gather cole on rom 2.14-15

[JSNT 85 (2002) 27-49] ISSN 0142-064X

copy The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002 The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX and 370 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10017 USA

A Law unto Themselves The Gentiles in Romans 214-15 Revisited

SJ Gathercole

Department of Divinity and Religious Studies

University of Aberdeen

Abstract

This article challenges the prevailing consensus that Rom 214-15 refers to non-Christian Gentiles whom Paul introduces into his argument to show that they too have knowledge of a law within themselves and so are guilty In fact Paul is no longer concerned with the responsibility of Gentiles which he had established in Rom 118-32 Rather these verses further shame the Jewish interlocutor by showing that God is ful lling his new covenant promises in Gentiles while he remains unrepentant This is shown by the connection between the doers of the law being justi ed (213) and the comprehensive doing of the law (which is not by nature) by the Gentiles (214) by Paulrsquos reference to Jer 31 in 215 and the stark contrast between the heart and thoughts in Rom 118-32 and 214-15

Introduction In the recently re-issued papers from the 1994 DurhamndashTuumlbingen Research Symposium NT Wright describes Romans 2 with charac-teristic panache as lsquothe joker in the packrsquo1 In the same volume James DG Dunn reports in his conclusion some of the interaction that took place around the text that will be discussed here lsquoAnd discussion became stuck on the unresolved issue of whether the law-doing Gentile of 21426-27 was a real or hypothetical gure and whether he was or could

1 NT Wright lsquoThe Law in Romans 2rsquo in JDG Dunn (ed) Paul and the Mosaic Law (Tuumlbingen JCB Mohr 1996 Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2000) pp 131-50 (131)

28 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

copy The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002

(in Paulrsquos view) only be a Christian gentilersquo2 Historically discussion has not been any less lsquostuckrsquo among theolo-gians Augustine changed his mind about the text having previously understood it as referring to natural law he moved to seeing the reference to Gentile Christians3 But even then he continued to use the passage as a proof-text for natural law Melanchthon criticized Augustinersquos later lsquoGentile Christianrsquo reading for importing dif culties into Paul lsquowhereas the text itself is not obscurersquo4 Luther makes a very similar criticism of Augustinersquos lsquoforcedrsquo interpretation5 Karl Barth on the other hand reviews the account of the depravity of humanity described in Rom 1 and 3 and views the lsquounregenerate Gentilersquo interpretation of the passage with incredulity

Paul says unmistakeably that both Jews and Gentiles collectively and individually live under sin that none is righteous no not one (310) that the whole world is guilty before God (319) that all have sinned and have no glory with God (323) How then can he assume in Rom 2 even hypothetically let alone in practice that there are gentiles who are not merely noble but who keep and ful l Godrsquos Law without knowing it in its revealed form and who are thus justi ed before God as its doers Something is wrong here6

Douglas Campbell comments however that even if Barth had the best of the theological argument in his estimation Brunner had the best of the exegesis7 But although the lsquounregenerate Gentilersquo view may be favoured by the majority we should not as Engberg Pedersen does lsquopresuppose that the old question concerning the identity of the people referred to in

2 JDG Dunn lsquoIn Search of Common Groundrsquo in Dunn (ed) Paul and the Mosaic Law pp 309-34 (321) 3 See SJ Gathercole lsquoA Conversion of Augustine From Natural Law to Restored Nature in Romans 213-16rsquo in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1999) pp 327-58 and forthcoming in D Patte and E TeSelle (eds) Engaging Augustine Self Context and Theology in the Interpretation of Romans (Romans Through History and Culture Series Harrisburg PA Trinity Press International 2001) 4 THL Parker Commentaries on Romans 1532ndash1542 (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1986) p 139 (The words quoted are Parkerrsquos not the ipsissima verba of Melanchthon) 5 See Gathercole lsquoConversion of Augustinersquo p 354 6 K Barth Church Dogmatics IV4 The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1969) p 8 7 DA Campbell lsquoNatural Theology in Paul Reading Romans 119-20rsquo International Journal of Systematic Theology 13 (1999) pp 231-52 (232)

GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 29


this passagemdashGentile Christians or non-Christ-believing Gentilesmdashhas been settled for the second alternativersquo8 The most common taxonomy of interpretations of Rom 214-15 then is of the lsquonon-Christianrsquo and lsquoChristianrsquo understandings of these Gentiles9 Advocates of the lsquounregenerate Gentilersquo interpretation can be further subdivided into those scholars who see the purpose of these verses as establishing the responsibility of these Gentiles such that their condem-nation is deserved10 and those who see a positive portrayal of these Gentiles whereby some unregenerate Gentiles have a better chance of vindication at the day of judgment than many Jews11 The Gentile-Christian interpretation of these verses on the other hand sees the Gentiles who carry out the Torah as Christian believers and thus to be justi ed on the nal day It is this last interpretation that will be argued for here This reading of the passage has a distinguished heritage despite being without doubt a minority position The rst of the Fathers to follow this line was lsquoAmbrosiasterrsquo12 who was then (eventually) followed by Augustine of Hippo13 as we saw above Works in German earlier in the twentieth century by W Mundle14 Karl Barth15 F Fluumlckiger16 and JB

8 T Engberg-Pedersen Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh TampT Clark 2000) p 358 n 39 9 Another line identi es the Gentiles as pre-Christian Gentiles This is a position taken by some Anabaptists at the Reformation (see Dietrich Philips lsquoThe Church of Godrsquo in GH Williams and AM Mergal [eds] Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers [Philadelphia Westminster Press 1967] pp 228-60 [232]) and most recently articu-lated by GN Davies Faith and Obedience in Romans A Study in Romans 1ndash4 (JSNTSup 39 Shef eld JSOT Press 1990) pp 60-63 However the Old Testament references to God having already written Torah on the hearts of his people (allegedly Pss 3631 398 Isa 517) are not convincing The internalization of Torah is by and large demanded but not accomplished (as Jer 31 makes clear) 10 By far the majority position See for example Calvin (The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians [Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1973] pp 47-48) as well as Fitzmyer for whom these verses lsquoshow that Godrsquos judgement is just when the gentile does wrong and so falls under the wrath of God as does the Jew who does not obey the Mosaic lawrsquo (J Fitzmyer Romans A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [New York Doubleday 1993] p 311) 11 JDG Dunn Romans (Waco TX Word Books 1998) I p 104 12 Ambrosiaster In Epistolam ad Romanos 81174-75 (CSEL) 13 See Gathercole lsquoConversion of Augustinersquo pp 336-48 for discussion of the later passages in Augustine where he adopted his later interpretation 14 W Mundle lsquoZur Auslegung von Roumlm 213ffrsquo TBl 13 (1934) pp 249-56



Sou egrave ek17 followed this position as also R Bergmeier most recently18 In British scholarship CEB Cran eldrsquos magisterial commentary on Romans19 is followed by a recent article by NT Wright defending this interpretation20 However these recent discussions by Cran eld Wright and Bergmeier only devote a few pages to discussion speci cally of Rom 214-15 It is necessary to outline in skeleton form the case for these Gentiles in Rom 214-15 being Christian believers First having established the logical connection between Rom 213 and 214 it will be argued that the phrase ta_ tou~ noampmou refers to the Torah in a comprehensive sense21 Thus the justi cation promised to the doers of the Torah in 213 belongs to those who ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin This obedience does not take place lsquoby naturersquo as fuampsei belongs grammatically to the rst clause in 214 and does not modify the lsquodoing of the Lawrsquo22 With regard to Rom 215 it will be argued that the three components of lsquothe work of the Law written on the heartrsquo the lsquoconsciencersquo and the lsquothoughts accusing and even defendingrsquo constitute features of a Christian believer It has not been argued elsewhere to my knowledge that these features mark a decisive transformation from the depraved Gentiles of 118-32 Throughout the numerous striking parallels will be highlighted between Rom 214-15 and 225-29 Along the way the various (numerous) objections to the lsquoregeneratersquo understanding will be answered This treatment of 214-15 aims both to

15 See K Barth A Shorter Commentary on Romans (London SCM Press 1959) pp 36-37 and Church Dogmatics II2 p 604 IV1 p 33 395 IV2 p 561 IV4 pp 7-8 16 F Fluumlckiger lsquoDie Werke des Gesetzes bei den Heiden (nach Rm 2 14ff)rsquo TZ 8 (1952) pp 17-42 17 JB Sou ek lsquoZur Exegese von Rm 2 14ff rsquo in E Wolf (ed) Antwort Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10 Mai 1956 (Zuumlrich EvangelischerVerlag 1956) pp 99-113 18 R Bergmeier lsquoDas Gesetz im Roumlmerbrief rsquo in idem Das Gesetz in Roumlmerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament (Tuumlbingen JCB Mohr 2000) pp 31-102 19 CEB Cran eld The Epistle to the Romans (ICC Edinburgh TampT Clark 1975ndash1979) I pp 155-63 20 Wright lsquoThe Law in Romans 2rsquo pp 131-50 21 This has been asserted by H Raumlisaumlnen Paul and the Law (WUNT 29 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2nd edn 1987) p 103 but has not as far as I know been defended in any detail elsewhere 22 The argument later will bring in fresh material to support this point



interact with discussions of these verses in some of the crucial new monographs on Paul (eg RH Bellrsquos No One Seeks for God) as well as important new articles (by NT Wright R Bergmeier and P Maertens) and new commentaries on Romans (eg that of DJ Moo) Finally and most importantly new evidence will also be brought in support of the lsquoGentile Christianrsquo reading of these verses

Exegesis of Rom 214 The e1qnh As noted above the key exegetical issues for us here concern ta_ tou~ noampmou and fuampsei It is necessary however to make some preliminary remarks about the e1qnh23 Bornkamm for example objects to the Gentile-Christian position on the grounds that the antithesis between Jews and Christian Gentiles is never found elsewhere in Paul24 However Rom 930 and 1111-14 contain just such an antithesis Bell objects in a similar way that lsquoin Romans 2 Paul contrasts Jews and Gentiles not Jews and Gentile Christians (29-10 212 225-29)rsquo25 This is also unsatisfactory however Paul draws a wide variety of contrasts in Rom 2 in 27-8 between those who do good and those who do evil and in 213 between the Jew qua Jew and the lsquoone who does the lawrsquo Most particularly Rom 225-29 as we shall see contrasts precisely the disobedient Jew with the obedient Gentile Similarly and more positively as Bergmeier has pointed out the closest parallel to the language of e1qnh ta_ mh noampmon e1xonta as contrasted

23 Despite the protests of some older commentators (see eg W Sanday and AC Headlam Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh TampT Clark 1895] p 59) the absence of the de nite article before e1qnh is irrelevant In 930 it is not that every single Gentile has katelaben dikaiosuampnhn but that the Gentile world has katelaben dikaiosuampnhn because some Gentiles have received from God the dikaiosuampnhn de thn e0k pistewj Not every single Gentile does lsquothe things of the lawrsquo but the Gentile world can be said to ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin because some Gentiles ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin The rhetorical function of this is important Paul is combating a Jewish interlocutor who believes that the more accurate picture of the Gentile world is painted in 118-32 Paul in the course of Rom 2 wants to argue that the ful lment of the Law is not absent from the Gentile world any more than it is a widespread feature of the Jewish nation 24 G Bornkamm lsquoGesetz und Natur Roumlm 2 14-16rsquo in idem Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum II (Munich Kaiser 1963) pp 93-118 (109) 25 RH Bell No One Seeks for God (WUNT 106 Tuumlbingen Mohr 1998) p 153



with members of the Jewish nation comes in 930-32 where it is precisely the Gentiles who believe who are contrasted with unbelieving Israel

930 oti e1qnh ta_ mh diwampkonta dikaiosuampnhn katelaben dikaiosuampnhn 214 otan ga_r e1qnh ta_ mh noampmon e1xonta fuampsei ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin

So it is perfectly possible in principle that Paul should contrast believing Gentiles with unbelieving Israel in Rom 2 especially when one considers the linguistic similarity between the concessive participial phrases describing the Gentiles in 214 and 930 The Logical Connection between 213 and 214 In Kuhrrsquos vigorous defence of the lex naturalis reading of 214-15 one of his principal objections to Augustine Barth Mundle and Fluumlckiger is that these verses are separated from 27 10 (which also describe godly Gentiles) by 212 (which describes Gentiles to be condemned)26 The focus then in 214-15 must be on the responsibility of the Gentiles27 In fact however the principal point is still the responsibility of the Jew as is shown by the connection between 212 and 213 Rom 214 is further lsquoseparatedrsquo from 212 by 213 One of the key elements of the lsquoregenerate Gentilersquo view is that in 213 Paul speaks of a doing of Torah which leads to eschatological justi cation and then immediately proceeds to speak of a doing of the Torah in 214 So the syllogism runs

Those who do Torah (213) will be justi ed (oi9 poihtai noampmou dikaiwqhsontai) The Gentiles (214) do Torah (e1qnh hellip ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin) Therefore the Gentiles will be justi ed

Verse 13 functions on two levels What precedes in 212 encourages a reading that sees the doers of the Torah as a subset of the hearers of Torah (cf Jas 122-25) However what follows in 214 makes it clear that there is not merely a narrowing taking place in the shift from hearers to doers but something of an antithesis28 The former sense would probably have

26 F Kuhr lsquoRoumlmer 2 14f und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 31 31ff rsquo ZNW 55 (1964) pp 243-61 (253) 27 Kuhr lsquoRoumlmer 2 14frsquo pp 260-61 28 lsquoIn the present connection however where Jews and Gentiles are being played off against each other its formulation is sharply polemicalrsquo B Byrne Romans (SacPag Wilmington Michael Glazier 1996) p 88



been uncontroversial for the Jewish interlocutor29 But it is the ironical level at which the text functions which is Paulrsquos distinctive argument the examples which he gives of the doers of Torah to be justi ed30 are actually not hearers of Torah at all31 Insuf cient emphasis has been placed on the close connection between verses 13 and 1432 There are two main grounds for this connection First the gaampr in 214 which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary should be taken as explaining the previous verse There is no evidence that 214 connects better with 212 than 213 The second reason is the common theme of lsquodoing of Torahrsquo where the principle that lsquothe doers of Torah will be justi edrsquo (213) is immediately applied33 To draw a parallel again with 225-29 226 functions in the same way as 213b-14a the non-Jew who is obedient will be reckoned righteous In both short phrases the three identical elements are evident Within 213-14 the parallel between 29 M Abot 117 Josephus Ant 2024 P Stuhlmacher Paulrsquos Letter to the Romans (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1994) p 42 notes on 212-16 lsquoThe main thoughtshelliphave been prepared for by Jewish traditionrsquo (and Paul found them con rmed by Jesus-traditions cf Lk 1128) CH Dodd Romans (London Fontana 1959) however cites Eleazar of Modiim who stated that lsquohearingrsquo was lsquothe most universal rulersquo (p 60) But Byrne Romans p 88 lsquoThe Shemarsquo prayerhelliprecited daily de nes Israel as the lsquohearingobedient nationrsquo par excellencersquo Some strands of Judaism would see a narrower meaning in a)kouampw than (m (Dunn Romans I p 97) 30 Ziesler and Fitzmyer differ over whether the lsquojusti cationrsquo is lsquorestoration to relationship with Godrsquo (J Ziesler Paulrsquos Letter to the Romans [London SCM Press 1989] p 86) or lsquoacquit vindicate declare innocent justifyrsquo (Fitzmyer Romans p 309) The other dispute is with regard to the future tense whether it is a logical (Ziesler) or temporal ie eschatological future (the majority view) Parker notes that sixteenth-century commentators tended toward the former view with the exception of Grimani (Parker Commentaries on Romans 1532ndash1542 p 125) 31 noampmoj here refers to Torah not generic lsquolawrsquo Considerable burden of proof rests with the commentator who argues against noampmoj meaning Torah The argument originating with Origen (ad Rom 321 cited in Sanday amp Headlam Romans p 59) that if Paul had meant Law of Moses he would have added the article cannot be sustained lsquoThe lack of the article is without signi cancersquo (E Kaumlsemann Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1980] p 62) 32 Though Cran eld Romans I p 155 lsquoThe most natural explanation of the gaampr would seem to be that these verses are thought of as con rming 13brsquo And Kaumlsemann Romans p 62 lsquoPaulhellipmakes the transition not to an excursus but to a concrete applicationrsquo Cf also J Bassler Divine Impartiality Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBLDS 59 Atlanta GA Scholars Press 1982) p 141 33 It is not of course an exhaustive application in which Gentiles are considered the only doers of Torah



oi9 poihtai noampmou (213) and ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin (214) is surely unmistakeable on the grounds of proximity syntacticallogical connection and verbal similarity The question then becomes What is this doing of ta_ tou~ noampmou ta_ tou~ noampmou One of the principal objections to the Gentile-Christian reading of this text is this How can these Gentiles be justi ed on the basis of such piecemeal obedience as ta_ tou~ noampmou Even though he sees the Gentiles as regenerate Cran eld talks of ta_ tou~ noampmou as lsquothose works of obediencersquo which are lsquoimperfect and far from deserving Godrsquos favourrsquo34 They are also generally understood by the majority of scholars who see the Gentiles as unregenerate to be lsquovaguersquo35 and partial36 obedience lsquosome of the good works of the Lawrsquo37 Can this be sustained While it is true to say that the scope of a ta_ tou~ phrase is general it is also inclusive and comprehensive In the New Testament two antithetical spheres are often contrasted as ta_ tou~ X in opposition to ta_ tou~ Y38 For example ou) fronei=j ta_ tou~ qeou~ a)lla_ ta_ tw~n a)nqrwamppwn (Mt 1623 Mk 833) In fact these sorts of antitheses constitute the majority of the usage of the construction39 There are three cases where there is no antithesis (Rom 1419 1 Cor 1311 2 Cor 1130) but the sense is the same general but in no sense limited (Compare the familiar categories oi9 tou~ noampmou and oi9 th~j pistewj40 which are by all accounts neither lsquovaguersquo nor lsquopartialrsquo categories) Raumlisaumlnen is surely correct lsquoThere is in the expression ta_ tou~ noampmou nothing to suggest a limitation of the number of precepts ful lledrsquo41 This however still does not answer the question of the character of the law-ful lment First it is important to note that this comprehensive 34 Cran eld Romans I p 156 35 Dunn Romans I p 105 (cf also Byrne) 36 L Morris Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1988) pp 124-125 cf Fitzymer Romans p 309 37 M Luther Lectures on Romans (Library of Christian Classics London SCM Press 1961) pp 51-52 38 Or of course ta_ th=j and ta_ tw~n 39 Eg ta_ Kaisarojta_ tou~ qeou~ (Mt 2221 Mk 1217 Lk 2025) ta_ th=j sarkoampj and ta_ tou~ pneuampmatoj (Rom 85) Also 1 Cor 211 14 1 Cor 732-34 40 Gal 39 Rom 414 41 Raumlisaumlnen Paul and the Law p 103 He is also correct to assert that the lsquocasualrsquo interpretation would by no means convince his interlocutor



ful lment by no means denotes sinless perfection we will see later that the condemning thoughts of the Christian balance these earlier statements But neither is lsquodoing the Torahrsquo a reference particularly to covenant status as in Wrightrsquos understanding though there is perhaps some element of it present42 Rather the reference is to the fundamental knowledge of God and orientation to his will that is lacking in the Jewish contemporaries of these Gentiles The Jewish nation is unrepentant (25) and guilty of infraction of Torah (223 25 27) By contrast those who lsquodo the business of the Lawrsquo are characterized by obedience an obedience that is neither lsquovaguersquo nor lsquopartialrsquo nor utterly perfect ta_ mh noampmon e1xonta fuampsei The problem with the argument above is of course that this accomplish-ment of Torah that leads to justi cation seems to take place spontaneously lsquoby naturersquo43 But is it the doing that is natural or does the imaginary comma come after e1qnh ta_ mh noampmon e1xonta fuampsei Some scholars claim that it is the lack of possession of Torah which is fuampsei lsquoby birthrsquo just as Peter and Paul are fuampsei 0Ioudai=oi (lsquoby birthright Jewsrsquo) in Gal 21544 The majority view however is that fuampsei goes with what follows45 (thus lsquodoing by nature the things of the Lawrsquo) but even among some commentators who take that view the uncertainty is acknowledged46 The principal argument for this view articulated by Dunn and Fitzmyer47 is that if fuampsei modi ed the lsquopossessionrsquo it would occur within the phrase otan ga_r e1qnh ta_ mh noampmon e1xonta There are however decisive arguments against this line

42 For which see Wright lsquoThe Law in Romans 2rsquo p 147 43 Dunn (Romans I p 98) Raumlisaumlnen (Paul and the Law p 104) Byrne (Romans p 91) and many others state that this is a signi cant problem Augustine and Barth attempted a solution to this problem by arguing for a positive sense of nature in 214 (although they differ insofar as Augustine saw this as a nature repristinated by a gratia restorans) But neither of their attempts has been found convincing by scholars 44 See eg Cran eld Romans I pp 156-57 Davies Faith and Obedience p 62 n 1 45 Bassler Divine Impartiality p 142 lsquoIt is generally agreed that fuampsei is to be read with the phrase that follows where it is given an emphatic leading positionrsquo 46 DJ Moo Epistle to the Romans (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1996) p 149 n 33 Morris Romans p 124 n 80 though Dunn (Romans I p 98) is more sure 47 And followed explicitly by C Kruse Paul the Law and Justi cation (Leicester Apollos 1996) pp 178-79 and Bell No One Seeks for God p 152 n 97



Examples can be found where fuampsei occurs at the end of a phrase Wis 131a for example reads maamptaioi men ga_r paampntej anqrwpoi fuampsei oi[j parh=n Qeou~ a)gnwsia48 Here fuampsei is not within the clause it quali es as Dunn Fitzmyer and Bell maintain it should be and this is often the case with adverbs and adverbial datives49 Similarly fuampsei and its adjective come after the verb in Ignatius Eph 11 0Apodecaampmenoj e0n qew~| to_ poluagaampphtoampn sou o1noma o$ kekthsqe fuampsei dikaia| kata_ pistin kai a)gaampphn e0n Xristw~| 0Ihsou~ tw~| swth~ri h9mw~n50 Bergmeier notes an example from Josephus Ant 8152 dio_ kai a)nhgeiren au)thn o( basileu_j ousan o)xura_n fuampsei kai pro_j polemouj kai ta_j tw~n kairw~n metabola_j xrhsimhn ei]nai dunamenhn51 These three examples closely parallel the minority interpretation of 214a This is not to argue that fuampsei therefore must go with e1xonta But it does demonstrate that many scholars have assumed the standard position without any foundation In reality Greek is freer with respect to word order than these scholars allow So is there any positive evidence for taking fuampsei with what precedes One of the strongest arguments is that of Achtemeier and Maertens Achtemeier notes that lsquoin every other instance in Paulrsquos lettersrsquo fuampsei is not used lsquoto describe an actionrsquo but rather lsquoto characterise further some grouprsquo52 This is an important point Achtemeier is saying that fuampsei quali es identity rather than behaviour He is no doubt referring to Gal 215 48 and Eph 23 where this principle certainly applies Maertens seems to have come to the same position independently He notes that lsquoin the majority of cases where Paul employs the term it is a question of a demarcation of Jewish over against non-Jewish identity as in Gal 215 for examplehellip See also Rom 227 1121 24 Gal 48 and Eph 24 where the issue is identity in generalrsquo53 Secondly there is a parallel with 227 Here we have the phrase h9 e0k fuampsewj a)krobustia to_n noampmon telou~sa where the Gentile as lsquouncircumcisionrsquo is quali ed by a phrase synonymous with fuampsei And of course the contrast is the same in 214 lsquothose without Torah by

48 lsquoAll men are vain by nature who are ignorant of Godrsquo 49 Wright lsquoThe Law in Romans 2rsquo p 145 cites Rom 141 as an example 50 lsquoI welcome in God your well-beloved name which you possess by reason of your righteous nature according to your faith in and love in Jesus Christ our Saviourrsquo 51 lsquoSo the king rebuilt it since it was strong by nature and could be useful for wars and uncertain timesrsquo Cited in Bergmeier lsquoDas Gesetz im Roumlmerbriefrsquo p 53 52 P Achtemeier Romans (Interpretation Atlanta John Knox 1985) p 45 53 P Maertens lsquoUne eacutetude de Rm 212-16rsquo NTS 464 (2000) pp 504-19 (510)



birthright actually nevertheless obey itrsquo in 227 lsquothose uncircumcized by birthright actually nevertheless ful l Torahrsquo Thirdly supporting the examples above where fuampsei followed its verb it is a common rule in the grammar books that adverbs follow their verbs Since fuampsei is adverbial an adjunct Moultonrsquos point that lsquo[a]n adverb usually follows the adj or verb which it determines in New Testamentrsquo54 is perhaps relevant here Davies also cites JP Louw as saying the same thing55 Fourthly it would be unparalleled in Paulrsquos thought to say that Gentiles had the spontaneous natural ability to carry out even elements of Torah Citing 1 Cor 51 and Phil 48-9 Stuhlmacher states that Paul lsquorecognized that there is a pronounced consciousness of good and evil among the Gentiles that even Christians can take as an examplersquo56 But Phil 48 says nothing of the kind and 1 Cor 51 merely states that the Corinthians are indulging in a kind of porneia that is seldom found among Gentiles hardly comparable to Paul holding up Gentile attitudes as paradigmatic Fifthly as Stowers (perhaps tenuously) notes if the rst half of 14a did not include the fuampsei the clause would be merely repeated exactly in the rst half of 14b57 A lsquoLaw unto Themselvesrsquo Similarly the lsquolaw unto themselvesrsquo in 214 does not necessitate appeal to Hellenistic philosophy (Appeal is most commonly made to Aristotle and Philo) While in Aristotle for example the best men are themselves a law for Paul the contrast is between the Gentilesrsquo lack of possession of the law by birthright over against the extraordinary way in which these Gentiles incarnate the Torah in their persons Those who do not belong to the nation that received the Torah nevertheless obey its ultimate requirements far more effectively than does Israel Eo ipso they are considered not just to possess this privilege of Torah but also to embody it As we shall see more clearly in 215 they have had the knowledge of Godrsquos will inscribed in their hearts by the Holy Spirit

54 JH Moulton A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (ed Nigel Turner Edinburgh TampT Clark 1963) p 227 ref in SK Stowers A Rereading of Romans (New Haven Yale University Press 1994) p 116 55 Though in fact JP Louw does not apply this to 214 in his analysis in Semantics of New Testament Greek (Chico CA Scholars Press 1982) p 158 56 Stuhlmacher Paulrsquos Letter to the Romans p 44 57 Stowers Rereading p 116



Graeco-Roman and Jewish Parallels Nevertheless however coherent an alternative explanation may be the arguments for the lex naturalis reading of Rom 214-15 must be discussed We have seen that the historical edi ce that has been built on placing fuampsei with what follows is based on very shaky foundations at least as far as 214a is concerned (The principal historical reason is probably the fact that the in uential Vulgate text reproduced the word order of the Greek Thus fuampseinatura inevitably became part of the sense of 214b as the verb in Latin would mark the end of the sense unit of 214a) One important criticism of the standard lsquonatural lawrsquo reading of Rom 214-15 comes from JW Martens namely that the Stoics would only refer to the wise as lsquocarrying out elements of the (natural) lawrsquo 58 Stoicism was in fact rather prejudiced against the masses who did not understand the law of the universal state59 Similarly Bell is right to argue that lsquoconsciencersquo is not a distinctive feature of Stoic philosophy60 therefore lsquoPaul appears not to be in uenced directly by Stoicism in Rom 214-16rsquo61 And Martensrsquos argument that Paul is discussing the Stoic sage who is the rare exception in that he does carry out the law of nature is quite unconvincing62 This would be a notion quite alien to one whose gospel destroyed the wisdom of the wise F Kuhr argues that Paul does not actually hold to a doctrine of natural law himself but he merely uses it temporarily as a stick with which to beat the Gentiles lsquoPaul does not wish here to build up a theory of Gentilesrsquo understanding of the law but wishes to emphasize their responsibilityhellip Rom 214-15 then is a tool which the Apostle uses and

58 JW Martens lsquoRomans 214-16 A Stoic Readingrsquo NTS 40 (1994) pp 55-67 He alternates between saying Paul uses the Stoic technical expression ta_ mh kaqhkonta in 128 but then mentions his lsquoslight mistake in his use of the termrsquo Then it turns out that it is in fact not the same term 59 See eg Seneca Epistles 7 (lsquoOn Crowdsrsquo) 8 (lsquoOn the Philosopherrsquos Seclusionrsquo) 109 (lsquoOn the Fellowship of Wise Menrsquo) 60 See however Engberg-Pedersen Paul and the Stoics pp 375-76 n 22 who does note the importance of self-awareness in Stoic philosophy in contrast to CA Pierce Conscience in the New Testament (London SCM Press 1955) who is followed by many see eg Maertens lsquoUne eacutetude de Rm 212-16rsquo p 515 61 Bell No One Seeks for God p 175 62 Similarly to connect 214 with Aristotle Politics 313 (1284a) where the superior man is himself a law would be an extreme case of parallelomania as Moo (Romans p 151 n 40) notes



which he lays aside when it has served his purposersquo63 This seems however to be something of a counsel of despair Paul should at least in the rst instance be given an opportunity to be consistent RH Bell looks more to Jewish parallels in particular to T Jud 20 and certain rabbinic traditions However the traditions of God revealing the Torah which only Israel accepted to the other nations as well is not relevant to Rom 214-15 there is no trace of the ideas of for example Sifre Deut 343 here64 The rabbinic tradition about God creating man with 248 members and 365 veins corresponding to the 248 positive and 365 negative commandments is also very tenuously connected to our passage especially if one accepts that fuampsei does not modify the activity of the Gentiles The strongest parallel is certainly T Jud 20 which contains reference to certain things written on the heart mention of the conscience as well as Godrsquos omniscient judgment However the parallel subject matter does not mean an agreement in theology between the two texts There is certainly overlap in vocabulary (eg conscience) and the common Jewish tradition that nothing escapes the sight of God But this is a function of both texts discussing the inner workings of the person not because of an identical view of those workings The principal difference lies in the fact that T Jud 20 describes these inner workings in terms of the two spirits (T Jud 201) which while familiar at Qumran are not commonplace in Pauline thought Even Rom 119-21 does not bear comparison with Rom 214-15 very well the former speaks of an external revelatory voice in the cosmos which humanity in any case constantly refuses The natural knowledge of Godrsquos will attributed by some to Rom 214-15 is quite different it is internal NT Wright is quite correct to look elsewhere for the closest parallels that are of concern to us65 In this regard Rom 83-4 and in particular as we have seen 225-29 are vital Wright correctly notes that the old consensus about 225-29 referring to non-Christian Gentiles has broken down commentators as diverse as Cran eld Kaumlsemann and Dunn accept that the reference is to Christian Gentiles here Wright points to the very close parallels between 225-29 and the descriptions of Christian

63 Kuhr lsquoRoumlm 2 14frsquo pp 260-61 lsquoPaulus will Rm 2 14f keine Theorie uumlber die heidnische Gesetzerkenntnis aufstellen sondern die Verantwortlichkeit der Heiden betonenhellip Rm 2 14f ist gleichsam ein Werkzeug das der Apostel benutzt und dann wenn es seinen Zweck erfuumlllt hat wieder beiseitelegtrsquo 64 See Bellrsquos discussion in No One Seeks for God pp 164-69 65 Wright lsquoThe Law in Romans 2rsquo p 132



believers in Rom 76 2 Cor 36 and Phil 3366 Moreover the parallels between 214-15 and 225-29 are remarkable (1) Possession of Torah and circumcision are only useful (for eschatological deliverance) if Torah is obeyed vv 1325 (2) If Gentiles are somehow obedient to God they are judged to possess the privileges of Israel vv 1426 (3) It is what is inside that counts (krupt- kardia) not what is visible because this is the sphere which is of interest to God vv 15-16 28-29 (4) This is because of the covenant renewal whereby God writes Torah on or circumcizes the heart vv 1529 So the parallel with 225-29 seems to con rm the identity of these Gentiles To pursue this however we need to examine the evidence established on two or three witnesses (Deut 1915) that Paul adduces for this Gentile ful lment of Torah

The Three Witnesses in 215 Not essential to the argument here but very plausible is Kaumlsemannrsquos account of v 15 as the endeixis of three distinct witnesses67 There is also considerable confusion about when this endeixis takes place68 but it is presumed here that it is future and that 215-16 is one sentence69 This places the temporal shift between 214 and 215 The reasons for seeing 215-16 as one sentence are the thematic links of both the internal characteristics and the forensic situation It makes perfect sense to say that God judges the secrets of the heart having described these transformed inner workings and having described testimony accusation and defence to speak of Godrsquos eschatological verdict in judgment in 216 kardia The rst of the witnesses is lsquothe work of Torah written on their heartsrsquo The singular70 lsquowork of Torahrsquo is a hapax and so requires discussion The 66 Wright lsquoThe Law in Romans 2rsquo pp 134-35 67 Kaumlsemann Romans pp 65-66 lsquoone must not lose the nuances in the sharply differentiated materials of 14b-15 by laying all the stress from the outset in modern style on the role of conscience (contra Barrett Kuss) and then construing the introductory kai of v 15c explicativelyrsquo 68 Some take it as eschatological (Lietzmann Wilckens) some present (eg Ziesler) and some both (Luther Lectures on Romans pp 52-53 Moo) 69 Lietzmann Morris and Wilckens see a close connection between 215 and 216 For detailed discussion see Bell No One Seeks for God pp 147-52 Moo outlines ve possibilities in Romans pp 153-54 70 Cran eld claims the force of the singular is lsquointended to bring out the essential



initial question is whether the genitive is subjective71 or objective (Dunn) or both (Morris) Analogy with the plural e1rga noampmou (despite the difference in number) points to an objective genitive so the meaning is something like lsquoaccomplishment of Torahrsquo The similarity between [noampmouj mou]hellip e0pi kardiaj au)tw~n graampyw au)tou~j (LXX Jer 3833) and to_ e1rgon tou~ noampmou grapto_n e0n tai=j kardiaij au)tw~n (Paul) is striking it has four key lexemes in common and just as Rom 225-29 shares its new covenant context and language with Ezekiel so also seeing Paulrsquos reference to LXX Jer 38 makes sense of the wider context of Rom 213-24 as we shall see shortly (and as argued by Ito)72 To say that Paul does not refer to the inscription of the Law but to the lsquowork of the Lawrsquo written on their hearts as an argument against ful lment of LXX Jer 38 is to split hairs73 That noampmoj is singular is consistent with Paulrsquos reluctance to use the plural form74 If to_ e1rgon tou~ noampmou is an objective genitive phrase and LXX Jer 38 is in view in Rom 2 here then Jeremiah and Paul only differ in their temporal perspective Jeremiah looks forward to the future Paul is narrating from a projected position in the future when on the last day Gentiles will present their transformed hearts at the judgment seat Objections to this view however are common especially in German scholarship Kaumlsemann asserts that lsquoeven a reminiscence [sc of LXX Jer 38] is doubtfulrsquo because no eschatological facts are made known75 Kuhr explains further that the fundamental distinction between what is described in Rom 215 and LXX Jer 38 is that in Jeremiah the Law

unity of the lawrsquos requirementsrsquo (Romans I p 158) So also more tentatively Morris 71 So lsquowhat the Law prescribesrsquo (Fitzmyer) Cf also Cran eld Kaumlsemann Leenhardt Probably not the lsquoeffect of the Lawrsquo (Barrett Maertens lsquoUne eacutetude de Rm 212-16rsquo p 515) which is another subjective reading of the genitive as is L Gastonrsquos unconvincing theory of lsquoworks of Torah as subjective genitiversquo in his Paul and the Torah (Vancouver University of British Columbia 1987) pp 100-106 72 Reference (or not) to Jer 31 on Paulrsquos part in Rom 215 is the key boundary-marker dividing those who see the Gentiles as Christian and those who do not See Cran eld Romans I pp 158-59 and A Ito lsquoRomans 2 A Deuteronomistic Readingrsquo JSNT 59 (1995) pp 21-37 (30) though Ito is almost certainly wrong to see an allusion in 215 here to Deut 3014 (lsquoRomans 2rsquo pp 26-27) 73 Thus many commentators and eg TR Schreiner lsquoDid Paul Believe in Justi cation by Worksrsquo BBR 3 (1993) pp 131-58 (146) Kruse Paul the Law and Justi cation p 180 Maertens lsquoUne eacutetude de Rm 212-16rsquo p 515 74 Similar to his tendency with a(martia though this is not as thoroughgoing 75 Kaumlsemann Romans p 64



written in the heart is an eschatological gift at the time of salvation whereas in Rom 2 it is the ability to act in a moral manner by virtue of being human76 The problem with this objection however is that the promise of Jeremiah declares that one of the dissimilarities between old and new covenants is that Israelrsquos ancestors broke the old covenant (Jer 3131-32) Ito rightly relates the breaking of the covenant here to the sin of Israel in Rom 221-2477 The new covenant on the other hand will be characterized by a new obedience Not performed naturally of course rather it is the result of God himself writing the Law on hearts (LXX Jer 3833) and circumcizing his people by the Spirit (Rom 229) Thus Kuhr puts asunder what God has joined new covenant obedience is Godrsquos eschatological gift Wilckens and Bell object along different lines lsquoIn Hellenistic Judaism the Jeremiah passage is never used in the apologetic sense of noampmoj agrafojrsquo78 This is a curious objection however it presumes that the unwritten lex naturalis is in evidence in 214-15 and then concludes that LXX Jer 38 cannot therefore be in evidence This is entirely circular the objection presupposes precisely what is at issue in the debate In fact the background of LXX Jer 38 is highly signi cant for Rom 214-15 Paul is well acquainted with the Old Testament passage in question79 and it is clear that the prophecy of LXX Jer 38 was regarded as an important proof-text for other circles in earliest Christianity80 There are two further reasons why Paulrsquos reference to LXX Jer 3833 is particularly apposite here First Jeremiah promises an internalization of Torah similar to what was required in Deut 66 This time however the cardiac inscription is a work of God rather than the activity of active memorization of and obedience to Torah by Israel It is also in keeping

76 Kuhr lsquoRoumlm 2 14f rsquo p 260 lsquobei Jer ist das ins Herz geschriebene Gesetz eine eschatologische Gabe die dem Menschen in der Heilszeit zuteil wird Rm 2 14f ist es die dem Menschen auf Grund seiner menschlichen Natur eignende Faumlhigkeit zum sittlichen Handelnrsquo 77 Ito lsquoRomans 2rsquo p 30 78 Bell No One Seeks for God p 153 Cf U Wilckens Der Brief an die Roumlmer (Roumlm 1ndash5) (EKKNT Neukirchen Neukirchener Verlag 1997) pp 134-35 lsquodie Jeremia-Stelle im hellenistischen Judentum soweit ich sehe nirgends zu apologetischem Zweck im Sinne des noampmoj agrafoj ausgewertet worden istrsquo 79 Cran eld (Romans I p 159) refers to the importance of Jer 31 for Paul in 1 Cor 1125 2 Cor 3 and possibly 2 Cor 616 Rom 1127 is also signi cant 80 Parts of Jer 3131-34 are cited in Heb 88-12 and 1016-17 See also new covenant language in Heb 915 Lk 2220Mk 1424Mt 2628



with the Pauline context an internal work of God Secondly in the past the covenant was characterized by disobedience from the very beginning (3832) and this is the chief sense in which the new covenant lsquowill not be likersquo it Thus Paul focuses on the accomplishment of Torah (to_ e1rgon tou~ noampmou) by those who are participating in the new covenant as opposed to the disobedience of the Torahrsquos legal demands by his interlocutorrsquos nation in 221-22 One point particularly neglected by scholars is the contrast between Rom 214-15 and 118-32 Crucially 121 and 124 say of the Gentiles that e0skotisqh h9 a)suampnetoj au)tw~n kardia and paredwken au)tou_j o( qeo_j e0n tai=j e0piqumiaij tw~n kardiw~n au)tw~n In 215 then we see a wonderful transformation from the natural state of the Gentile heart in Jewish perspective to a new heart inscribed with the work of Torah suneidhsij The second supporting witness is the lsquoconsciencersquo again a hotly disputed term The term is derived from popular Greek81 rather than the LXX82 or philosophical discourse83 The view that the term was distinctively Stoic84 has been successfully debunked by Pierce85 though he also con ned Paulrsquos use of the term within the straight-jacket of Hellenistic Greek which he argues yields this meaning lsquoman is by nature so constituted that if he overstep the moral limits of his nature he will normally feel painmdashthe pain called suneidhsijrsquo86 This line of lsquoconscience as bad consciencersquo is followed by for example Ziesler and Byrne but Piercersquos analysis has not gone unchallenged Pierce himself admitted that certain texts simply do not t his scheme in which case suneidhsij should not be translated as conscience87 M Thrall rightly points out that this relies on strained exegesis88 And for Pierce to explain the New Testament texts where suneidhsij is modi ed by a positive

81 Pierce Conscience in the New Testament passim 82 It is a hapax in the LXX (Eccl 1020) 83 Fitzmyer Romans p 311 84 Dodd Romans pp 61-62 85 Pierce Conscience in the New Testament pp 13-28 86 Pierce Conscience in the New Testament p 50 87 2 Cor 42 511 88 M Thrall lsquoThe Pauline use of SUNEIDHSISrsquo NTS 14 (1967ndash68) pp 118-25 (123)



adjective (eg a)gaampqoj) as lsquothe absent suneidhsijrsquo89 causes problems Similarly to read ou) yeuampdomai summarturouampshj moi th=j suneidhsewampj mou (Rom 91) as lsquoI have no painful consciousness of lyingrsquo90 seems rather too liberal a paraphrase The term is in all probability neutral its painful-ness or otherwise dependent on the context The conscience is distinct from the cardiac inscription of the work of Torah91 Cran eld takes the summarturouampshj simply in the sense of lsquotestifyrsquo on the grounds of a shortage of other witnesses but in the other two uses of the term in Romans (816 91) it has an lsquoaccompanyingrsquo sense The two possibilities for that which it accompanies seem to be (1) the Gentiles themselves or (2) their hearts The former case would correspond with the analogy in 91 but (2) would correspond with a scheme whereby the witnesses are lsquoheartrsquo and lsquoconsciencersquomdashto be supplemented by the thoughts to constitute an internal trichotomy92 Because the testimony of the conscience follows the inscription of Torah on the Gentilersquos heart it would seem strange if the testimony of the conscience were something negative The precise testimony of the conscience is nevertheless dif cult to determine However if Rom 91 (the closest parallel) is any indication the activity of the conscience is likely to be an assurance derived from the presence and internal work of the Holy Spirit logismoi The third witness lsquothoughtsrsquo I take to be distinct from the second rather than explanatory of it93 These thoughts are personi ed as participants in the case alternately prosecuting and defending Not all agree however with the standard view of logismoi as lsquothoughtsrsquo Watson sees them as

89 Pierce Conscience in the New Testament p 51 90 Pierce Conscience in the New Testament p 84 91 lsquo[C]onscience is not to be identi ed as ldquothe work of the lawrdquohellipbut constitutes a further con rmatory witnessrsquo (Dunn Romans I p 101) Contra Barrett who argues lsquoThe law has as it were left its stamp upon their minds this stamp is their consciencersquo (Romans p 53) 92 There seems to be no support for conscience as supporting witness to noampmoj (Schlatter Barrett) 93 Contra eg Fitzmyer who argues that lsquothis clause describes the role of conscience in greater detailrsquo while maintaining that there are three witnesses (Romans p 311) Cran eld sees the thought as lsquoclarifyingrsquo the conscience (Romans I p 161) and Calvin (The Epistles of Paul p 49) writes lsquoNotice Paulrsquos scholarly de nition of consciencehelliprsquo



lsquoethical debatesrsquo real conversations 94 and others reckon them to be lsquothe claims of those in whose presence and on behalf of whom the deed was donersquo (A Schlatter) But the most common meaning of logismoi in the LXX is lsquothoughtsrsquo95 and the character of the rst two witnesses has been internal so lsquothoughtsrsquo ts the pattern better especially as the internal motif is one that is unfolding throughout these verses These thoughts however are widely understood to be a crucial stumbling block for the lsquoChristianrsquo understanding of these Gentiles96 That the condemning thoughts are clearly in the majority is incompatible for most scholars with Paulrsquos enormously positive picture of the regenerate Christian97 However it needs to be remembered that Paul in many other places continues to reckon with the reality of sin in the life of the Christian (eg Rom 813) He can even say lsquothe esh desires what is contrary to the Spirit and the Spirit what is contrary to the esh They are in con ict with each other such that you do not do what you wantrsquo (Gal 517)98 For Paul however this contradiction of will and action inherent in the Christian is not so absolute that it leads to condemnation It is quite plausible that the Pauline Christian could have copious lsquoaccusing thoughtsrsquo and still be vindicated by God At least one other early Christian believed the same lsquowhenever our hearts condemn ushellipGod is greater than our hearts and he knows all thingsrsquo (1 Jn 320) In fact whereas these thoughts had in 121 been simply subject to condemnation by God99 now they can mirabile dictu (h2 kai) provide apologia for the Gentile who had formerly been a)napoloampghtoj (120)100

94 FB Watson Paul Judaism and the Gentiles (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1986) p 116 95 See references in Sanday and Headlam Romans pp 61-62 96 TR Schreiner lsquoDid Paul Believe in Justi cation by Worksrsquo p 147 for example takes the accusing thoughts as proof that lsquothe doing of the law described in vv 14-15 is not a saving obediencersquo 97 See eg Maertens lsquoUne eacutetude de Rm 212-16rsquo pp 516 519 98 With JL Martyn Galatians (AB 33A New York Doubleday 1997) taking the clause i3na mh a$ e0a_n qelhte tau~ta poih=te as lsquodescriptive rather than hortatoryrsquo (p 495 n 76) 99 Cf Wis 1115 for logismw~n a)sunetwn and 1210 for the unchanging evil nature of their logismoampj 100 Raumlisaumlnen characteristically points out the incongruity of 214-15 after what Paul has said in 118-32 (Paul and the Law pp 103ff) This would be the case even on a milder reading of ta_ tou~ noampmou poiw~sin than Raumlisaumlnen allows But not only does this



There is a similar transformation here to that which we saw in the case of the lsquoheartrsquo Thus the accusing and defending thoughts are features of the regenerate Gentiles in 214-15 while contrasting starkly with the Gentiles of Rom 118-32 These thoughts are not the good and evil impulses and do not lsquoconcern the pros and cons of conductrsquo101 It is not the moral quality of the thoughts but their forensic function on the day of judgment which is in view here One point missed by commentators is the sting in the tail in the h2 kai the surprise for the Jewish interlocutor would have been that the thoughts could actually provide a defence at all The point is often made by commentators that the h2 kai highlights the rarity of defence compared with accusation but Paulrsquos rhetorical point in the diatribe consists in the surprising possibility of any a)pologia

Conclusion In conclusion even if the presence of Christian Gentiles in Rom 214-15 may not be absolutely clear there is certainly enough negative and positive evidence to make it like Churchillrsquos democracy the worst view apart from all the others The subject of Rom 214-15 is the eschato-logical acquittal of the doers of Torah (213) In 214 we saw the surprising constituency from which these hearers come Gentiles who carry out precisely the conditions for justi cation required in 213 Their doing of ta_ tou~ noampmou is a comprehensive not partial ful lment of Torah And it does not take place lsquoby naturersquo rather fuampsei indicates that the Torah does not belong to the Gentile by birthright Ful lment of Torah is not a natural process but rather the result of divine action as indicated by the reference to LXX Jer 38 in the following verse In 215 we see the process by which the nal eschatological justi cation takes place as the witnesses for the Gentiles present their evidence (e0ndeiknuntai) The rst witness is couched in the least forensic language though noampmoj inevitably has a legal shade The second witness is explicitly named as an lsquoaccomp-anying witnessrsquo (summarturouampshj) and the third switches sides during the case Secondly these witnesses are crucially all internal What we have here is a tripartite (at least for heuristic purposes) internal anthropology where the inner workings of the Gentile are divided into heart incongruity dissolve on a Gentile Christian reading of 214-15 but rather 118-32 and 214-15 read together support such a reading 101 Pace Fitzmyer Romans p 311



conscience and thoughts This is vital exegetically both because of the lsquointernalrsquo nature of the Torah ful lment agged up in 213 and also because it is the true object of Godrsquos judgment in 216 Thirdly on a Gentile Christian reading of these verses we have seen that 215 constitutes something of a preliminary reversal of the description of Gentiles in 118-32102 Fourthly the occasion of this e1ndeicij is the day of judgment103 The transposition of v 16 or the placing of 214-15 in parentheses is unnecessary104 The continuity of the legal language in particular the lsquoaccusing and defendingrsquo in 215 with lsquojudgmentrsquo immedi-ately following and the continuity of the lsquointernalrsquo language in 215 with ta_ kruptaamp in 216 make textual emendations or addition of brackets a hazardous enterprise Fifthly and related to the last point this court-room should perhaps be seen as the foil to the court-room in 21-3 The Jews may condemn the Gentiles but in fact the Gentilesrsquo own hearts (tai=j kardiaij au)tw~n) and consciences (au)tw~n th~j suneidhsewj) are actually in accord with Godrsquos verdict (213b) If correct this exegesis has a number of implications for the understanding of Romans and of Paulrsquos theology as a whole In the rst place Rom 214-15 is with 225-29 to which it is so closely related a supporting witness to the fact that Rom 118ndash320 is not simply located in rhetorical terms before Christ Rom 118ndash320 can still retain its character as Verdammnisgeschichte105 despite its occasional forward glances to a time when Verdammnis will no longer reign Reference forward to the age of Christ and the Spirit cannot be ruled out a priori as being lsquoout of contextrsquo in 118ndash320106 Proper explanation of how these forward glances function in the narrative of Rom 118ndash320 would take too long but suf ce to say that Paul has no further desire to indict the Gentile world in Rom 2 He has already succeeded quite suf ciently in 102 The full exposition of the reversal takes place as is more widely recognized in ch 12 103 The verb e0ndeiknumi itself can have a legal sense (CLH Grimm and JH Thayer GreekndashEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament [Edinburgh TampT Clark 1893] p 213 lsquoshow demonstrate proversquo) 104 Ziesler (Romans p 88) places 14-15 in parentheses 105 With Bell No One Seeks for God p 90 despite the criticism of Stowers in his review of No One Seeks for God in JBL 119 (2000) p 371 106 Kuss who dismisses Fluumlckigerrsquos arguments as Barthian dogmatic assertions rules out his arguments in this sweeping way (O Kuss lsquoDie Heiden und die Werke des Gesetzes [nach Roumlm 214-16]rsquo in O Kuss Auslegung und Verkuumlndigung I [Regensburg Pustet 1963] pp 213-45 [216] cf p 215 n 6)



that task in Rom 118-32107 Although Paul is talking about Gentiles in these verses he is not talking to them In Rom 2 as is widely recognized Paul is focusing on the indictment of his Jewish interlocutor This indictment consists partly in bringing the phenomenological (Rom 221-22) and later scriptural (Rom 310-18) evidences to support his charge of Israelrsquos sinfulness but also partly in showing how an unrepentant and stiff-necked (Rom 25) Israel actually compares unfavourably with a law-abiding Gentile group In addition to accusing Israel of sin Paul is in effect enacting his theology of Rom 1113-14 attempting to provoke his Jewish dialogue-partner to jealousy through agging up Godrsquos ful lment of his covenant promises in the Gentiles108 Paul rst describes these Gentiles in 214-15 and then follows this up with his shaming of the Jewish nation in 217-24 Here by contrast lsquothe Jewrsquo is in full possession of the Law and trained in it (217-20) but is disobedient (221-24) In Rom 225-29 Paul then makes explicit comparisons between these two groups109 Finally if the law-abiding Gentiles in 214-15 are Christians then the statement in 213 can by no means be dismissed as merely hypothetical or ad hominem Rather in the company of statements about the reward of eternal life for obedience in 27 10 26-27 and 29 Rom 213-16 must point to a stronger theology of nal vindication on the basis of an obedient life than is evident in most analyses of Pauline theology Conversely Paulrsquos view of the sinful character of the esh (such as in Rom 87) can no longer be tempered by the slightly more positive picture presented in lsquonon-Christianrsquo readings of Rom 214-15 One could go on to identify

107 That Paul needs to establish Gentile responsibility in 214-15 is a very common line of argumentation see above n 10 It is the main thrust of the verses for Kuhr despite his recognition of Mundlersquos point to the effect that this has already been detailed in Rom 118-32 See Kuhrrsquos note (lsquoRoumlm 2 14frsquo p 247) of Mundlersquos point that lsquoFerner ist die Re exion auf nichtchristliche Heiden und ihre etwaige Gesetzeserfuumlllung im Zusammenhang nicht motiviert weil schon Rm 1 ausgefuumlhrt worden dab die Heiden dem Gericht verfallenhelliprsquo 108 Some scholars attempt to have their cake and eat it by asserting that Paul is both shaming the Jew in Rom 214-15 and providing the basis for the condemnation of Gentiles This is impossible since if Paul were drawing attention to a partial obedience on the part of Gentiles in order to point out their own knowledge of good and evil such a partial obedience to the terms of the Law could have no persuasive force for a Jew 109 For more on the ow of Paulrsquos argument in 21ndash320 see SJ Gathercole Where Is Boasting Early Jewish Soteriology and the New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002)



numerous other theological loci touched upon by these verses Although they constitute a small unit of text the ship of Pauline theology as James might have put it is invariably yet turned about by a very small rudder



(in Paulrsquos view) only be a Christian gentilersquo2 Historically discussion has not been any less lsquostuckrsquo among theolo-gians Augustine changed his mind about the text having previously understood it as referring to natural law he moved to seeing the reference to Gentile Christians3 But even then he continued to use the passage as a proof-text for natural law Melanchthon criticized Augustinersquos later lsquoGentile Christianrsquo reading for importing dif culties into Paul lsquowhereas the text itself is not obscurersquo4 Luther makes a very similar criticism of Augustinersquos lsquoforcedrsquo interpretation5 Karl Barth on the other hand reviews the account of the depravity of humanity described in Rom 1 and 3 and views the lsquounregenerate Gentilersquo interpretation of the passage with incredulity

Paul says unmistakeably that both Jews and Gentiles collectively and individually live under sin that none is righteous no not one (310) that the whole world is guilty before God (319) that all have sinned and have no glory with God (323) How then can he assume in Rom 2 even hypothetically let alone in practice that there are gentiles who are not merely noble but who keep and ful l Godrsquos Law without knowing it in its revealed form and who are thus justi ed before God as its doers Something is wrong here6

Douglas Campbell comments however that even if Barth had the best of the theological argument in his estimation Brunner had the best of the exegesis7 But although the lsquounregenerate Gentilersquo view may be favoured by the majority we should not as Engberg Pedersen does lsquopresuppose that the old question concerning the identity of the people referred to in

2 JDG Dunn lsquoIn Search of Common Groundrsquo in Dunn (ed) Paul and the Mosaic Law pp 309-34 (321) 3 See SJ Gathercole lsquoA Conversion of Augustine From Natural Law to Restored Nature in Romans 213-16rsquo in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1999) pp 327-58 and forthcoming in D Patte and E TeSelle (eds) Engaging Augustine Self Context and Theology in the Interpretation of Romans (Romans Through History and Culture Series Harrisburg PA Trinity Press International 2001) 4 THL Parker Commentaries on Romans 1532ndash1542 (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1986) p 139 (The words quoted are Parkerrsquos not the ipsissima verba of Melanchthon) 5 See Gathercole lsquoConversion of Augustinersquo p 354 6 K Barth Church Dogmatics IV4 The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1969) p 8 7 DA Campbell lsquoNatural Theology in Paul Reading Romans 119-20rsquo International Journal of Systematic Theology 13 (1999) pp 231-52 (232)






















































































gather cole on rom 2.14-15

Documents