ROMANS 2:15-16

 Q: Does this passage teach that those who were never given a chance to respond to the Gospel may be acquitted on Judgment Day?

When asked this question earlier, I replied “yes” without reservation. I am not as sure now because of the many uncertainties (some of which are discussed below) involved in interpreting these verses.

1. The key word apologoumenon in verse 15 is rarely used by Paul and is certainly not the standard dikaioo for “justify.” It is a forensic term meaning to excuse or defend. (Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 128) The question is whether such evidence from the defense will be sufficient for a full acquittal on the Day of Judgment. As Wiersbe says, “an obedient Gentile with no circumcision would be more acceptable than a disobedient Jew with circumcision.” (Be Right, p. 29) However, it is doubtful that God grades on a curve.

2. The next question is whether verse 15 has anything to do with the Last Judgment in verse 16. There has been much debate on this point with many seeing this latter verse following verse 13 or 14 in logic, with the intervening verses placed in parentheses. I believe with those quoted below that there is indeed a tie between 15 and 16 although it may not be as exclusive or direct as I once thought.

“The Gentile conscience will...especially bear witness on that day.” (Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 311)

“In Paul the issue is in the forensic situation...self-criticism anticipates the last judgment.” (Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 66)

“If he attends to this conscience it will infallibly accuse or acquit him, particularly on...the day of God.” (New Bible Dictionary, p. 1019)

3. Another possibility in interpretation is that the Gentiles referred to in Romans 2 are, in fact, Gentile Christians. St. Augustine and Karl Barth, among others, have looked at the passage in this light,, as the editors of the Dictionary of New Testament Theology have been at pains to insert at least three times in their English translation. Most others, including (interestingly enough) Markus Barth disagree. (Ephesians 1-3, p. 241.)

4. Also to be determined is whether the various “thoughts” of verse 15 are regarding oneself and thus are related to “conscience and self-judgment in the same verse, or whether the thoughts are those the Gentiles apply toward judging others. Morris and Fitzmyer opt for the former interpretation although there is no universal agreement among commentators on this point.

5. The general context of Romans 2 must be taken into account also. The overwhelming tone of the chapter is one of damnation, not salvation, as Murray points out. (Epistle to the Romans, p. 69) However, verse 13 does state “those who observe the law will be justified before him.” To hold out this hope when it is an impossibility would seem to make little sense.

My own reading of the overall chiastic structure of the Book of Romans indicates that Romans 2:12-16 is to be read against Romans 13:8-14 where the concepts of law and final judgment are repeated but in a more overtly Christian context than Romans 2. As I see it, this perspective does not, unfortunately, help greatly to clarify the interpretative problem at hand other than perhaps to remind us that fulfillment of the law may have a broader definition when viewed from this side of the cross (see Romans 13:8).

Another comment to make concerning the context of these particular verses is that the overall concern of the chapter is toward the Jews, not the Gentiles, who are dragged into the argument to make a point. If there is a teaching on the salvation of the Gentiles, it is mentioned in passing and one can certainly not blow it up into a major doctrine as have the Mormons with Paul's fleeting and enigmatic words on baptism on behalf of the dead.

6. There is paucity of teaching elsewhere in the Bible on the salvation of those who have not heard the word. The possibility seems to be specifically excluded in Romans 10:9-17, but a closer reading will show that “calling on the name of the Lord” is given as a sufficient but not necessary condition of salvation, and 10:18 opens the door to believe (in line with Romans 1-2) that knowledge has already been given even if Richardson asserts, “This knowledge of God's law among the Gentiles is not a saving knowledge.” (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 50)

7. I admit to being a bit disconcerted in pleading a case that finds support mainly from Roman Catholics, who, I understand, generally hold to a belief in salvation for the “good heathens” and with Protestant liberals who have no problem holding that “a man will be judged by his fidelity to the highest that it was possible for him to know.” The evangelical scholar Murray does make much the same statement but holds to a more pessimistic view as to the outcome of judgment for a such a person outside Christ. (Epistle to the Romans, p. 78)

8. Even if these verses do teach a positive outcome on Judgment Day for those who have never heard the Gospel, there are definite limitations to the scope of such salvation given in the texts. For one thing, the absence of a definite article before ethne in verse 14 means “some Gentiles,” not all. (Fitzmyer, p. 309) Even more telling is the little but powerful word kai before “excuse” in verse 15. Many translators take this to mean “even” or “perhaps,” indicating that the possibility of acquittal is certainly smaller than that of condemnation. Certainly there is no clear-cut teaching in Romans 2:15-16 that would cause one to slacken off in missionary efforts.

9. Another point that must be stated clearly is that, as taught often in the NT, all salvation is through Christ and not by man's own efforts. However, that does not necessarily contradict the alternative understanding of the verses under consideration. For one thing, even if some Gentiles follow the law to the point of being considered righteous, it is not by unaided human effort but because “God has made it known to them (Romans 1:19).” (Fitzmyer, p. 306) For another, verse 16 states that the judgment will be “by Jesus Christ,” which phrase can carry the meaning of “through the works or grace of Christ Jesus.” How such non-believers (not unbelievers) can appropriate this grace is a matter into which we are not given further insight.

Conclusion: At least four independent disputed points of exegesis in this passage (sections 1-4 avbove) must be decided in a particular direction for the overall chain of reasoning to prove the original thesis. Even if each individual point can be determined to a 80% probability (my own estimate), that means that the overall probability of Romans 2:15-16 teaching the possibility of salvation for one who has not heard the gospel is only 41%. If other passages such as I Peter 3:18-20 can be shown to indicate the same fact, then that probability could be increased.

The only reasons holding me back from declaring with confidence that everyone is eternally condemned who has not heard and responded positively to the Gospel during his lifetime are thus two very enigmatic passages in Scripture, a gut feeling that it wouldn't fit in with God's love to condemn them so, and most importantly, the overall harsh message of Romans 2 directed against the Jewish Christians in Rome who were overly confident in their own knowledge of who would be condemned on the Judgment Day.

 We as Christians should take heed to Jesus' repeated teachings that there will be surprises on the Judgment Day as to who is included in the Kingdom. I would not want to repeat Elijah's mistake of saying, “I, even I only, am left” only to be told that there were “seven thousand in Israel...that have not bowed to Baal.” (I Kings 19:10,18)

I believe, with C. S. Lewis (The Last Battle), that the Judgment will reveal at least one righteous Calormene who has been following Aslan his entire life, but knew him under another name.