[1] E.g. Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977)Google Scholar and Beker, J. Christian, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).Google Scholar

[2] ‘Justification and Last Judgment in Paul’, ZNW 67 (1976) 97Google Scholar, 99, 103. (Virtually the same article appeared in Interpretation 30 [1976], 140–52.)Google Scholar

[3] Note, for example, that Sanders, 516, says that if any text in Paul is aberrant, it is Romans 2. 6–16.

[4] Ruf. 890 f. (Migne) and Fragment 10, Ramsbotham. See Ramsbotham, A., ‘The Commentary of Origen on the Epistle to the Romans’, JTS 13 (1912) 217Google Scholar and Schelkle, Karl Hermann, Paulus, Lehrer der Väter: Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Römer 1–11 (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1956) 91.Google Scholar

[5] De Spiritu et Littera 26–28 [43–49] and Contra Julianum 4.23 f.; Contra Faustum 19.2 and De sermone Domini in monte II. 9. 32. See Johannes Riedl, ‘Rom 2. 14 ff und das Heil der Heiden bei Augustinus und Thomas’, Scholastik 40 (1965) 189–213.Google Scholar

[6] Commentary on Romans, ad loc.; Summa Theologica I^a II^ae 100.12; 109.4. See Riedl, 194–205.

[7] Lectures on Romans, ad loc. See also the discussion of Luther's interpretation by Leif, Grane, ‘Luthers Auslegung von Röm 2.12–15 in der Römerbriefvorlesung’, NZSysTh 17 (1975) 22–32.Google Scholar

[8] The two major interpretations among earlier exegetes were that the passage refers to Gentiles before Christ's coming who were obedient (like Melchizedek) or that it refers to Gentile Christians. In addition to the modern treatments of older interpretations referred to in notes three, four, and six, see Johannes, Riedl, ‘Die Auslegung von R 2. 14–16 in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart’, Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961. Analecta Biblica 17–18 (Romae: E Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1963) 1, 271–81Google Scholar; idem, ‘Das Heil der Nichtevangelisierten nach Bonaventura’, Theologische Quartalschrift 144 (1964) 276–89Google Scholar; idem, ‘Salus paganorum secundum Rom 2’, Verbum Domini 42 (1964) 61–70Google Scholar; and Max, Lackmann, Vom Geheimnis der Schöpfung: Die Geschichte der Exegese von Römer I, 18–23, II, 14–16, und Acta XIV, 15–17, XVII, 22–29 vom 2. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn der Orthodoxie (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1952) 95–140 & g212–35.Google Scholar

[9] The best known representative here is Hans, Lietzmann, An die Römer (Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck, 1906) 13Google Scholar, but the position is quite popular; e.g. John, Knox, The Epistle to the Romans (IB) (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954) 409 & 418Google Scholar; Kähler, M., ‘Auslegung von Kap. 2, 14–16 in Römerbrief) Theologische Studien und Kritiken 47 (1874) 274, 277Google Scholar; Günther, Bornkamm, ‘Gesetz und Natur (Röm 2, 14–16)’, Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum 2 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1970) 110Google Scholar; Anton, Friedrichsen, ‘Der wahre Jude und sein Lob: Röm. 2. 28 f.’ Symbolae Arctoae 1 (1922) 43 f.Google Scholar; Otto, Kuss, Der Römerbrief (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1957) 1, 64–8, 90Google Scholar; and most recently Harrisville, Roy A., Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980) 43–50.Google Scholar The difficulties caused by this approach for Harrisville are obvious in his saying that «Paul is either yielding to a notion of justification on the basis of works, or he has involved himself in a frightful contradiction’ (43) and that the relentlessness of Paul's argument in 2. 25–29 is ‘blasphemous by Jewish standards; intolerant, irreligious by any other’.

[10] Felix, Flückiger, ‘Die Werke des Gesetzes bei den Heiden (nach Röm 2, 14ff)’, TZ 8 (1952) 17–42Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–1979) 1, 152–62 & 173–6Google Scholar; Wilhelm, Mundle, ‘Zur Auslegung von Röm 2, 13ff’, Theologische Blätter 13 (1934) 249–56Google Scholar; Karl, Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959) 36–9Google Scholar; Rudolf, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick, Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951) 261Google Scholar; Adrio, König, ‘Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16’, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 15 (1976) 53–60Google Scholar; and Salas, A., ‘Dios premia según las obras’, La Ciudad de Dios 182 (1969) 5–29Google Scholar, who also presented a view of a twofold justification (following Joachim, Jeremias, ‘Paul and James’, Exp. T. 66, 1954–5, 368–71Google Scholar).

One should note that a shift has taken place in the modern period. Whereas earlier interpreters usually claimed that the text refers either to righteous pagans before Christ or to Gentile Christians, modem interpreters usually argue either that the text is hypothetical or that it refers to Gentile Christians. Summaries of modern interpretations may be found by Käte Oltmanns, ‘Das Verhältnis von Röm 1, 18–3,20 zu Rom 3,21 ff.’, Theologische Blätter 8 (1929) 110–13Google Scholar, and by Eberhard, Jüngel, ‘Ein Paulinischer Chiasmus: Zum Verständnis der Vorstellung vom Gericht nach den Werken in Röm 2, 2–22’, Unterwegs zur Sache (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1972) 173–5Google Scholar (also in ZTK LX, 1963, 64–72).

[11] Otto, Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der urchristlichen Theologie (2 Aufl.; Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1890) 281.Google Scholar

[12] Wilfrid, Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des tertius usus legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Paränese (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951) 169–76Google Scholar; Herbert, Braun, Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1930) 96–8.Google ScholarHeikki, Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck, 1983) 101–7Google Scholar; and Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 123–36.Google Scholar Sanders suggested that 1. 18–2. 29 is largely homiletical material taken over from Diaspora Judaism, that the arguments are exaggerated, and that this section does not fit with what Paul says elsewhere. Not surprisingly, Sanders found it necessary to discuss Romans 2 in an appendix. That Paul in writing 2. 14–15 had forgotten what he had written about the Gentiles in 1. 18 is hard to accept. Paul could hardly be so inconsistent that he could have forgotten his description of Gentiles in 1. 18 f. and have given a different view in 2. 14–15.

[13] Friedrich, Kuhr, ‘Römer 2.14f und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 31.31 ff.’, ZNW 55 (1964) 243–61Google Scholar; Rolf, Walker, ‘Das Heiden und das Gericht: zur Auslegung von Römer 2:12–16’, Evangelische Theologie 20 (1960) 302–14.Google Scholar See Leenhardt, Franz J., The Epistle to the Romans (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961) 78Google Scholar, who argued that the fate of humanity envisaged in 2. 7–10 has never been realized in human history. (He skipped 2. 13 completely.) See also Ernst Lohmeyer's unacceptable attempt (Probleme paulinischer Theologie, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, n.d., 69)Google Scholar to interpret τά εθνη τά μή νόμον εχοντα as the Gentiles' rejection of the claim of the law rather than their lack of knowledge about it. Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism 516Google Scholar, thinks that he has solved the problem of our text by saying that in 2. 13, ‘being justified’ refers to punishment and not whether or not one is saved. This is unacceptable for various reasons, not the least of which is that the context of 2. 7 and 10 is explicitly about eternal life.

[14] Wrede, W., Paul, trans. Edward, Lummis (London: Philip Green, 1907) 128Google Scholar, despite his admission (140) that all of Paul's theology is Jewish except his Christology. See also Ziesler, J. A., The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[15] Ernst, Synofzik, Die Gerichts und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 81.Google Scholar

[16] Emil, Weber, Die Beziehungen von Röm. 1—3 zur Missionspraxis des Paulus. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 9 (Gutersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, 1905) 47.Google Scholar Cf. Oltmanns 110.

[17] O'Neill, J. C., Paul's Letter to the Romans [Harmondsworth, England]: Penguin Books: 1975) 40Google Scholar, 53, 264 f. Lieselotte, Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966) 130 f.Google Scholar, raised the suggestion that 2. 13 is a gloss but did not choose to defend this position.

[18] Russell, Pregeant, ‘Grace and Recompense: Reflections on a Pauline Paradox’, JAAR 47 (1979) 73–96.Google Scholar

[19] Otto, Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) 67.Google Scholar

[20] Ernst, Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980) 73–5.Google Scholar See also his ‘The Spirit and the Letter’, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 139–44.Google Scholar

[21] Jüngel, 176–7. His position is accepted by Ulrich, Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (2 vols.; Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1978) I, 144.Google Scholar

[22] One of the most significant studies is that by Cambier, J. -M., ‘Le jugement de tous les hommes par Dieu seul, selon la vérité, dans Rom 2:1–3:20’, ZNW 66 (1975) 187–213Google Scholar; see also Bläser, P. Peter, Das Gesetz bei Paulus (Münster. Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1941) 195–7Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957) 42–51 and 58Google Scholar; Adolf, Schlaffer, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament (5th Aufl.; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1963) 323–8 and 380–1Google Scholar; idem., Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1935) 74–112Google Scholar; Riedl, ‘Salus paganorum secundum Rom 2’, 61–70. Although Max Pohlenz's article is primarily concerned with the question of Stoic influence, it is an important and helpful work (‘Paulus und die Stoa’, ZNW 42, 1949, 69–104Google Scholar). See also the brief treatment of end judgment in Peter, Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 228–31.Google Scholar

[23] Bläser, 195; Oltmanns, 110.

[24] Stuhlmacher, 230; Jüngel, 176; Calvin, Roetzel, Judgement in the Community (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972) 178.Google Scholar Even though tension in Paul's thought is felt by some, they still argue rightly for the legitimacy of the judgment sayings. See Filson, Floyd V., St. Paul's Conception of Recompense (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1931)Google Scholar; and the works by Braun, Synofzik and Mattern.

[25] Note how Heinrich, Schlier (Der Römerbrief, Freiburg: Herder, 1977, 88)Google Scholar, when explaining 2. 27–29, said Paul unconsciously passes over to Gentile Christians. Käsemann also interpreted 2. 28–29 of Gentile Christians (75) in spite of his comment on p. 73. Must one assume there were no ‘true Jews’ in Old Testament times and in Judaism? The language used by Paul originates from the Old Testament and has parallels in Judaism. Romans 4. 12 leaves room for a considerable number of ‘true Jews’ in the Old Testament, among the Gentiles, and among Christians.

[26] E.g. Kuhr, 256.

[27] So Augustine, , De Spiritu et Littera 27Google Scholar (47) and Flückiger, 31, although Cranfield, 156–7, and König, 58, did not fall into this error.

[28] Mundle, 252.

[29] On the meaning of ϕυоıς, we infra, p. 80 and n. 62.

[30] See supra, n. 24.

[31] See Donfried, Karl P. (ed.), The Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977)Google Scholar and Campbell, W. S., ‘Why Did Paul Write Romans?’ ET 85 (1973–1974) 264–9Google Scholar, among others. The debate shows little sign of subsiding; we Campbell's update, ‘The Romans Debate’, JSNT 10 (1981) 19–28.Google Scholar

[32] Romans is hardly a last will and testament and it is certainly not a complete statement of Paul's theology. To suggest the former, as Bornkamm has, is to foreclose on a number of introductory questions that deserve to remain open and either of these suggestions overlooks the fact that numerous subjects are not treated in Romans (e.g. the paucity of references to eschatology).

[33] See Leon, Morris, ‘The Theme of Romans’, Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. Gasque, W. Ward and Martin, Ralph P. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970) 249–63Google Scholar; and Halvor, Moxnes, Theology in Conflict (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980)Google Scholar

[34] See the discussion by Roetzel, 74 f. For concern over the vindication of God in Jewish sources, see 1QS X. 11–12, XI. 14–15; 1QH II. 24; IV. 25, IX. 9 and possibly fragment 5; 1QM XI. 14 f. Ps. of Solomon 2. 16–17; 8. 7–8, 30; 9. 2–3; 1 Enoch 9. 3–11; 91. 14 f.; 4 Ezra 3. 28 f.; 4. 12 f.; 5. 28 f.; 7. 116 f.; 2 Bar. 3. 1–9; 21. 19 f.; 78. 5; Wis. of Solomon 12. 11–13; Jub. 1. 6. This is to say nothing of passages that speak of vengeance on the wicked or of vindication for the righteous.

[35] Cf. Roetzel, 74; the description of Moxnes, 33 f. and Becker's emphasis on the triumph of God (especially 362 f.), but none of these works is explicit in viewing the purpose of Romans as a vindication of God. See also Campbell, W. S., ‘The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel’, JSNT 13 (1981) 27–45Google Scholar; ibem; ‘Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter’, NovT 23 (1981) 22–40Google Scholar, especially 27 and 33. Campbell connected these themes to the church in Rome. For views very close to my own see Williams, Sam K., ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans’, JBL 99 (1980) 241–90Google Scholar, esp. 248, 263, 265, 268–70, 278; and John, Piper, ‘The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3. 25, 26’, JSNT 7 (1980) 2–32.Google Scholar

[36] See Räisänen, 97–109; and Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 78, 102–36Google Scholar, even though he admits on p. 128 that Romans 2 does not really argue all are condemned.

[37] Note especially 1. 8; 4.20 f.; 6.7.

[38] E.g. 1QS IV. 6 f.; X. 16–18; CD VII.9 f.; 1QH XVIII. 12 f.; IVQPs^f VIII. 4–5 (see Starcky, J., ‘Psaumes Apocryphes de la Grotte 4 de Qumran’, RB 73, 1963, 256)Google Scholar, 1QpHab VIII. 1 f.; X. 3; XII. 14–XIII. 4; Ps. of Solomon 2. 17 f., 38; 9. 4; 2 Bar. 13. 8; 44. 4; 54. 21; 85. 15; 4 Ezra 6. 19; 7. 17, 33–44, 104 f.; 8. 31; 12. 31 f.; 14. 32.; Jub. 5. 13–18; 21.4; 33. 18; Test. of Levi 3. 2; 4. 1 f.; Test. of Gad 7. 5; Test. of Benjamin 10.7 f.; 1 Enoch 1. 7–9; 5. 5–9; 16. 2; 25.4 f.; 41. 2 & 9; 50. 1–4; 60. 6; 62.2 f.; 63.8; 100.7 et al.; Secrets of Enoch 50. 1–5; 52. 15; Assumption of Moses 12. 10; Sibylline Oracles IV. 183; Pirke Aboth I. 3 f.; II. 1; III. 15; IV. 22; RH 16b; Hag. 5a; AZ 18a Philo, , de Praemiis, 126Google Scholaret passim.

[39] Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, see e.g. 75, 94–101Google Scholar, 124, 137–47, 181, 419–28.

[40] ibid., 141 & 146.

[41] ibid., 72, 97 f.; 120, 124, 129 and 87, 426. On the subject of abuses with regard to the doctrine of merits, we Marmorstein, A., The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1968) 25Google Scholar, 38, 64, 94 f., 164.

[42] Which Sanders explicitly rejects. See Longenecker, Richard N., Paul, Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 40 f.Google Scholar and 65–85.

[43] Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 141Google Scholar, 146 f., 371.

[44] Ps. 9. 8–21; 37. 9, 37; 58. 12; 62. 10 & 13; 96. 10 & 13; Job 34. 11; Prov 10. 16; 24. 12; Eccl 12. 14; Is 3. 10–11; 59. 18; Jer 17. 10; 25. 14; 32. 19; Lam 3. 64; Hos 4. 9.

[45] Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 128.Google Scholar

[46] Michel, 71 f. and Braun, 41, 46–8.

[47] 1 Enoch 41. 2; 61. 8; Secrets of Enoch 52. 15; Pirke Aboth III. 15 (16) f.; p Pea 1. 16^b, 37; Hag 5a; RH 17a; Mid Ps. 30. 4; 86. 2 and possibly Kidd. I 10 and AZ 5a.

[48] 2 Bar. 24. 1 f.; 1 Enoch 98. 8; 104. 8; Secrets of Enoch 50. 1; Pirke Aboth II. 1; III. 17; Ned. 22a; Mid Ps. 30. 4; Ascension of Isaiah IX. 20–3. Cf. Dan 7. 10 and Rev 20. 11 f.

[49] The themes of righteousness and mercy cannot be separated, we Piper, 20 f.; and Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 421. Cf.Google Scholar also 1 Enoch 60. 3–4; 2 Bar 84. 11; 85. 15; 4 Ezra 7. 133; 12. 31 f., and in Paul, 1 Cor 3. 15 & 5. 5.

[50] Ps. of Solomon 2. 37–40; 15. 9 & 13–15; 2 Bar 13. 9–12; 54. 21–22; 4 Ezra 12. 33–34; 1 Enoch 38. 3; Apoc. of Abraham XXIX–XXX.

[51] Έλεος is rather infrequent in Paul (only at Rm 9. 23; 11. 31; 15. 9; Gal 6. 16; and Eph 2. 4; 1 Tim 1. 2; 2 Tim 1. 2, 16, 18; and Titus 3. 5). It may be that Paul avoided the term because of the presuming on God's mercy by some Jews.

[52] This is not to ignore such verses as Ps 103. 10 or the role of God's mercy in judging the righteous which was just referred to. (See also 1QH V. 5; Wis. of Solomon 6. 6; Ps of Solomon 2. 37; 2 Bar 84. 11; 85. 15; 4 Ezra 7. 133; Jub 23. 31.) Mercy is also brought into the context of judgment in the enigmatic James 2. 13, but in each of these cases mercy is not the norm for judgment. Rather, it is operative in the case of the righteous. Aboth III. 16 does speak of judgment by grace, but immediately the context includes the idea of judgment according to works.

[53] Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 93Google Scholar, 137 f.; 175 f.; 203. See also his ‘On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism’, Donum Gentilicum: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, ed. Bammel, E., Barrett, C. K., and Davies, W. D. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) 103–26.Google Scholar Note the views expressed in 1QH W. 30–31; IX. 14–15; XII. 19–20; Wis. of Solomon 15. 2; 2 Bar. 84. 11; 4 Ezra 4. 38; 7. 46, 68; et al. Notice, however, that Abraham is considered perfect in Jub. 23. 10 and that Isaachar and Zebulun are presented as not being conscious of having committed sin (Test. of Isaachar 7. 1; Test. of Zebulun 1. 4). Hag 4b views Samuel as perfect.

[54] Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (New York: Harper and Brothers Publications, n.d.) 35Google Scholar; J. C. O'Neill, 53. Note the similarities and contrasts between Rom 2 and the following: IVQ 185 (DJD V); Wis. of Solomon 11. 23; 4 Ezra 8. 36; Jub. 33. 18; Test. of Levi 14. 4; Test. of Benjamin 10. 7–10; Ps. of Solomon 8. 14; 17. 10; 2 Bar 13. 8; 57. 2; 1 Enoch 63. 8; Pirke Aboth I. 17. The attempt by Rudolf Bultmann to omit 2. 16 as a gloss (‘Glossen in Römerbrief’, TLZ 72, 1947, 200–1Google Scholar) is unnecessary. See Helmut, Saake, ‘Echtheitskritische Überlegungen zur Interpolationshypothese von Römer ii. 16’, NTS 19 (1974) 486–9.Google Scholar Cf. the words in Acts 17.31.

[55] See supra, p. 74 and n. 44. Outside Paul in the New Testament see Mt 7. 21; 12. 36; 16. 27; 25. 35; Jn 3. 20–21; 5. 29; 1 P. 1. 17; James 1.25; 2. 24; Rev 2. 23; 14.13; 20. 12–13; 22. 12. The doctrine of the merits of the Fathers and the idea of treasuring up merit in heaven are attested frequently and cannot be dismissed as easily as Sanders suggests. I would agree with Barrett (45) that Rm 2. 5 seems to be a polemic against the abuse of the idea of treasuring up merit.

[56] Cf. Schlatter, , Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 325.Google Scholar

[57] See especially the treatment by Bassler, Jouette M., Divine Impartiality (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1982) 121–70.Google Scholar

[58] ibid.

[59] 2. 1–16 assumes Jewish principles but cannot be viewed as addressed only to Jews. The statement ‘The Jew first and also the Greek’ (2. 9–10) and the discussion of Gentiles must be taken seriously. Cf. Test. of Benjamin 10. 7–10 which may be in part or completely a Christian interpolation.

[60] Jüngel, ‘Ein Paulinischer Chiasmus’, 173–4; and Kendrick, Grobel, ‘A Chiastic Retribution-Formula in Romans 2’, Zeit und Geschichte, ed. Erich, Dinkier (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck, 1964) 255–61Google Scholar, but rejecting his idea of a Semitic source.

[61] Cf. Bassler, 208 f.

[62] Cranfield, 156–7, is correct to connect ϕυоεı with what precedes. Note 2. 27.

[63] The attempt of Bornkamm to connect 2. 14 to 2. 11 Land not specifically to v. 13 is motivated only by his attempt to avoid concluding that Gentiles are justified by obedience, and therefore, should be rejected. Cf. Wilckens, 144.

[64] Wilckens, 154; Bassler, 209–10; and Kuhr, 251.

[65] Note the similarity of Jesus' words in Mt 12. 41 and the different attitude expressed by Wis. of Solomon 15. 2; BK 38a; BB 10b; Sanh. 59a; and DtR I. 21. At least some parts of Judaism were aware of the obedience of the Gentiles. See 4 Ezra 3. 36; Test. of Naphtali 8. 3; Tanch 6^a; Philo, , Spec. Leg., 2. 42–48Google Scholar; Quod Omnis Probus Liber 62–74. Philo (Abr. 275–276) also viewed Abraham as doing the law because of unwritten nature (cf. Abr. 5–6 and 2 Bar. 57. 2).

[66] E.g. Ps 130: 3–4; 143. 2; Is 59. 1–15: 1QS XI. 17; 1QH I. 22–26; IV. 29–30; VII. 28–29; Wis. of Solomon 5. 13; 2 Bar. 48. 15–17; 4 Ezra 4. 38; 7. 46–48; Assumption of Moses 12. 7. At the same time the Old Testament psalmists can affirm their righteousness as they come to Yahweh seeking adjudication of their cause. Ps 7. 8; 15. 1–2; 26. 1, 11; 35. 24; 40. 10 f.

[67] See 1 P. 1. 7 and Rev 4. 9. Cf. Michel, 66 and Gambier, 193.

[68] See the treatment by Barrett, 46 f., but not accepting his translation.

[69] Cambier, 199–202.

[70] E.g. Käsemann, , Commentary on Romans, 75–7Google Scholar; Schlier, 88–90.

[71] Lev 26. 41; Deut 10. 16; 30. 6; Jer 4. 4; 9. 25–26; Ezek 44. 7–9. 1QS V. 5; lQp Hab. XI. 13; 1QH II. 18; XVIII. 20; Jub. 1. 23; Odes of Solomon 11. 1–3; Philo, , Quaes. Ex. 2. 2Google Scholar; Spec. Leg. I. 305. Jub. 1. 23 already connects a circumcised heart with the work of the Spirit (apparently as a prophecy of the end times) as does Odes of Solomon 11. 1–3 which refers to God's work in the present as do the Old Testament verses and 1QH V. 5.

[72] Note also Phil 3. 3.

[73] There is not an allusion to Jer 31. 31 f. in either Rm 2. 15 or 2. 29.

[74] So Käsemann, , ‘The Spirit and the Letter’ 144 and Commentary on Romans, 75.Google Scholar

[75] Cambier, 210. Cf. Schlatter, , Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 112.Google Scholar

[76] Schlatter, , Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 99Google Scholar; Wilckens, 144–5; Jüngel, 177; and Oltmanns, 114.

[77] It is obvious that not all sins prior to the cross were passed over.

[78] Braun, 93; Synofzik, 109; Stuhlmacher, 228–31. Contra Käsemann, , Commentary on Romans, 58Google Scholar, and Mattern, 5, who reverse the relationship and see judgment as grounded in justification, but if there is no judgment there is no need for justification.

[79] Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘St. Paul and the Law’, SJT 17 (1964) 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[80] Note the difficulty in relating Gal 3. 10a to 3. 10b and Gal 5. 3 to 5. 14.

[81] Note the emphasis on mercy in James 2. 13.

[82] See supra pp. 77 and 79 and n. 53.

[83] Έάν here cannot be taken purely as hypothetical. Note the parallel use of οταν in 2. 14. Cf. Schlier, 88.

[84] Δıκαıωματα ϕυλάσσεω is especially frequent in the LXX.

[85] See Mt 19. 20//; Lk 11. 28; Jn 12. 47; Acts 7.53; 16.4; 21. 24; Gal 6. 13.

[86] Michel, 76 n. 1; Schlier, 88.

[87] Käsemann's saying (‘The Spirit and the Letter’, 141) that the uncircumcised cannot fulfil the whole Torah (because they are uncircumcised) is indication of how far he has missed Paul's point.

[88] With regard to Rm 3. 9, one should ask where Paul has charged before that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. The reference may be to chapters 1 and 2, but as Bassler noted (237) Paul nowhere says clearly in 1. 18–2. 29 that all have sinned.

[89] Markus, Barth, Ephesians. The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1974) 1, 245Google Scholar; and S-B, III, 160. IVQ Florilegium I. 7 does use . Note, however, that H. J. Schoeps adopted the expression for describing Judaism (Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. Harold, Knight, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961, 197).Google Scholar

[90] Cf. Crowther, C., ‘Works, Work, and Good Works’, ExpT 81 (1970) 166–71Google Scholar, who suggested the pejorative sense of the plural resulted from the attempt to keep a reckoning of works. Did the positive use of the singular arise because the work was viewed as a totality as the work of God? Sanders, , Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 113Google Scholar, attempts to avoid the distinction between the singular and the plural, but he does so by reference to έντολαί. The issue is the use of εργα as a technical term. See Tyson, Joseph B., ‘Works of Law in Galatians’, JBL 92 (1973) 423–31Google Scholar, who translates εργα νόμου as ‘nomistic service’, i.e. existence as a Jew.

[91] Cf. Gal 2. 16.

[92] Cranfield, , The Epistle to the Romans, 1, 198Google Scholar, attributed the change to Paul himself.

[93] Cf. Schlatter, , Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 380–1Google Scholar; Mattern 133, 137, & 214; and note Karl Kertelge's description of faith as ‘mer Gehorsam’ (‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus, Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1967, 225Google Scholar and we 174–8). Both Räisänen, 62–9 and Sanders, , Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 93–9 and 158–9Google Scholar, rightly emphasize that doing is important for both Paul and Judaism.

[94] Paul, Minear, The Obedience of Faith (Naperville, Illinois: A. R. Allenson, 1971).Google Scholar

[95] Cf. also Rm 5. 21 and 1 Tim 6. 12.

[96] Others have noted the relevance of these texts but have not given sufficient stress to their importance. See Dodd, 40; Harrisville, 50.

[97] In this connection it is surprising that Jewish scholars have not focused more on Romans 2.

[98] See Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 442 f.Google Scholar

[99] John, Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950) 153–4.Google Scholar See also, 147 where he described Paul's supposed division between justification and reconciliation as ‘one of the most tragically fateful developments in the whole history of Christian theology and therefore in the intellectual history of mankind’. See also Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 439.Google Scholar See the rebuttals by Paul Schubert, ‘Paul and the New Testament Ethic in the Thought of John Knox’, and Moule, C. F. D., ‘Obligation in the Ethic of Paul’, in History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D., and Niebuhr, R. R. (Cambridge: University Press, 1967) 363–88 and 389–406 respectively.Google Scholar

[100] The Epistle to the Romans (IB) 409 and 418.

[101] Approximately three-fourths of Paul's judgment sayings refer to the judgment of Christians. See Braun, 44 f.