ROMANS 2:1-11

Kasemann, as well as other scholars, recognizes the first eleven verses of ch. 2 as a discrete unit of thought with the basic principle that before God the Judge “there is no respect of persons.” There are two good reasons for delineating this section in that manner. Firstly, it begins, as do many individual units in Paul's writings, with a direct address to the audience: “O man.” And secondly, there are exactly seven (a number standing symbolically for perfection or completion) appearances of the Greek root krino in this passage in words such as “to judge,” the judge,” and “judgment.” This latter observation not only defines the limits of the unit but also provides us with the key topic holding it together.

Another characterizing feature of this passage is the number of dualities expressed within it:

        good and evil deeds

        Jew and Greek

        God's judgment vs. man's judgment

        glory vs. wrath

And as Kasemann notes, also defining the limits of this literary unit is the bracketing concept of God being no respecter of persons. It first appears in verse 1 with its universal address to “whoever you are” and finally it caps off the passage with a straightforward statement of God's impartiality towards all in v. 11.

To burrow down further into the makeup of this passage, we can break down into smaller units which each possess a measure of literary symmetry. These units are given below accompanied by comments from scholars who attempt to flesh out their meaning.

Romans 2:1-4

    1. “whoever you are” (v. 1)

                2. “you say” (v. 2)

    1'. “whoever you are (vv. 3-4)

        a. “Do you imagine?” (v. 3)

        b. “Do you despise?” (v. 4a)

        c. “Do you not realize?” (v. 4b)

This section starts out with the contention that those who cast blame on others are actually condemning themselves in the process. Several commentators point out that this statement doesn't necessarily mean that the self-appointed judges have committed the exact same sins as those they are judging, only that they are both equally guilty before God.

In reading this passage I am reminded of a classic political cartoon by Thomas Nast dating from the 1800's in which he pictures the infamous politician Boss Tweed and his cohorts standing in a circle and answering the caption “Who stole the people's money?” by each pointing to the person on his right. In that way, the blame inevitably goes back to the original source, Tweed himself.

Davidson and Martin: “Paul's style of writing, in which his argument takes on an imaginary disputant with whom he conducts a running debate, is fashioned on the 1^st century literary convention known as diatribe. This method of writing explains the question-and-answer procedure of...[verses 3 and 4] as Paul has alternately in view both a Jewish religionist and a pagan moralist, each of whom adopted a stance of moral self-congratulation and criticism of the failures and foibles of 'lesser breeds' who respected no moral code. The apostle turns upon this proud display by exposing its underlying error.”

Romans 2:5-6

        1. “You are storing up wrath for yourself (v. 5a)

                2. when God's righteous judgment will be revealed (v. 5b)

                2'. He will repay (v. 6a)

        1'. according to each one's deeds.” (v. 6b)

Man's actions in 1 and 1' are matched by appropriate responses by God in units 2 and 2'.

Brauch: “God's wrath [vv. 5a, 8b] is difficult both to understand and to believe. For some, the idea of a wrathful God has been a roadblock to faith...The Bible speaks about God's nature, work and purposes in terms analogous to what we know and experience as human beings. This is by necessity. God's absolute nature is not open to finite creatures But a corollary of this way of speaking about God is the resistance to ascribe to God human attributes of feeling which we perceive as negative...Wrath is clearly one of these...It is important to note here that wrath is God's personal response to sin, though unlike that of the various divinities of Greco-Roman religions and myths God's wrath is never capricious, vindictive or malicious.”

One other sometimes contentious point arises from these verses, at least in the mind of dispensational premillennialists. Witmer states, “the phrase 'the day of God's...judgment' (Rom. 2:5) taken by itself may seem to lend support to the idea of a single general judgment of all humanity. However, the Scriptures [of which he cites none] do not support such a concept.” I would have to take great issue with that contention since the singular “Day of the Lord” or “Judgment Day” is mentioned numerous times in both the OT and NT. The only group opposing that concept comes from some of the premillennial interpretations arising from John Darby in the 1800's. The most complicated, but still commonly believed, of such schemes of future events involves no less than seven separate “last” judgments occurring over a thousand-year period.

Romans 2:7-10

    1. to those who by doing good seek glory and honor and immorality (v. 7a)

        2. he will give eternal life (v. 7b)

            3. for those who obey not the truth but wickedness (v. 8a)

                4. there will be wrath and fury (v. 8b)

                4'. there will be trouble and distress (v. 9a)

            3'. for everyone who does evil (v. 9b)

                    5. the Jew first and also the Greek (v. 9c)

        2'. but glory and honor and peace (v. 9a)

    1'. for everyone who does good (v. 9b)

                    5'. the Jew first and also the Greek (v. 9c)

Notice how the key words found in the opening of this unit are repeated at the end. The concept that people will be judged by their works (vv. 1 and 9b) has been treated with varying degrees of criticism over the years by those who rightly believe in salvation by faith not works. Below are a few ways of dealing with these verses in light of that doctrine:

Allen starts out by reminding the reader: “The Christian is not exempt from a trial of works (14:10ff; 2 C. 5:10; Jn 5:19).” He then quotes C. Hodge as stating, “The righteous will be rewarded not on account of but according to their works. Good works are to them the evidence of their belonging to that class to whom for Christ's sake eternal life is graciously awarded.” So neither of those two firmly evanglical scholars feel that this verse should pose any problems.

Towner similarly begins by noting that being repaid according to one's deeds is found in the LXX [i.e. Greek] version of Ps. 27:4; 61:13; Proverbs 24:12 as well as II Timothy 4:14; and Matthew 16:27. He then proceeds to explain that “the standard of judgment that ensures impartial justice consists precisely of the deeds of the one judged (cf. 2 Cor. 11:15; I Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 18:6; 20:12-13).”

But the commitment of the dispensational premillennial branch of Christianity to strict adherence to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is certainly not satisfied with the above arguments based on a more or less literal understanding of verses 6, 7 and 10, as evidenced by Witmer's words. In the first place, he translates v. 6 as “On that day 'God will give to each person according to what He has done' (quotation of Ps. 62:12 and Prov. 24:12).” The capitalization of the bolded word is either a convenient typographical error or a purposeful move on Witmer's part to subtly insinuate that people will be treated according to God's, rather than their own, works. And in fact, the two OT citations he mentions both confirm that we will be judged by our works.

But, of course, that OT theology is not nearly so cut and dried, and Witmer goes on to say, “A person's habitual conduct, whether good or evil, reveals the condition of his heart. Eternal life is not rewarded for good living; that would contradict many other Scriptures which clearly state that salvation is not by works, but is all of God's grace to those who believe.”

Two final comments on vv. 9-10 are in order:

    “It is perhaps significant that the Gk. words for trouble and distress [see v. 9a] occur three times in the LXX of Dt. 28:53ff in a curse on those who break the covenant-law. Paul is reminding the Jew of what he already knew but liked to forget. If the Jew's ancient priority of privilege counted for anything, it meant priority of responsibility (cf. Am. 3:2). (L.C. Allen)

    Elliott remarks on the repeated phrase in verses 9 and 10: “The Jew is first in salvation (1.16; 3.1-2), therefore also in responsibility.”

Romans 2:11

“Because God exercises impartiality in judgment (Rom 2:11), Jew and Gentile alike both face the prospect and the possibility of salvation through Christ.” (Travis)

“On two occasions he [Paul] asserted as axiomatic that God shows no partiality (Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6), the second of which deals with the apostolic office. The idea definitely excluded any notion of favoritism with God, which would not be in keeping with absolute justice.” (Guthrie and Martin)

“For Paul it is axiomatic that God is fair and would never do anything that shows partiality (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25). Consequently, election does not mean that some people cannot come to God for salvation, nor that those who are elected are singled out on the basis of any virtue they possess.” (Elwell)