Romans Chapter 2
We begin our study with Romans 2:12. Let's read that passage and then analyze it in the context under which Paul wrote it.
For 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.
Paul has just completed his allegation against the Gentiles (Romans 1:18-2:11) summed up in this statement: what could have been known about God is clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:19-20). His point is that the Gentiles are worthy of God's wrath because they have rejected what could be known about God and have committed abominations.
Having summed up his accusation against the Gentiles, Paul begins his allegations against the Jews. In Romans 2:12, Paul transitions from the Gentiles being worthy of God's wrath to the Jews also being worthy of God's wrath.
In Romans 2:12 we see a very clear comparison between those who are without the law (i.e. those who do not have the written Torah) and those who are under the law (i.e. those who do have the written Torah). Both groups of people are sinners and will perish (in the case of the Gentiles) or be judged by the law (in the case of the Jews). “Perish” and “judged by the law” are parallel ideas. Gentiles perish, not because they do not have the law, but because they have sinned. Jews similarly are judged because they have sinned, and possession of the law does not exempt them from this judgment. As Dunn states,
Having summed up his accusation against the Gentiles, Paul begins his allegations against the Jews. In Romans 2:12, Paul transitions from the Gentiles being worthy of God's wrath to the Jews also being worthy of God's wrath.
In Romans 2:12 we see a very clear comparison between those who are without the law (i.e. those who do not have the written Torah) and those who are under the law (i.e. those who do have the written Torah). Both groups of people are sinners and will perish (in the case of the Gentiles) or be judged by the law (in the case of the Jews). “Perish” and “judged by the law” are parallel ideas. Gentiles perish, not because they do not have the law, but because they have sinned. Jews similarly are judged because they have sinned, and possession of the law does not exempt them from this judgment. As Dunn states,
[Jews] will be judged not by whether they were within the law (Jew) or without the law (Gentile), but because they sinned. . . The law may be a badge marking off Jew from Gentile, but possession of the law does not of itself secure the Jew from condemnation (104).
Here Dunn explains that judgment is not based on whether or not you have the law, but rather because you have sinned. Having the law versus not having the law gives you no special favor in the eyes of God. When Paul writes about the Jews' dependence on possession of the law, he is essentially saying that they depended on their election: “We are the elect of God; we are the ones entrusted with the law.” This dependence led to a false security. Many thought, "Because I am part of the elect group, chosen by God, belonging to the people of Israel, entrusted with his very words, then this gains me favor in his sight." Paul opposes this idea and maintains that God will judge both the Jew and the Gentile impartially. Both have sinned, and both receive the consequence of sin.
Let's look a bit closer at Paul's use of the term “under the law” in this passage. What exactly does “under the law” mean in this context? It is important to note that the word “under” in this passage is the Greek word ἐν (en), which at face value means “in, on, or among,” as opposed to the Greek word ὑπo (hupo), which literally means "under." A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) explains that this preposition has a variety of uses, and that ultimately context has the final say in how it is being used. One of the common uses of en is to give a marker of a state or condition. In Romans two, Paul is comparing two different states or conditions: those who have the law (ἐν νόμως en nomos; "in the law") and those who do not (ἀνόμως anomos; “without the law”). En nomos refers to those who have the law. The English translation of en nomos as “under the law” simply means those who have been given the written law, mainly the Jews, the elect of God. We see this in the verse immediately following verse 12:
Let's look a bit closer at Paul's use of the term “under the law” in this passage. What exactly does “under the law” mean in this context? It is important to note that the word “under” in this passage is the Greek word ἐν (en), which at face value means “in, on, or among,” as opposed to the Greek word ὑπo (hupo), which literally means "under." A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) explains that this preposition has a variety of uses, and that ultimately context has the final say in how it is being used. One of the common uses of en is to give a marker of a state or condition. In Romans two, Paul is comparing two different states or conditions: those who have the law (ἐν νόμως en nomos; "in the law") and those who do not (ἀνόμως anomos; “without the law”). En nomos refers to those who have the law. The English translation of en nomos as “under the law” simply means those who have been given the written law, mainly the Jews, the elect of God. We see this in the verse immediately following verse 12:
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified (13).1
Those who are “hearers of the law” are those who possess the law. It is because of this possession that they regularly hear its teachings. Remember, to the Jew, “the hearers of the law” are those who are the elect of God. The problem arises when the Jews misunderstand this election. It does not automatically grant one favor in the eyes of God. Paul argues that possession of the law, a mere hearing of its words, does not make you righteous; what is important to God is that you do the law.
Now at this point one might claim that this is a works-based salvation, that one must obey the law in order to be righteous. In the chapters that follow, Paul makes very clear that no one is righteous, that no one meets the requirements of the law, and that justification was, is, and always will be by faith (see the discussion of chapters 3-5 below). Paul is not advocating for justification by works. Rather, he stresses that though the Jews are God's chosen people and have been entrusted with the law, this does not give them a special status with God. God will judge all people according to what they have done, not on whether or not they possess the law, not on whether they are included “in the elect.” Paul is pointing out to his Jewish audience that having the law will not justify you; rather, the standard of righteousness is obedience to God's instruction. We will see later in Paul's letter that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, fall short of this standard and thus have the same need for justification by God.
Paul then drives his point home even further by comparing those Jews who have the law but do not obey it with Gentiles who do not have the law and yet do obey it.
Now at this point one might claim that this is a works-based salvation, that one must obey the law in order to be righteous. In the chapters that follow, Paul makes very clear that no one is righteous, that no one meets the requirements of the law, and that justification was, is, and always will be by faith (see the discussion of chapters 3-5 below). Paul is not advocating for justification by works. Rather, he stresses that though the Jews are God's chosen people and have been entrusted with the law, this does not give them a special status with God. God will judge all people according to what they have done, not on whether or not they possess the law, not on whether they are included “in the elect.” Paul is pointing out to his Jewish audience that having the law will not justify you; rather, the standard of righteousness is obedience to God's instruction. We will see later in Paul's letter that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, fall short of this standard and thus have the same need for justification by God.
Paul then drives his point home even further by comparing those Jews who have the law but do not obey it with Gentiles who do not have the law and yet do obey it.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (2:14-15).
Paul's purpose here is not to say one does not need the law but rather to stress that it is the doing of the law that is important, not Jewish election. Compare what Paul writes here with what Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 21:28-32:
“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”
God's favor is not based on status, but on repentant behavior. Again, the Jews thought they had special favor with God and were justified because of their election, yet many in this elect group failed to obey the very law in which they boasted. Paul adamantly opposes this idea, saying one must obey the law, and that Gentiles, if they obey it (even obeying it without knowing or possessing it) are better off than those who rely on it for their election.
Dunn confirms this, writing:
Dunn confirms this, writing:
For Paul is seeking to deny any false distinction between Jew and Gentile (vv 9–10), and the law is introduced as providing just such a distinction—Gentiles being characterized as those “without the law,” “not having the law” (vv 12, 14), and Jews as those “within the law,” “hearers of the law” (vv 12, 13). The point is that there is no advantage in merely having the law, that is, in belonging to the people who hear the law sabbath by sabbath (cf Acts 15:21). The possibility of a “doing” of the law acceptable to God is not dependent on such an understanding of covenant status but on an obedience from the heart unrestricted by ethnic boundaries (vv 13–15). As Snodgrass rightly argues, Paul does clearly believe here in “Judgment according to works,” and is expounding an essentially Jewish view of judgment (in which mercy and judgment were held together without any thought of incongruity), but radicalized to warn against Jewish overconfidence in election (35).
The law provides no distinction when it comes to judgment. Judgment is based upon obedience to God's standard of righteousness, not whether or not one is “in the law” or “without the law.” It is the doing of the law that counts.
Paul continues this same line of thinking into the following verses:
Paul continues this same line of thinking into the following verses:
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth —you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (17-24).
Context demands that those who “rely on the law” (17) are not those who obey the law but rather those who depend on their election, on their possession of the law, for justification (just as Paul stressed in the above verses). Paul adamantly opposes this kind of “reliance” or “rest.” He points out that these same people who have the law, also teach the law, but themselves do not obey it and thus the name of God is blasphemed because of their hypocrisy.
Clearly, Paul is not saying that we no longer need to obey the law, as many Christians believe. Rather, he is opposing those who claim superiority because they possess the law, when they themselves do not obey it. God does not accept this hypocrisy. Instead of claiming freedom from the law, Paul teaches the importance of obedience to the law. Using the law as a means of superiority is proof that the law is being misused and misapplied. The very point of Paul's argument is that reliance upon the law as only that of an external nature, and not an inward submission to God's Word, results in judgment.
In verses 25-29, Paul moves specifically to the topic of circumcision. Here Paul builds his case against those who rely on the external nature of the law. He does this by focusing on the external nature of circumcision, paralleling this with his discussion above on possession of the law. The argument is the same. To the Jew, dependence on circumcision is equivalent to dependence on election. Similarly, as we saw above, dependence on possession of the law is equivalent to dependence on election.
Clearly, Paul is not saying that we no longer need to obey the law, as many Christians believe. Rather, he is opposing those who claim superiority because they possess the law, when they themselves do not obey it. God does not accept this hypocrisy. Instead of claiming freedom from the law, Paul teaches the importance of obedience to the law. Using the law as a means of superiority is proof that the law is being misused and misapplied. The very point of Paul's argument is that reliance upon the law as only that of an external nature, and not an inward submission to God's Word, results in judgment.
In verses 25-29, Paul moves specifically to the topic of circumcision. Here Paul builds his case against those who rely on the external nature of the law. He does this by focusing on the external nature of circumcision, paralleling this with his discussion above on possession of the law. The argument is the same. To the Jew, dependence on circumcision is equivalent to dependence on election. Similarly, as we saw above, dependence on possession of the law is equivalent to dependence on election.
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision (25).
Paul stresses that just as mere possession of the law is not sufficient, so mere circumcision (an external sign of an internal keeping of the law) is not sufficient if you do not obey the law (the internal part). Since both these ideas (circumcision and possession of the law) are related to Jewish election, Paul once again is striving to show that belonging to a certain elect group of people does not assure justification, especially when “the elect” fail to keep the commandments of God.
Next, Paul shows that those who obey the law (the internal part) even though they are not circumcised (the external sign), are regarded as though they were circumcised.
Next, Paul shows that those who obey the law (the internal part) even though they are not circumcised (the external sign), are regarded as though they were circumcised.
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. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God (26-29).
Paul essentially uses the same argument as in verses 14-15, mainly that those who do not have the law but do it are more righteous than those who have the law but do not do it. Here, he puts a slightly different twist on it: If you are not circumcised but keep the law, it is as though you are circumcised. To those who in fact have the law and are circumcised but don't obey, they might as well not be circumcised.
Is Paul's point that circumcision is necessary or unnecessary? No; rather his point here is that an external sign does not give you any superiority or favor anymore than possession of the law does. Do not depend on your election! If you want favor and blessing, you must obey the law. Far from Paul giving his readers permission to dismiss the law, he stresses the importance of obeying it, not for the purpose of earning salvation, but rather as a response to the redemption already received.
1 The Torah repeatedly confirms this point, instructing “hear and do” in Hebrew, sh'ma v'asah, Deuteronomy 5:1, 6:3.
Is Paul's point that circumcision is necessary or unnecessary? No; rather his point here is that an external sign does not give you any superiority or favor anymore than possession of the law does. Do not depend on your election! If you want favor and blessing, you must obey the law. Far from Paul giving his readers permission to dismiss the law, he stresses the importance of obeying it, not for the purpose of earning salvation, but rather as a response to the redemption already received.
1 The Torah repeatedly confirms this point, instructing “hear and do” in Hebrew, sh'ma v'asah, Deuteronomy 5:1, 6:3.