The 5 paragraphs of Romans 2 in the ESV

Romans 2

+ Romans 2.1-5 Jews are just as much provoking wrath as Gentiles are, so Jews have no reason to believe they are better. JEWS ARE IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE THE NATIONS

= Romans 2.6-11 God judges both Jews and Gentiles impartially so Jews don’t get special favors.

= Romans 2.12-16 Jesus will judge both Jews and Gentiles, vindicating those who trust in him and condemning those who reject his Word.

+ Romans 2.17-24 Jews are just as much provoking wrath as Gentiles are, so Jews have no reason to believe they are better. JEWS ARE IN NO POSITION TO TEACH THE NATIONS

= Romans 2.25-29 God judges both Jews and Gentiles impartially so Jews don’t get special favors.

So is Paul just restating themes?

Maybe not.

1. First claim: Romans 2.1-5: Israel is not in a position to judge the Gentiles but is going to be judged.

[Question A: But isn’t God going to be partial to Israel?]

2. Second claim : Romans 2.6-11: God judges both Jews and Gentiles impartially.

[Question B: But doesn’t the Law give Israel an advantage?]

3. Third claim:  Romans 2.12-16: The Law may alter the terms by which one is judged, but Gentiles can trust and obey or disbelieve and disobey just like Jews can.  So fundamental ly, though Jews were entrusted with the Law, the Gentiles can still obey God.  Better an obedient Gentile than a disobedient Jew.

[ Question C: But, remembering your first claim, are you sure that Israel has been so disobedient?]

4. Fourth claim (reiterating first claim): Romans 2.17-24: Israel’s failure is public and obvious.  Just as the exile was a smear on God’s reputation, so Israel’s sin is at the heart of Gentile theological perversion mentioned earlier (Romans 1.18ff).

[Question B2: But doesn’t circumcision make a difference (as asked about the law in Question B above)?]

5. Fifth claim: Romans 2.25-29: Circumcision demands a certain kind of obedience, but is useless for demarcating blessing from God if the circumcised person is disobedient.  Obedient Gentiles, on the other hand, show they belong to the true God.

5 thoughts on “The 5 paragraphs of Romans 2 in the ESV

  1. Christopher Kou

    Regarding Romans 2:12-16, are you certain that this is telling us that Gentiles can be obedient? First, this opens with the statement that all have sinned. Second, the law that the Gentile has written on his heart is states as doing either one of two things: accuse and excuse. While it is true that “the doers of the law will be justified,” it doesn’t seem that Paul is suggesting that any Gentile might actually attain to that goal.

    Reply
  2. BrianN

    Christopher: most current NT scholars (and I believe Mark would join them) think that Paul is talking about converted Gentiles who have the Law written on their heart as the fulfillment of the New Covenant promise in Jer. 31. Paul is not (and never?) talks about “natural law,” even though most people (including WCF, etc.) have interpreted him that way.

    Reply
  3. Christopher Kou

    Brian,

    I had always wondered about Romans 2’s relationship to the prophecy of Jeremiah 31. I don’t know that I’m convinced that it is speaking of a fulfillment of that though. For a couple reasons. First, because Paul says that the Gentiles do what the law requires “by nature,” it seems he is referring to the general fact that even the Gentiles instinctively “φύσει” know good from evil. This, he says, is their condition even though they “do not have the law.”

    Second because the effects that Paul speaks of that this conscience brings about it either to accuse or excuse. That is, their conscience is bearing witness against them with its “conflicting thoughts.” This does not seem to me to be speaking of a New Covenant fulfillment, but rather the condition of Gentiles who are still lost and under condemnation.

    If we then compare vv.14-16 with vv.17-24, we see the contrast between the Gentile situation and the Jewish situation. It seems that this is still speaking of those who are under condemnation–here it’s the Jews because they don’t keep the law they’ve been given.

    It seems to me that vv.14-24 are an extended exposition of v.12, that “all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.” First the Gentiles, who do not have the law but have its works written on their heats (vv.14-16), and then the Jews who have the law and keep it not (vv.17-24).

    Reply
  4. mark Post author

    Christopher, maybe Paul leaves it ambiguous at first, but if so his clarification is unmistakable: “For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.” I show here why I do not think this can be hypothetical. There were Gentiles throughout the Bible who obeyed the law while Jews did not. And I don’t see how this last paragraph in Romans 2 can be about something entirely different.

    I don’t read phusei with the doing but with the not having. The Gentiles don’t have the law by nature, by birth.

    I don’t think any of this is distinctively New Covenant. Paul is simply saying that there have been justified Gentiles and unjustified Jews throughout history. Being a Jew does not give you a pass or ensure that the nation is not under God’s wrath.

    Nor do I think that Romans 2 is elaborating a case for universal individual sinfulness. I think it is arguing for national apostasy and that the generation of both Jew and Gentile has filled up the cup of God’s wrath and should have been swept away.

    If God had destroyed the world, then there would have been know hope for believing Jew or Gentile because they are still sinful. But the point about how God’s wrath is being provoked is not based on the simple fact that all human beings sin. Rather, it is the compiling of cultural corruption and perversion that is leading to God’s wrath. Otherwise, Paul would have argued like this.

    Reply
  5. Christopher Kou

    Okay, so not universal condemnation on an individual level, but rather deserved condemnation on a corporate level, both as those under the law and those apart from it?

    You’re right, it certainly seems that Paul indicates that one who is not under the law as the Jew is can still keep the law. This last section you quoted (vv.25-27) does seem to speak of those who are in Christ, as verse 28 goes on to speak of the circumcision of the heart, by Spirit, and not letter.

    Do you then think that this passages is speaking of the same Gentiles as vv.14-24?

    That’s an interesting perspective, if I’m understanding you properly now. I’ll need to that interpretive lens on and take another look at those passages to see how they look.

    Also, I’m still wondering if you think this section is speaking to a specific group of Jews or whether you think Paul was being rhetorical when he says “you call yourself a Jew” and “You who boast in the law . . . the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

    My original point was simply that these direct addresses seem to be rhetorical in nature, as they are apparently speaking “to” reprobate Israel rather than to redeemed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *