Romans 2:17-29 The Demonstration of the Impartiality of God

Because God shows no partiality (in regard to gentiles and Jews which about sums up everyone) Paul decides to demonstrate this truth with a bit of irony at the end. Paul had been preaching the gospel for about 20 years at this point and knew what type of objections he would be facing. The judgment was one based on obedience not on privilege. The Jews had seriously underestimated the breadth of God's judgment. I remember a movie called "Ike: Countdown to D-Day." It was based on the actual events of the planning. The movie was not that popular, probably because it was about the planning of D-Day rather than the execution. But I though it was pretty good. Anywho, one of his generals was in a bar and was drunk while trying to impress a friend and some women they were dining with. He had said they would be drinking good Paris wine by June 8th then said it would only take about four days to fight through the Germans. The place was packed. He was turned in by a paratrooper who thought his chances of survival were much better if the generals were not blurting out sensitive data in crowded public areas. When Ike confronted the general we find out that they went to West Point together and the general said, "I'm part of the inner circle, that's got to count for something." Ike looked at him and said, "That's just about the worst thing you could have said, there is no inner circle. There is just the men who live and the men who die." There was something just way too serious to be mitigated by a history. This is a bit like the attitude the Jews had. Clearly it was the gentiles that were in trouble, not them. Look at the things God had done for them and their forefathers, had God not demonstrated a favoritism that was due them? No, when it comes to sin God's judgment is absolute. Later Paul will reflect on the obvious objection: Then what was the purpose of God's oracles?

God's gifts should have led to an attitude of thankfulness and worship. Sound familiar? This was the same thing that should have happened when the Gentiles noticed the created things. So, God revealed himself in two different ways but the results were the same. There was only two ways in which to respond to God, praise or sin, both sinned.

Isaiah 2:1-4

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths."
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore.

Romans 2:19-20

And if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor for the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth.

The Gentiles were to come to the Jews for instruction. The virtues of God were to be clearly manifested in his people. That is one of the purposes of the nation, to be carved out, a people for himself, clearly distinct and set apart for God. How was that working for them in Paul's day? Not too good. The teaching was meant to be a guide, but what if the teachers were not following the instruction they were dishing out? That would be a problem. By their hypocrisy the Jews, rather than fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, were doing the exact opposite: they were shaming the name of God in the midst of the Gentiles. What of Isaiah's prophecy? Is it now mistaken if this is the case? I will get there momentarily. As it turns out, it was a really good thing the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts because they sure weren't going to learn it from the Jews!

Paul lists some of the hypocritical practices of the Jews, it is controversial today. They were preaching against stealing, but Paul asks if they themselves were stealing. The same with adultery and idolatry. The problem modern scholars are having is that the list would not encompass all Jews. This is a fair criticism, certainly all Jewish teachers were not committing these atrocities. So was Paul wrong? No. There are two distinct features that must be kept in mind when reading Romans.

1) The didactic method of citing extreme cases were meant to matriculate into smaller cases. I don't need to murder to be a murder, hate is enough. It is the spirit of the law that matters, so Paul does not have to list every single thing that one could do to displease God. The message would clearly have gotten home. We still do this today, if we were to use mundane expressions to teach lessons we would lose the impact of our teaching and Paul would have known this.

2) When I was introducing Romans to the class I made mention of an error Martin Luther made when he interpreted the epistle. He had thought the letter was talking to individuals. It isn't. Certainly it applies to individuals, but the letter is addressed to two people groups: Jews and Gentiles. The teachers that made the errors Paul is referring to represented Judaism at large. In fact, there is sin that is not in Paul's immediate preview that is a problem. To clarify my point, let me take you back to the book of Judges where the author expresses concern over the corruption within the government. So much was going on that was not being brought into order, why? Because sin was a national problem. The people were apostate and as a result there was no one to reign in the corrupt teaching that was taking place. All the people were responsible for ensuring that these atrocities did not take place. If there were corrupt teachers it was due to a corrupt nation. Everyone was responsible for the fidelity of the community. Paul is addressing the Jews in a broad sense in Romans and that needs to be taken seriously to interpret it correctly. One can see why he goes through painstaking effort to defend the truth. So, if the teachers are corrupt, how much corruption was above and below them? Since this is one of the most ubiquitous themes of the Old Testament it is not hard to believe that God's Apostles would be delivering the same message his prophets had always been giving. So, none are able to escape the need for the gospel. The covenant between God and the Jews did not lead to salvation, rather, it lead to judgment. Therefore the Jews needed the cross as well.

Romans 2:25-27

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.

Note that he mentions the "written code." No doubt this was meant to emphasize the unwritten code and therefore that touch of irony that I had mentioned that Paul was using as part of his teaching arsenal. If it were the Jews that were given the law, and supposed to be teachers to the Gentiles, then it is quite odd that it is now the Gentiles that are condemning them. Not vocally but in their fellowship with Christ. See James for further details.

1 Samuel 15:22

And Samuel said,

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,

and to listen than the fat of rams.

The Gentiles are taking the intended better way, and it doesn't have to be this way if the Jews will submit to Christ. It is clear that Paul's strategy to make the Jews jealous would have been very effective to anyone that truly loved God. Circumcision is not detached from the law so if a Gentile meets the requirements without it, where does it leave those who think circumcision is part of a privileged position? This is why Paul sees circumcision as a vestige of the old covenant.

What of the fulfillment of the Isaiah passage? The passage applies to the remnant, also known as "Faithful Israel." Romans 2:28-29a "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly." Faithful Israel is anyone who is part of the new covenant and the gospel meets the requirement for Isaiah's forecast to be fulfilled.