Judgment According to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul's Most Important Letter

8. Making Sense of Romans 2

8 Making Sense of Romans 2 Paul’s description of the final judgment in Romans 2 has raised exegetical and theological questions since the beginning of Christian commentary on the letter. Origen pondered how God’s judgment could be according to truth if he also forgives people’s sins.1 Augustine changed his mind about the identity of the Gentiles in 2:14-15.2 And more recently, the interpretive tensions in the chapter have led a few scholars to charge Paul with inconsistency. These tensions arise from Paul’s description of certain Gentiles who complete the law and receive the positive recompense at the final judgment (2:14-15, 26-29), a description that seems to contradict the universal accusation of 1:18—3:20.3 Some scholars solve this problem by arguing that Paul does not in fact make a universal accusation. But I have already established in chapter 5 that this view is incorrect. The scope of Paul’s accusation in 1:18—3:20 is universal. Other scholars solve the tensions with one of three options: Some argue that Paul is inconsistent; some argue that the Gentiles who receive the positive recompense are only a hypothetical possibility; and others argue that Paul speaks of Gentile Christians who fulfill the law by the Spirit.4 1. “But it is asked whether God seems to hold judgment in accordance with truth towards those whose iniquities have been forgiven through the grace of baptism, or whose sins have been covered through repentance, or to whom sin is not going to be imputed on account of the glory of martyrdom. The truthfulness of judgment, of course, demands that the bad man receives bad things and the good man good things” (Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Books 1–5, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Fathers of the Church [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001], 102–3). Origen’s answer to the question is that the man who repents of his evil deeds and then does good is worthy to receive good things (and vice versa) (ibid.). 2. See Simon J. Gathercole, “A Conversion of Augustine: From Natural Law to Restored Nature in Romans 2.13-16,” SBL Seminar Papers (1999): 327–58. 3. Sanders articulates the problem well: “The principle incongruity within the section is easily spotted and well known: the Gentiles are condemned universally and in sweeping terms in 1:18-32, while in 2:12-15, 26 Paul entertains the possibility that some will be saved by works” (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983], 123–24). 139 Three Interpretations First, some scholars suggest that Paul is inconsistent in Romans 2. Heikki Räisänen argues that Rom. 2:14-15 and 2:26-27 “stand in flat contradiction to the main thesis of the section,”5 and he concludes that “Paul’s mind is divided.”6 E. P. Sanders similarly concludes that Paul’s case for universal sinfulness in 1:18—2:29 is unpersuasive and inconsistent.7 Rather than locating this inconsistency within Paul’s own thinking, however, Sanders offers a sourcecritical explanation. Romans 2 cannot be harmonized with what Paul says elsewhere about the law because the source of Paul’s argument is a previously composed synagogue sermon.8 In response, interpreters should always seek a plausible explanation within a text before appealing to inconsistency, unless the author gives reason to believe that they are incoherent. Incoherence may be likely in a carelessly written document or in a document written by a delusional person. But incoherence is very unlikely in the letter to the Romans, since commentators generally recognize the majesty of its argument.9 It stretches the imagination to believe that Paul is simply inconsistent or has incorporated a 4. A few scholars suggest that Rom. 2:14-15 and 26-29 describe moral Gentiles outside of Judaism and Christianity who respond to the revelation given to them and receive the positive recompense (J. M. Bassler, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom, SBLDS 59 [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982], 141–45; Molly Truman Marshall, No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry, National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Dissertation Series 9 [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993], 225; John W. Martins, “Romans 2.14–16: A Stoic Reading,” NTS 40 [1994]: 55–67). But this view is impossible if, as I have argued, Paul makes a universal accusation in Rom. 1:18—3...