"Sinner" Applies to Everyone -- the important logic of Romans 2:1-13 (Or, "A" = Admit what?)
- mww
- 3 hours ago
- 19 min read
There is one standard for judgment and salvation.
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Romans 2:1-13
This is the second of our two lessons covering the first part of Romans -- it doesn't matter if you're a Jew or a Gentile; if you have sinned (and you have), you will face the wrath of God in judgment. But if you have lived for God in righteousness, you will experience the joy of eternal life with God. It begs the question: how does one avoid judgment?
For there is no favoritism with God. (2:11)
When We Studied Romans in 2020:
I'm super-excited to say that Lifeway chose a different passage than we studied last time around in chapter 2! I'm gushing.
In that post, I covered some adjacent ideas to this week's passage:
Technology changing the game
Hypocrisy among Christians
Faith vs. works
The Jews in Rome
What is "circumcision of the heart"?
As always, consult that post if I don't give you specific answers below.
"It Wasn't That Bad"
I stumbled across something called "The Narcissist's Prayer". What do you think?
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, it's not a big deal.
And if it is, it's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
In this week's passage, Paul lays the foundation for "the ABCs of salvation" -- admitting that we are all of us a sinner. That can be hard for some people.
One of the ways we try to ignore this is to downplay something we did that was clearly wrong (a sin, to use our jargon). Have you ever said "it wasn't that bad" when explaining or justifying yourself? Because I started things so heavy last week, I'd recommend keeping it light this week. Maybe something along the lines of "you had one job". I remember working with some young people on some painting, and the one rule I gave was to keep the paint over the dropcloth. You can guess where that went, and you can guess where the excuses went. I also remember a group project where the group leader gave me a very specific way of putting something together. I had a "better" way, which inevitably didn't work, and when he confronted me about it, I basically said "it's not that bad" while the thing collapsed behind me. Have you ever done that? How did it go?
The point of this icebreaker would be to establish that people can try to minimize whatever thing we did wrong.
Why do we do that?
"I'm Not as Bad as Him"
Another version of this is to compare ourselves to somebody else (usually cherry-picking the worst person we read about in the newspaper). Based on anecdotal evidence, this seems to be pretty common. I did this in school when trying to deflect blame whenever whatever report from the teacher came home in my bag. I still catch myself doing this today! When I feel conviction over something that's not where it should be in my life, my brain will sometimes seek out a story of some Christian who got caught doing something terrible, and I'll say to myself, "See, it could be worse." Have you ever done that?
This idea is similar to the last one -- I want to establish that some people try to make themselves feel better about themselves by comparing to others who are "worse" (whatever they think that means).
Why do we do that?
"I Can Get Away with It"
A third version of this topic is to talk about times you did something wrong because you truly thought you could get away with it. I think I remember telling the story of a party I went to at Galveston that my mom specifically said not to go to that I was convinced she'd never find out only for my car to break down. How about you? Have you ever convinced yourself that you could get away with something? How did it go?
[Note: a variation of this could be to ask how it affected your future mindset after times you did "get away with it".]
It seems that the older or richer people get, the more brazen they get about this. I've been following the story of the Los Angeles Clippers, and boy howdy, the hubris behind some of the actions they took is unbelievable.
How does "I can get away with it" compare with "it wasn't that bad" in terms of self-justification? What's the problem with it?
The Strict Parent or Teacher
A totally different opening for this week's lesson would be to reminisce about a strict parent or teacher. A lot of people read the beginning of Romans and liken God to a strict authority figure. So, what was that person like for you?
Yes, comparing God to any human (who is a sinner) is a terrible idea. But we create our characterizations base on what we know -- and this would be especially true of a non-Christian who doesn't know God. That's why our experiences with a strict authority person matters.
The twist on this topic would be to ask if there was ever a time that you ended up appreciating how strict that person was. Why?
The Straight-up Hypocrite
In this week's passage, Paul drops the hammer on everyone who is judgmental Jews -- they're being hypocrites. They've done the very same things they've complained about the Gentiles doing.
A long, long time ago (but in this galaxy), the Greek term behind "hypocrite" was neutral -- it referred to an actor (someone who wore a mask or played a part). But outside of the theater, the term took on a negative connotation -- pretense, specifically pretending to be a better person than one really is.
Who are recent examples of hypocrites in the news? (Don't worry, everybody accuses everybody else of being a hypocrite! Your challenge will be to keep this discussion from getting too political. If it does, though, you might be able to use it to reinforce the "I'm not as bad as him" topic above.) What bothers you about a hypocrite?
And then where I'm really going with this: have you ever been a hypocrite? Do your attitudes towards hypocrites reveal your own hypocrisy?
Aside: Hypocrisy
This might come up in discussion, so I may as well arm you now. In the Bible, the word for "hypocrite" is often used for sin in general. That's why some appearances of "hypocrite" in the KJV become "ungodly" in the NIV. Jesus, however, often used it in the sense of "pretense" as in the Sermon on the Mount -- the Pharisees were more interested in human praise than God's. Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy in how he treated the Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal 2).
The biblical counter to "hypocrisy" is "sincerity".
This Week's Big Idea: Works-Based Salvation
Quick reminder, if you haven't been to Vacation Bible School in a while:
"A" -- admit to God that you're a sinner and repent;
"B" -- believe that Jesus is the Son of God;
"C" -- confess your faith in Jesus as your Savior and Lord.
[Note: you have all kinds of talking points related to the "ABCs of salvation" in the book of Romans. Don't be afraid to sidetrack on any opportunity to help your group get comfortable with the basics of a gospel presentation. Plus, diving deeper on these ABCs is almost always a good idea.]
The classic Protestant mantra is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
So then, how do we explain these verses in Romans 2?
6 He will repay each one according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but wrath and anger to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth while obeying unrighteousness. 9 There will be affliction and distress for every human being who does evil, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does what is good, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.
13 For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
26 So if an uncircumcised man keeps the law’s requirements, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
I think it's a big deal for your group members to be able to explain whether or not salvation can be by works.
The Lifeway material just kind of explains this away with a "it can't". They're correct, but the reason why is important.
Is Paul wrong in what he says in these verses? If not, how do they reconcile with salvation by faith? If so, why did he say them?
There are two common approaches here:
Paul is describing life as a Christian empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Paul is setting a trap -- no one can do enough good things to be saved.
I think it's pretty clearly the second one. In Romans, Paul complains about his tendencies to sin, even as a Christian. And in next week's lesson, we'll get into Paul's memorable line that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".
So, if it's that way, why did he write these verses?
I think the answer is audience-related. Paul is writing to Jews and Gentiles. We know that some (many?) Jews had a superiority complex to Gentiles ("we have the law" "we're God's chosen people"), and we know that God gave them the law to obey.
This might be the ol' rope-a-dope.
So then the biggest question of all: could a person be saved by works? Logically speaking, the answer is yes. After all, didn't Jesus "earn" salvation for Himself by His works in life? Indeed He did. That would suggest that if a person never sinned from the moment of conception, they wouldn't need Christ's sacrifice to be right with God at death.
In other words, what Paul says in these verses is true.
And impossible for anyone other than Jesus.
Where We Are in Romans: Proof That We Are Sinners
A reminder of the outline I shared last week:
Introduction (1:1-15)
Greetings (1:1-7)
Prayer (1:8-15)
Thesis (1:16-17)
The Gospel (1:18-5:21)
All have sinned (1:18-3:20)
All can be justified in Christ (3:21-5:21)
The thesis of the letter is this:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.
Keep these verses in your head, and they will help you interpret some of Paul's more difficult statements.
We have one more lesson in the "all have sinned" part of the letter, and then we have two lessons in the "all can be justified in Christ" part of the letter.
I hope you realize why it's so important for Paul to start with the truth that "all have sinned". If a person doesn't believe that, a person won't realize they need to be saved.
Last week, Paul established an important foundation: using the ABCs as our talking point, "Admit to God that you're a sinner" demands that you believe that God exists, that sin exists, and that God has the authority to identify sin. So, Paul begins at the beginning: every human innately knows that there is a God (anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves). And the presence of religion (idolatry) proves that every human realizes there is a separation between themselves and God. Religion is humanity's attempt to bridge that gap. Idolatry both (1) proves that humans know they are separated from God and (2) is evidence of the sin that has caused that separation.
I noted that a lot of readers tend to focus on Paul's highlighting of homosexual sex as proof of sin in humanity, but I also tried to be clear that Paul was not singling that sin out. It came to mind for him because in the Roman Empire, many cults used what we would call "temple prostitution", and many of those prostitutes were available for homosexual prostitution. To Paul, both God's law and human nature are clear that sex is to be enjoyed only between a husband and his wife, so all prostitution is just proof of sin.
But Paul does not stop there! The further people drifted from God, the more depraved their behavior became. Consider the verses right before this week's passage:
1:28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a corrupt mind so that they do what is not right. 29 They are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful. 32 Although they know God’s just sentence—that those who practice such things deserve to die—they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.
Look at that list and realize what Paul is saying. A person who disobeys his parents is in the same category as a temple prostitute!
Have you ever observed any of those behaviors in yourself? Have you ever been greedy? Have you ever quarreled with someone? Have you ever gossiped? (You'd better say yes.) Paul's point is that anyone who does any of those things deserves to die for that sin.
Someone in your group might say, "That's harsh, isn't it?" Our focal passage this week ends before Paul explains what he means:
2:25 Circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Above, in the "works-based salvation" section, I explained Paul's simple point: in order to be right with God, a person has to obey the law perfectly from conception to death. If you break any part of the law, you can no longer say that you have kept the law perfectly. So, every sin is thus worthy of eternal separation from God (i.e., death, i.e., hell).
Does that make sense? It's important to understand that if we are to appreciate Paul's larger argument.
In summary, this week's lesson is our second from Paul's first "point" -- that everyone is a sinner in need of salvation.
Part 1: Let's Reveal Some Hypocrisy (Romans 2:1-5)
Therefore, every one of you who judges is without excuse. For when you judge another, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is based on the truth. 3 Do you think—anyone of you who judges those who do such things yet do the same—that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness, restraint, and patience, not recognizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? 5 Because of your hardened and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.
Paul is writing to a church made up of Jews and Gentiles. And it might sound like Paul has been focusing on "Gentile sins" to this point -- like idolatry and temple prostitution. Perhaps the Jews in Rome were a bit disgusted with some of those Gentile sins and feeling a bit "holier than thou".
Well, about that.
(And don't worry about looking up all of the instances in the Old Testament about Jews practicing idolatry and prostitution. Paul isn't talking about those Jews; he's talking about his audience.) (Oh! And Paul might not be thinking about Jew and Gentile at all here -- after all, his point is that everyone is a hypocrite / sinner -- but he is very clearly calling out the Jews starting in verse 17. For our application, it does not change Paul's truth if he is focused on his Jewish audience or not at the beginning of chapter 2.)
If you didn't talk about "hypocrites" before, do it now. What is a hypocrite? Is everybody a hypocrite? Why and how?
Let's just jump into a simple example to make sure we all understand Paul's point. Let's say a temple prostitute wants to join your church. And your instinct is first to judge their temple prostitution. Here, Paul calls you a hypocrite because you "do the same things".
But let's also say that you have never been a temple prostitute. Is Paul then wrong?
I think this is important to understand. It's directly tied to my discussion ideas above about deflecting or minimizing bad behavior. There are people in our churches who will deflect from their own bad behavior by emphasizing someone else's.
What do you think? Are you a hypocrite for judging someone else's temple prostitution?
This is where we would love to know a little bit more about the church in Rome. I wonder if there was a specific rift that Paul had heard about between the Jewish and Gentile Christians related to the Jewish Christians consistently judging the Gentile's behavior. Remember, as far as we know, no apostle had been to this church, so they might not have had a whole lot to go on as follower of Jesus. It's almost certain that they didn't have any Gospel to go by, and who knows if they had any of Paul's earlier letters to work with (Galatians or 1/2 Thessalonians or maybe 1/2 Corinthians).
I'm going to send us to the Sermon on Mount for ideas about what Paul might mean:
Option (1) Sin begins in the heart. "Matt 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Perhaps Paul was saying that any Jew who has been self-reliant or neglected God has committed temple prostitution in his heart.
Option (2) Judgment is an act of hypocrisy. "Matt 7:4-5 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the splinter out of your eye,’ and look, there’s a beam of wood in your own eye? Hypocrite! First take the beam of wood out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye." Perhaps Paul was focusing on the truth that judgment itself demonstrates a lack of self-awareness or repentance. A person who is aware of the sin in his own life will hesitate to call out the sin in someone else's.
Option (3) "Sins" might vary, but "sin" does not. I think the best way to explain what Paul is saying is as a combination of those two. One does not have to be a temple prostitute to have been sexually immoral, and in any event sexual immorality is no "worse" than disobeying your parents. By calling out someone else's specific sinful acts, members of the church in Rome were trying to minimize the severity of their own sinful acts.
That last idea also suggests that Paul is saying than anyone who breaks any part of the law is guilty of breaking the entire law. In other words, it doesn't matter if you've not been a temple prostitute if you've been, say, a gossip.
And no sin escapes God's judgment.
In last week's post, I told you to have a working familiarity with
Gospel
Salvation
Righteousness
Justification
Faith
For reasons that I cannot explain, I did not include Repentance. That was dumb. Sorry about that.
Repentance. In the Bible, "repentance" is the regret that comes with realizing you have done wrong and the desire to not do that again. In the New Testament, it is more specifically turning away from your sin and turning to God -- or, leaving your life of sin and following Jesus. Repentance precedes salvation.
Some people misunderstand God's purpose for blessings. Those people wrongly think that God has blessed them because He loves them just the way they are. No! God showers people with blessings to lead them to repentance. This is part of the doctrine often called "prevenient grace".
How might God's kindness lead to repentance?
The triad of "kindness, restraint, and patience" paint a specific picture of God -- God could immediately zap anyone after a sin but chooses not to. God withholds punishment so that person could have time to repent. This does not mean that God has chosen not to punish that sinner; it means that God is being patient and merciful. Think of it as a temporary truce, not a lasting peace. Lasting peace only comes through Jesus, but more about that next week.
If a sinner dies without repenting of his sin and turning to Jesus for salvation, that person will experience the full judgment of God and punishment for his sin.
Paul wants his audience to understand that God is incomprehensibly merciful, but that doesn't make Him a pushover. It makes Paul upset that people think they can abuse God's mercy, but we'll talk more about this in a few weeks.
I may as well keep with the Sermon on the Mount connection: "Matt 6:19 Don’t store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves don’t break in and steal." The people who are storing up for themselves treasures on earth are also likely storing up for themselves the wrath of God!
To wrap up this point, you want to make sure that your group understands:
God's purpose for being merciful;
God's mercy does not nullify His wrath against sin;
You trying to deflect judgment to someone else does not fool God.
Part 2: God's Judgments Are Always Right (Romans 2:6-11)
6 He will repay each one according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but wrath and anger to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth while obeying unrighteousness. 9 There will be affliction and distress for every human being who does evil, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does what is good, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no favoritism with God.
I talked about this above, so I'll speed things up.
Paul uses a chiasm:
1 God judges everyone the same (6)
2 Life is the reward for doing good (7)
3 Wrath is the penalty for doing evil (8)
3' Penalty for evil (9)
2' Reward for good (10)
1' God shows no favoritism (11)
Paul is not saying that humans can earn salvation through good works. Above, I made the case that Paul has been every clear that everyone is a sinner, therefore (even though it is technically possible), no one can earn salvation from God.
Here, let me explain the other possibility (which Leon Morris endorses) that Paul is describing a life characerized by already being saved. "Persistence in doing good" basically means "one who with patient endurance looks beyond their own well-being". Only someone living in the power of the Holy Spirit can do that, let alone want to do that. He argues that verse 7 describes someone whose trust is in God, not themselves, i.e., someone who is already a Christian.
That's a good argument, and I'm not about to disagree with him. Elsewhere in the letter, Paul (1) is very clear that no one can earn salvation, and (2) desribes what life in the Spirit looks like. Whichever truth he's emphasizing in these verses, he says them both in this letter.
"Eternal life" is important to understand. Yes, it is a reward to those who have been saved in Jesus. But this does not mean that those who are judged will be destroyed. The opposite of eternal life is not annihilation but rather "eternal death". In other words, what we call "hell".
Another important thing to point out: the rewards of eternal life are associated with active verbs, but the consequences of disobedience are associated with passive verbs. Paul seems to saying that God wants to bestow life and peace, but when people receive punishment and wrath, it's because they brought it on themselves.
And Paul uses some dire terms. The Greek word behind "affliction" basically means to "squash". The Greek word behind "distress" means "extreme confinement". It's a terrible state, one Jesus described as "the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 8:12)."
Paul wants the "teeth" of God's judgement to feel real to his audience.
And Paul also wants to be clear that God applies judgment to all people equally, whether they are part of "God's chosen people Israel" or not.
We've talked about the rift between Jews and Gentiles many times, so let me put this in different terms. Let's say you ask someone if they are a Christian, and they respond, "Oh! I'm a member of such-and-such Baptist Church." Or you ask someone why they believe God will let them into heaven, and they respond, "Oh! My parents raised me in church." That's similar to the situation Paul is describing -- God does not apply a different standard of judgment to someone who grew up in church. There is one standard: did you trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation?
This is going to be really hard for Paul's Jewish audience to accept. Likewise, if you've ever talked to someone who grew up in church (but shows zero evidence of being saved), you know how hard it is to convince that person to carefully evaluate his own salvation.
In other words, if you think Paul is making an obvious and basic point, good! I'm glad it's obvious to you, a born-again believer in Jesus Christ! But this is a foundational truth that is vitally important to explain to someone who is not a believer.
Part 3: Not Having "The Law" Changes Nothing (Romans 2:12-13)
12 For all who sin without the law will also perish without the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
Hoo boy. Here we go. Readers can start to glaze over here.
So let's talk about "the law".
Many times, when Paul says "the law", he is referring to "the Law of Moses" given by God in the Torah (found in the first five books of the Bible). Note that in the Greek, Paul does not always include an article. That leaves us with a series of ways Paul uses "law" in Romans:
"law"
"the Law"
"the law of Moses"
"the law of God"
"the law of faith"
"the law of works"
"the law of sin"
"the law of my mind"
"the law unto themselves"
and a few others.
"Law" basically just means "rule" or "principle". Some people create rules for themselves; rulers create rules for their society; God built rules into creation; God revealed rules to His people through Moses.
Morris thinks that it is pretty clear when Paul is talking about "the law of Moses" and when he is talking more generally about "rules". Paul gives three eras:
the time before the law
the time of the law
now, the time after Christ, "the end of the law"
In each era, people are subject to God's judgment. But in no case did the law ever bring salvation. Salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. The law identifies sin, but people don't need the law of Moses to be aware of their sin. God always intended the law to point people to Christ.
But salvation in Christ does not mean that the law is "gone" or that it was unhelpful (or evil) -- rather, now the law serves its proper function as a kind of "tutor" for Christians who want help seeing examples of how God wants His people to live. Christians are not obligated to the law, but they can find wisdom and guidance in the law.
At its core, the law is simple: love God, and love your neighbor. It is a law of faith and of love. Anyone who reads the law otherwise is not reading in the power of the Holy Spirit.
But back to the passage. How does that help us understand verse 12?
Remember Paul's primary point: God does not play favorites. The Jew cannot claim salvation simply by having the law. And the Gentile cannot claim salvation because he has not lived under the law. The same standard of judgment applies to everyone.
You might react, "But wait! Isn't that unfair to judge people by a law they didn't know they were supposed to be following?"
Well, that's the whole point of chapter 1. Gentiles are not judged by the standard of the law of Moses. Gentiles are judged by the law (the "light") they have been given -- that there is a God, that they are separated from God, and that something needs to be done to reconcile them to God. We'll talk more about this in the future, but Paul's emphasis at this point in the letter is that all humans are sinners and are on the road to hell.
No one can say that they are exempt from judgment.
Make sure your group understands that Paul is building a case. This is the bad news. But Paul wants everyone to realize that judgment applies to every human. The Jew who has sinned under the law will suffer the eternal wrath of God. The Gentile who has sinned without knowing the law will suffer the eternal wrath of God. The aborigine in the Amazon rainforest who has sinned without knowing the Bible exists will suffer the eternal wrath of God. God uses one standard for salvation.
Comments