Torah study was central to Pharisaic and presumably other Jewish teachers’ piety (2:17–20), but intellectual and spiritual proficiency risked generating pride in one’s accomplishments, then as now. Certainly today some have used such proficiency to diminish their concern with corresponding failure in the area of praxis. This Jewish teacher’s fundamental problem, twice repeated, is finding security in or “boasting” in the law (2:17, 23; cf. Sir 39:8). Ancients often considered unqualified boasting obnoxious to begin with,17 but for Paul boasting in one’s works as opposed to God’s activity is sinful (3:27; 4:2; 5:2–3, 11; 15:17).18
Ancient rhetoric was fond of repetition, which cumulatively reinforces the overall effect of one’s words. Paul cites about eleven pious Jewish claims for his interlocutor in 2:17–20, whose righteousness he then challenges with five rhetorical questions (as often in prosecuting or defensive rhetoric) in 2:21–23.19 The latter cases each use antithesis and the literary device of starting and ending with parallel language (x . . . y/x . . . y) to drive home the point. Evoking prophetic biblical critiques throughout,20 Paul finishes off the hyperbolic hypocrite with an explicit text in 2:23–24. Ironically, the righteousness this interlocutor claims in the law of Moses is available only to those in whose hearts the law is written by the Spirit (8:2–4):
| The name “Jew” (2:17) | True Jews (2:29), children of Abraham (4:12, 16–17), and those grafted into Israel (11:17) |
| Boasting in God (2:17, 23) | Boasting in God the right way (5:11; cf. 5:2–3) |
| Knowing God’s will and approving the good (2:18) | Knowing God’s will and approving the good (12:2) |
| A light to those in darkness (2:19) | People of light rather than darkness (13:12) |
| Teacher of law (2:20) | Right use of teaching (6:17; 12:7; 15:4; 16:17) |
| Having knowledge and truth in the law (2:20) | Having knowledge of truth (15:8, 14) |
Ancients considered temple robbery (2:22) the epitome of impiety.21 Many Gentiles suspected Jews of this crime because they knew that they did not regard pagan temples as sacred,22 though Jewish apologists emphasized that good Jews would do no such thing.23 Here Paul’s hyperbolic opponent, far from abhorring idols, apparently finds their sale lucrative. Profaning God’s name (2:23–24) was among the most heinous of offenses.24 The sort of hypocritical Jew who discredited God and his people depicted here could be familiar enough to Paul’s audience: a generation earlier, one Jewish charlatan, who professed to teach Moses’s laws but did not obey them, had exploited Roman women, leading to scandal in Rome (Josephus Ant. 18.81–84).
As at some other points in Romans (e.g., 3:10–18), Paul uses the Scriptures in what may be a deliberately unexpected way. In the context of Isa 52:5 God’s name was blasphemed among Gentiles because of his people’s suffering; here, Paul complains, God is blasphemed because of their sin! They were exiled to begin with, however, because of their sin (cf. Ezek 36:18–20). Paul might connect this passage with many of his people’s rejection of the good news of Isa 52:7 (cited in Rom 10:15.)
Inward Jewishness (2:25–29)
Responding to one boasting in his Jewish ethnicity and virtues (2:17–24), Paul counters that Jewishness (here embodied in circumcision) is valuable only if one truly keeps the covenant. Gentiles who follow the moral demands of the law, even if they lack knowledge of the written law (or are uncircumcised Godfearers attached to the synagogue), will be reckoned more within the covenant than Jews who break the law. Although Paul again speaks in principle of any Gentile, in practice those who could fulfill this standard, from Paul’s perspective, are those who are in Christ, since they are the ones who have the Spirit (cf. 2:29 with 7:5–6; 8:9).
Scripture supported Paul’s contention that those who violated God’s law were uncircumcised in heart (Rom 2:25; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26); Paul goes beyond Scripture simply in arguing the converse, namely, that those who keep God’s law are circumcised in God’s sight (Rom 2:26). Physical circumcision was a dividing issue; many Roman Gentiles criticized Jews for this practice, and it remained a primary barrier for Gentile men desiring to join God’s people. Most Jews did not believe that Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved; they needed it only to become members of Israel’s covenant.25 Paul thus prepares here for his later argument about Gentile believers being grafted into Israel’s heritage alongside Jewish believers (4:16; 11:17).26
Literal circumcision appears in far fewer biblical texts than one would expect from its later emphasis (although it is crucial in most of these, especially Gen 17; Ex 4:26; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2–8);27 but Jewish people emphasized it especially rigorously in the centuries before Paul’s day as a significant distinctive of national identity. Without rejecting physical circumcision, Paul regarded spiritual circumcision (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26; cf. Ezek 44:7, 9) as essential and more crucial than the physical covenant “sign.” Physical circumcision remained acceptable for Jewish believers, but the imposition of circumcision on Gentile believers risked alienating people from the covenant needlessly (cf. 1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:6; 6:15).28 For Paul, the promised gift of the Spirit (2:29) confirmed God’s acceptance of Gentiles into his new covenant, obviating the need for a mere symbol of the covenant that simply pointed to it.29
The genuine Jew, Paul says, seeks his or her praise from God (2:29), like the righteous people of 2:7, 10. Paul might be offering a wordplay that some of his audience would recognize: the name of the Jews’ ancestor “Judah” meant “praise” (though translated differently in Gen 29:35; 49:8). For the contrast between Spirit and letter, see the comment on 7:6.
1. On the style, see Stowers 1981: 122–33.
2. E.g., Isa 22:17; Mic 6:8; Epictetus Disc. 1.1.23 and passim; Marcus Aurelius Med. 5.36.1; 11.15. For the interlocutor including Jews, see e.g., Augustine Exp. prop. Rom. 7–8 (Bray 1998: 52).
3. E.g., Matt 7:1; Polybius 12.23.1, 3; 12.24.5; Seneca Dial. 4.28.6–8; Juvenal Sat. 2.9–10, 20–21; b. Roš. Haš. 16b.
4. Cf. Let. Aris. 187–88; Wis 11:23; 12:10, 19; the fifth benediction of the ’Amida.
5. The connection is uncertain, since “treasure up” did not always carry its originally literal sense (see e.g.,