Romans 2:1-16 - Research

Joseph Young

Sermon • Submitted 7 years ago

0 ratings

· 49 views

Notes

Transcript

Sermon Tone Analysis

Emotion

Language

Social

View more →

3. The Outline of This Section

In this subsection Paul’s thought flows as follows.

2:1–5. First, the Jews are under the wrath of God, no less than the Gentiles. Thus they have no basis for passing judgment on the Gentiles and gloating over their fate.

2:6–11. Second, God will be partial to no one in the judgment. He will treat all alike, whether Jews or Gentiles. The principles of judgment as required by law will be applied to both in exactly the same way.

2:12–16. Third, under law, the criterion of judgment is obedience alone, not whether or how one possesses the law or knows the law. It is especially important for the Jews to know that mere possession of the law is no indication of special treatment in the judgment.

2:17–24. Fourth, Jews who look to the law for salvation are in fact condemned by their disobedience to that law. They have broken the very law they glory in and rely upon.

2:25–29. Fifth, true Jewishness is identified not by circumcision but by the inward state of the heart. Thus the Jews’ reliance upon physical circumcision as the sure measure of salvation is futile.

3:1–8. Finally, such equal treatment of Jews and Gentiles does not nullify but rather magnifies God’s righteousness. Those who rail at God because of this equal treatment before the law have misunderstood God’s purpose for Israel and deserve to be condemned for their blasphemy.

Cottrell, J. (1996). Romans (Vol. 1, ). Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co.

In 1:18–32, Paul describes those people whom he accuses of perverting their knowledge of God (Gentiles, primarily) in the third person: “they” turned away from God; God handed “them” over. In chap. 2, however, it is the second person singular, “you,” that Paul uses in making his accusation (2:1–5, 17–29). This does not mean that Paul is now accusing his readers of these things; were he to do that, the second person plural would have been needed. Rather, Paul utilizes here, and sporadically throughout the letter, a literary style called diatribe.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 125). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

His indictment of the Jew proceeds in two stages (2:1–16; 2:17–29), with 3:1–8 being a parenthetical response to possible misconceptions of what Paul has said. Both parts of Paul’s indictment accuse the Jews of committing sins (2:1–5; 2:17–24) and then show that those sins are not excused by God simply by virtue of the Jews’ belonging to the people of Israel, e.g., by possessing the law (2:12–16) or by being circumcised (2:25–29). Just as people in general have turned away from the revelation that God has given in nature (1:20–32), so the Jews have turned away, through their disobedience, from the revelation that God has given them specially (2:17–24).

1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

Contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly differently from those of the Gentiles. For God is impartial and judges every person “according to his works” (2:6–11).

Neither possession of the law nor circumcision marks a person as truly belonging to God. Only repentance (2:4) and an inner, heartfelt commitment to God (2:28–29)—in a word, faith—ultimately count before the Lord.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 126). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Paul’s indictment of his gospel-less contemporaries moves to another dimension. He turns to an imaginary listener or interlocutor, who loudly applauds his description of the pagan’s moral failure. Paul reacts and insists that such a person is no better than the pagan, for in spite of a superior moral culture, which may enable the interlocutor to agree with Paul’s indictment of the pagan, he does not do what is expected of him by that superior status. He does the same things, evil in all its forms. As a result, he will not escape the outpouring of divine wrath either.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 296). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

In developing his argument, Paul treats of six topics. First, he enunciates the general principle of God’s impartial judgment (2:1–11) and cites the OT to declare that God will recompense all human beings according to their deserts. Second, Paul shows that knowledge and possession of the Mosaic law are no guarantee against the outpouring of divine wrath (2:12–16). Third, he announces that it will be manifested against the Jew as well as the pagan because of the way the Jew lives (2:17–24). Fourth, Paul insists that the Jew is vulnerable in spite of circumcision (2:25–29). Circumcision has value, if one observes the law, but it does not make the real Jew. Fifth, Paul answers objections about the privileges of the Jews (3:1–9). Sixth, Paul affirms that all human beings, Jews and Greeks alike, are sinners and subject to divine wrath. So runs Paul’s argument at this point in the letter.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, pp. 296–297). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

In this passage (2:1–11), even before Paul comes to explain his idea of justification by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, which will emerge in 3:21–31, he reckons with the situation that all human beings will have to stand before the divine tribunal and be judged according to their deeds. This is not the only place in his writings in which he speaks of such judgment; cf. 14:10; ; . Yet the “judgment” of which he speaks in vv 2, 3, and 5 has to be understood against the background of his major thesis about justification by grace through faith (see Käsemann, Commentary, 58). Human beings will indeed be judged by God, but in this new phase of salvation history they can share through faith in the justification wrought by the death and resurrection of Christ.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 297). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Rather, vv 1–11 form a transition from the indictment of the pagan in 1:18–32 to the indictment of the Jew in 2:1–3:9.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 298). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Stott says Paul “seems to be confronting every human being (Jew or Gentile) who is a moralizer, who presumes to pass judgment on other people.” However, the entire second chapter probably was a warning to the Jews not to assume that their national identity was sufficient to provide them a right standing before God.57

Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, p. 88). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Most people find a certain satisfaction in reading about other people’s sins because it makes them feel better about themselves. So the Jewish Christians must have enjoyed reading Paul’s condemnation of the Gentiles. But now Paul turns to the guilt of the Jews and uses even stronger language.

There are three parts to Paul’s argument: the truthfulness of God’s judgment on the Jews (2:1–16), the inadequacy of the Law for salvation (2:17–29) and God’s faithfulness toward Israel (3:1–8).

Osborne, G. R. (2004). Romans (p. 59). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

I. Uses the 1st person singular to accuse the Jews of earning for themselves the same wrath that is already falling on Gentile sinners [main point of vv. 1-16] (1-5) “Critique of Jewish Presumption”

1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

Paul begins by turning his attention to a person who is standing in judgment over the people whom he has described in chap. 1. Cheering Paul on in his indictment of Gentiles, this person, although he thinks himself superior to the “heathen” idolater of 1:18–32, is nevertheless just as much in danger of the wrath of God, for he is doing “the same things” as those whom he condemns (2:1–2)

Who is this “superior” person? A few interpreters, noting that Paul calls this person a “judge” (v. 1), have thought that Paul might be addressing an actual civil judge. But this misses the import of Paul’s accusation and is too narrow an application. Much more popular is the identification of this person with any self-consciously “moral” person, whether Jew or Gentile.5 But this identification is a bit too broad. Without necessarily excluding application to the moral person generally, we think it is clear that it is the Jew who is the real target of Paul’s indictment in these verses

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 128). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Paul’s assertion that those who judge others do “the very same things” shows that he is distinguishing between those he described at the end of chap. 1 and those he now condemns

The best solution is to understand the “therefore” to relate, not to the description of (mainly) Gentile sin in 1:21–32, but to the announcement of God’s wrath and the reality of the knowledge of God in 1:18–19. For 1:18–19, which functions as a kind of heading for all of 1:18–3:20, includes reference to all humanity. On this reading, Paul would be saying in 2:1 that because God’s wrath is revealed against all people, and because all people have been given knowledge of God, therefore even the person who judges is “without excuse” before God. Although it might be objected that connecting 2:1 with 1:18–19 skips over too much intervening material, it can be said in response that 1:18–19 establishes what is Paul’s main point in 1:18–32, so that the “therefore” in 2:1 resumes the main sequence of Paul’s argument.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 129). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

.Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 129). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

He recognizes that his interlocutor does not “give approval to those who so act,” i.e., who fail to acknowledge God with praise and thanksgiving; but he does acknowledge “God’s requirement” (1:32a).

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 299). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Though gifted with a superior moral understanding whereby he can agree with Paul’s indictment of the pagan, nevertheless the Jew is just as guilty as the pagan for another reason: he does not do what his superior moral understanding bids him to do.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 299). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.

3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

The logic of the first three verses of the chapter may then be set forth as follows:

God’s judgment falls on those who do “these things.”

Even the self-righteous judge does “these things.”

Therefore: even the self-righteous judge stands under God’s judgment.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 132). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

“Pride yourselves not on the claim, ‘We have Abraham for our father’ ”). In effect, Paul’s argument is based on a claim that Moses makes: “The nations will hear about all of these statutes and say, ‘This great nation is surely a wise and intelligent people.’ For what great nation is there that has gods so close to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? Or what nation is there so great that has statutes and decrees so just as all this law, which I am setting before you today?” ()

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 300). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

It is a blessing to feel the conviction that leads to repentance, as this is an expression of God’s love to you!

Paul wants to show the person who thinks she can sin and yet avoid judgment that she is, in fact, “showing contempt for” God’s mercy.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 132). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

As the passage unfolds, however, we will find Paul going beyond the prophets in asserting that Jews are no better off than Gentiles in the judgment. This is a radical departure from all Jewish tradition and implies not only a critique of the prevailing understanding of God’s covenant with Israel but also that a new era in salvation history had dawned.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

God’s purpose in his kindness is not to excuse sin but to stimulate repentance.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

Unlike the Gentiles that are receiving wrath now for their rejection of General Revelation, these Jews will get theirs in the climactic ending.

God’s patience with sin must not be taken as a sign that he is weak or that he will withhold his judgment forever

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 134). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

It is psychologically true that people tend to criticize in others those negative traits of which they themselves are guilty. Psychologists call this “projection.” Nothing blinds a person more than the certainty that only others are guilty of moral faults.

Jesus warned against condemning others. In the Sermon on the Mount he said, “Do not judge or you too will be judged” (). The kind of judging both Jesus and Paul referred to was not a sane appraisal of character based on conduct but a hypocritical and self-righteous condemnation of the other person. In the same context Jesus told his followers to watch out for false prophets (v. 15), who are to be recognized by their fruit (vv. 16–20). That would be difficult, to say the least, apart from determining which actions are moral and which are not. Evaluation is not the same as condemnation. It is the latter that passes sentence

Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, pp. 88–89). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

We are reminded of the encounter between David and the prophet Nathan (). David agreed that the rich man who killed the poor man’s pet lamb deserved to die. But having passed judgment on another, he quickly learned from Nathan that he had judged himself.

Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, p. 89). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The person who knows but resists truth does not go away from the encounter morally neutral. Truth resisted hardens the heart. It makes it all the more difficult to recognize truth the next time around. Life is not a game without consequences. By our response to God’s revelation we are determining our own destiny.

Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, p. 90). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

II. [vv. 6-16 interrupts 2nd person accusation and is resumes in v. 17] Explanation (in 3rd person plural) of indictment of 1-5 (6-16)

A. God’s impartiality demands that he treats all people according to what they do (6-11) “The Impartiality of the Judgment”

In fact, there may be a chiastic arrangement here, as Grobel has pointed out:

a. God will repay everyone according to his deeds (v 6)

b. eternal life for those who do good (v 7)

c. wrath and fury for those who disobey (v 8)

c′. distress and anguish for those who do evil (v 9)

b′. glory, honor, peace for those who do good (v 10)

a′. no impartiality in God (v 11)

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, pp. 302–303). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

6 He will render to each one according to his works:

But you say, I thought Paul taught clearly that a person is saved by faith. That is true. A bit later he affirmed that a person “is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (). But in the immediate context Paul was not teaching how we are made right with God but how God judges the reality of our faith.

“a man’s destiny on Judgment Day will depend not on whether he has known God’s will but on whether he has done it.

Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, pp. 90–91). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Paul describes these latter people from the standpoint of their basic motivating principle—selfishness—and from the standpoint of their allegiance: they give themselves in obedience to unrighteousness rather than to the truth

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (pp. 137–138). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

that the justification by faith granted the believer in this life is the sufficient cause of those works that God takes into account at the time of the judgment. The initial declaration of the believer’s acquittal before the bar of heaven at the time of one’s justification is infallibly confirmed by the judgment according to works at the last assize

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 143). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

11 For God shows no partiality.

In other words, God will not favor the Jew simply because he is a member of the chosen people or because he has the advantage of a superior moral system based on God’s own law.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 303). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

B. Therefore, in spite of Jewish objection, possession of the mosaic law will make no difference in this judgment (v.12) for two reasons:

12 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.

“Judgment and the law”

In this passage we encounter for the first time Paul’s use of nomos, “law.” It is important to recall that he uses the word in four different senses (see Introduction, section IX. D): in a figurative sense, in a generic sense, as an expression for the whole OT, and especially as the Mosaic law (with or without the def. art.). In fact, the argument in this paragraph proceeds from a vague expression about law to a clear reference to the Mosaic law.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 305). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

12 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.

The Gentile, so most Jews maintained, could experience God’s favor only by taking on “the yoke of the law.” Outside Israel, the sphere of the law, there is no salvation. The Jews who live within the domain of law, on the other hand, often considered themselves virtually assured of salvation

It is clear from these verses that Paul argues for universal human sinfulness, and a sinfulness of such a nature that condemnation must be the outcome

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 146). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

.Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 146). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

By contrast, pagans sometimes manifest a knowledge of some of the precepts of that law, because they have been written on their hearts, as their consciences manifest at times. When, for instance, pagans honor their parents, they do just what the law says, even though they do not have the benefit of the Mosaic decalogue. Hence their harmony with that law is quite different from the Jews who have the Mosaic law, but do not obey it. Pagans thus do, in a natural and forthright way, something that is good and in keeping with the law, because they are a law unto themselves.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 305). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

The Gentiles would “perish apart from the law,” while the Jews would be “judged91 by the law.” The Mosaic legislation will play no part in the judgment of those who have not heard. God judges the “heathen” on the basis of the light they have received. In the case of those who have heard, however, the law will serve as the standard for judgment. From a Jewish standpoint the Gentiles, who were outside the law, would certainly perish. But Jews considered themselves to be safe because of the law that had been given to them. They were familiar with passages such as (“Even if we sin we are thine”). What Paul was about to tell them was that obedience to the law, not possession of the law, was required.

Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, pp. 93–94). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Reason #1: it is not the possession of the law but the doing of the law that matters (13)

13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Paul explains why even those who possess the law will nevertheless be condemned when they sin. It is because the law can justify only when it is obeyed; reading it, hearing it taught and preached, studying it—none of these, nor all of them together, can justify.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 147). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Reason #2: the Gentiles also have the Law in some sense (14-16)

14 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.

Gentiles who do some part of the law but who are not saved

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 148). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Here, we think, Paul clearly uses the term nomos in an extended sense, to denote the “demand of God” generally. These Gentiles, while not possessing the law of Moses, nevertheless have access to knowledge of God’s will for them. By applying to Gentiles a term reserved in this context for Jews (“law”), Paul pursues his policy of putting Jews and Gentiles on the same footing. The Jew does not have in the law a decisive advantage when it comes to knowing and doing the will of God, Paul suggests; for Gentiles have some of the same benefits.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 151). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

15 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

As Luther puts it, “the knowledge of the work is written, that is, the law that is written in letters concerning the works that have to be done, but not the grace to fulfill this law.”

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 152). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Three things thus give witness to the knowledge that the Gentile has about good and evil: (1) the act itself (ergon); (2) conscience; and (3) accusing or defending thoughts

Fitzmyer, J. A., S. J. (2008). Romans: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 33, p. 311). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Verse 16, indeed, with its reference to the last judgment, forms an inclusio with the focus on judgment in vv. 1–5. While recognizing that the paragraph has connections in both directions, therefore, we prefer to attach it to 2:1–11.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 144). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

(ESV)

This being the case, only a perfect doing of the law would suffice to justify a person before God. True, an insistence on perfect obedience is a departure from the Jewish view. But this is just what Paul has implied by putting Jews and Gentiles on the same footing with respect to works and judgment in 2:1–16. What he says here plainly implies that the covenantal structure within which the Jews thought their sins could be taken care of was itself denied by Paul. The enormity of God’s Son being crucified led Paul to take a far more pessimistic view of human sin than was typical of Judaism: sins that, for the Jews, simply needed to be atoned for within the covenant meant for Paul a breaking of the covenantal structure itself.

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (pp. 156–157). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;

19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,

20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—

21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?

22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.

24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.

28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.

29 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.

Related Media

Related Sermons