save. But if this is the case, then Jews are, at least in this respect, in the same position of the Gentiles: able to achieve salvation apart from the gospel only through personal works (an impossible task).

(4) It is vital to keep in mind that Paul says nothing about the Jews in this chapter that he does not say about the Gentiles. Paul is not “anti-Semitic”; he is “anti-natural man.” Once the Mosaic covenant is rightly understood and the shift in salvation history that occurred with the coming of Messiah fully appreciated, it becomes obvious that Jews are no different from other people when it comes to salvation. Paul, to be sure, spends much more time on Jews than he does on Gentiles. But this is simply because the Jews’ special place in salvation history gave them a much stronger reason to believe that they did not need the gospel than Gentiles had.

Contemporary Significance

CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. We have anticipated in the earlier sections many of the points of enduring importance that Paul has made in this section. His overall concern is to help the Roman Christians—and us!—understand why Jews need Christ just as much as Gentiles do. But we should look again at this argument in light of some strong cultural currents in our time.

The horror of the Shoah, or the Holocaust, has provided a powerful motive to reexamine Jewish-Christian relationships. Many Jews blame Christians for the Holocaust. Christians have rightly asked themselves whether such an accusation is justified. Some have concluded that, in fact, it is. The Holocaust is not simply the fault of Gentiles, some of whom claimed to be Christian or to stand in the Christian heritage. The Holocaust, rather, is the fault ultimately of the Christian faith itself—at least as traditionally understood. For the New Testament itself, so these people claim, is inherently anti-Semitic. It denies validity to the Jewish faith, and it is the Jewish faith that is inherent to the self-identity of the Jewish people.

According to this line of thinking, then, the Christian church can avoid anti-Semitism only by (1) abandoning its faith or (2) by radically reinterpreting the New Testament. In later sections we will look more closely at how this reinterpretation is being carried out, particularly with respect to Romans. But for now our concern is with the larger issue of anti-Semitism. Is Romans 2 really anti-Semitic because it challenges the Jews’ understanding of salvation? How should Christians respond to Jewish friends and neighbors in light of Romans 2?

Don Hagner usefully distinguishes between “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Judaism.”12 The former is irrational hatred of the Jewish nation or people; the latter is opposition to the Jewish religion as ultimately a valid expression of the truth. Despite ingenious attempts to argue otherwise, the New Testament is certainly “anti-Jewish.” That is, it contests the claim that the Old Testament is the final expression of God’s truth and that people can find eternal salvation within the boundaries set down by Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and Torah. Romans 2 is one of those passages that makes this point clear. Neither circumcision, the sign of the covenant, nor the law, the center of that covenant, can rescue a Jew from God’s wrath. Only the gospel of Christ can do that.

But we should not, therefore, allow others to label Christians as “anti-Semitic.” Christians do not hate or despise Jewish people even if we are convinced that their religion does not provide for their salvation. Nor do we hate Arabs because we don’t think that Islam saves, or Indians because we question the validity of Hinduism (or Buddhism), or secularists because we do not think materialism is the final answer to life.

But we need also to admit that anti-Semitism lurks right around the corner—particularly when we are dealing with texts such as Romans 2. We must draw the conclusion that Paul himself draws from his discussion: that the Jewish people cannot be saved in their own religion and need to hear and respond to the gospel. Never should we compromise on this.

At the same time, we also need to avoid any hint of triumphalism when we make these points. When we understand Paul’s argument correctly, we recognize that all of us are naturally in the same plight as the Jews: locked up under sin and helpless to save ourselves. Indeed, if we are faithful to Paul, we will acknowledge that, from a natural standpoint, Jews start in a position of advantage to us (3:1). But rescue from our plight, coming solely as a matter of God’s grace, is nothing we can take any credit for.

As with all people, we need sympathetically to understand where Jews are coming from. Precisely because so many Jews resisted Jesus and the early church and because the first Christians had to define themselves over against the Jewish faith, we find a lot of polemic against Judaism in the New Testament. History, of course, is littered with the debris of Jewish-Christian debates and fights. With this behind us, it is easy to construct a caricature of the Jewish faith. Indeed, as recent work is revealing, Christian scholars in the past have often been guilty of misrepresenting the Jewish faith, portraying it as far more petty and legalistic than it really was. These misrepresentations have filtered down to the church at large.

What can we do about this situation? We suggest two things. (1) If we are really interested, we should find a good recent book on the Jewish faith.13 (2) Whenever occasion arises, we should seek to understand from Jews themselves what they believe. Modern Judaism is, of course, a diverse religion. So only by trying to understand what a particular Jew believes will we be able to enter into his or her world and to share the gospel sensitively and tellingly.

Original Meaning

Circumcision (2:25–29)

NEXT TO THE LAW, circumcision was the most important distinguishing mark of Jewishness (see Bridging Contexts section). It is natural, then, for Paul to discuss it along with the law (2:17–24) in his continuing attempt to erode the Jews’ confidence in their inherited religious advantages.

Paul does not deny that “circumcision has value” (a point he reaffirms in 3:1). But its value is contingent on obedience: Only Jews who “observe the law” will profit from it. What does Paul mean by observing the law? Many interpreters think he is reflecting standard Old Testament and Jewish teaching that one’s covenant relationship with God can be guaranteed only through a heartfelt, faith-filled practice of God’s law. Perfect conformity is not required, as, of course, the sacrificial laws make clear; what God expects is a consistent, sincere attempt to live by his standards.7

There are two problems with this interpretation. (1) Paul consistently distinguishes between “doing,” “practicing,” or “observing” the law and faith; he never mixes them (cf. 3:27–28 and comments; 4:2–5, 13–16; 10:5–8; Gal. 3:12). (2) The present verse must be interpreted in light of the ultimate destination of Paul’s argument, that no person can be justified “by observing the law” (3:20). For these reasons, we must see in 2:25a a negative point: Circumcision has no value to rescue Jews from God’s wrath because their obedience to the law never reaches the level required for salvation. The second part of verse 25 simply states the negative corollary of this point: Failing to obey the law can annul the value of circumcision.

Verse 26 draws a natural inference from verse 25: If doing the law, not circumcision, is what saves, then Gentiles who, though uncircumcised, obey the law can be saved. Here again, as in 2:8, 10, 14–15, we face the problem of identifying these “righteous” Gentiles. Scholars give the same answers: Gentiles generally who are saved because they lead moral lives, Gentile Christians, and a hypothetical construct. We are again convinced that the third view is preferable.

To be sure, one can make a better case here than in any of the other texts that Paul has Gentile Christians in mind. For verse 27 lends a note of realism to the picture, and verses 28–29 refer to the Spirit, possessed only by Christians.8 But the realism of verse 27 is simply part of the rhetorical effect Paul wants to produce. Having put before the Jew with whom he is debating the figure of a Gentile who has done the law and has therefore joined the people of God (v. 26), Paul brings the imagery home by talking about this Gentile standing in judgment over the disobedient Jew. All this is part of his effort to show the Jews that they cannot count on circumcision to save them at the judgment. The apostle makes clear elsewhere that there is, in fact, no person who can do the law and be saved (3:20). Thus, he must again here be speaking hypothetically, theorizing about the existence of a law-observant Gentile and what the consequences would be.

Verses 28–29 are a kind of appendix to this argument. Paul has made clear that being circumcised and possessing the law (v. 27b) do not, by themselves, qualify a person to be part of God’s true, spiritual people. Such outward marks, to be sure, can show that a person belongs to the “physical” Israel. But real Jewishness can never be determined by physical birth, by cuts on our skin, or by devotion to a particular book. To be a “real Jew” is an inward matter. It is marked by the “circumcision of the heart,” a circumcision that comes in the context of the Spirit, not the “written code.”

Circumcision of the heart is, of course, no new requirement. Moses himself called on the people of Israel to “circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer” (Deut. 10:16; see also Jer. 4:4). God’s true people have always been marked by faith-filled commitment to God and not merely by external rites. But Paul does go beyond the Old Testament by insisting that this heart circumcision is accomplished “in” or “by” (Gk. en) the “Spirit” (pneuma) and not the “letter” (gramma).

The NIV “written code” is a good rendering of gramma, since Paul seems to use the term to denote the law of Moses as a law by its nature written in letters on stone tablets (see esp. 2 Cor. 3:6–7). In contrast to this law, pneuma must refer not to the human spirit but to God’s Spirit. This is clearly what Paul intends in the other places where he contrasts gramma and pneuma (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6–7). What he does, then, at the end of this chapter, is to anticipate the direction of his argument. He will show that only those who, through faith in Christ, have received the Spirit of God make up God’s true people. Implicit here is a radical redefinition of “Jew” that will require a lot more explanation as Paul moves forward in this letter.

Bridging Contexts

CIRCUMCISION. CIRCUMCISION WAS first instituted by God as a sign of his covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:9–13:

Contemporary Significance