Romans 2:1 - What is the sense of the “therefore” in this verse?
Summary
The “therefore” in Romans 2:1 is pointing back to the entire preceding passage in chapter 1 (Romans 1:18-32)—the fact of divine justice being perfect, absolute, and imminent for anyone who trifles with it. Chapter divisions were added later (are not part of the inspired text itself), so the air of separation that may be introduced by the chapter break is not actually inherent to the text.
Content
We might phrase the general question something like:
What’s the sense of the “therefore” (διό) in Romans 2:1? What exactly is it from chapter 1 that makes it so that they have no excuse? What’s the specific antecedent? Is it just natural revelation generally?
Part of the difficulty is that the chapters are split where they are. Chapter and verse divisions are not part of the inspired text, but were added much later. In this particular case, the passage that we are looking at is still fundamentally tied to everything Paul was saying in the first chapter of Romans, but the chapter break sort of introduces an air of separation that wouldn’t otherwise be there.
So the short answer to this question is all of chapter 1 from verse 18 onward. That is to say, the fact of divine justice being perfect, absolute, and imminent for anyone who trifles with it.
Romans 2:1-3 - How should we make our judgments?
Summary
According to this passage (as well as others like Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-42), we are to avoid self-righteous hypocritical condemnation of others. However, this does not mean that we are not to evaluate the behavior of others against the standards of the Bible in an impartial fashion—in order to exercise proper spiritual discernment, like we are called to do as believers (cf. Matthew 10:16). In fact, failing to apply ourselves in such a fashion out of fear of offending others is shirking our duty as salt and light in the world. The truth is the truth, and we have nothing to be ashamed of in simply sticking with it, wherever it leads.
Content
The basic idea
The type of judgment that we are called to refrain from as Christians is the hypocritical sort in which we look down upon others in our heart, while yet doing the very same things.The Bible is clear in this passage as well as others (cf. Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-42) that the standard that we use to judge others is the standard that will be applied to us in judgment.
There are extremes to be avoided here. On the one hand, the Bible is objective truth that we need not apologize for, and pointing out that people’s behavior is not in accordance with the scriptures is not “judgment” in the sense that these passages call out. In fact, failing to stand up for the truth out of fear of hurting someone’s feelings is the very opposite of loving. Would you let your beloved child continue on in dangerous behaviors without correcting them for their own good? We likewise need to look out for our brothers and sisters in Christ by not holding our peace when in fact they do need to be lovingly told that they may be on a dangerous path.
On the other hand, human arrogance makes it very easy for self-righteousness to take hold in our hearts, and blind us to our own sinfulness. As soon as we cross that line in our hearts where we go from impartially evaluating the facts of a situation in a manner we might term “evaluative discernment” to instead presuming to look down on others in a manner we might term “self-righteous condemnation”, that is the instant that we run afoul of these passages.
It is nonsense to say that we cannot evaluate the behavior of those around us in terms of whether or not it conforms with the standards scripture lays out for us—whether or not it conforms with the words of the Bible. That is part of our job in being “wise as serpents” (Matthew 10:16), especially since we need to be able to determine “bad company” so as to avoid it (1 Corinthians 15:33). But at the same time, we cannot pretend to know all of the circumstances of others, much less their heart intentions. And it is for these reasons that going much further than simply comparing the behavior of others against the Bible—under the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit—puts us at great risk for legalistic hypocritical judgment, the thing this passage tells us to assiduously avoid.
You have to know the truth before you can hold yourself and others to it!
One point that often goes overlooked and unappreciated in regards to these matters, in my opinion, is the fact that to be able to accurately know what standard we must hold ourselves and others to, we have to intensely study the Bible. There is absolutely no substitute.
For us to do our jobs properly speaking truth into the lives of others, in other words, we actually have to know the truth first! This might seem like an overly pedestrian point to make, but it is of the utmost importance.
It is not only a matter of knowing what things the Bible might prohibit, but also knowing what things it does not prohibit in a black and white sort of way. One might compare Prohibition in America during the 1920s and thereabouts. The Bible does not outright ban alcohol, although it does condemn drunkenness. When some groups of Christians were insisting that alcohol itself was sinful and therefore needed to be banned—and more to the point in our context here, were looking down their noses at others who partook to any degree whatsoever—well, their legalism came about primarily as a result of being ignorant of the scriptures, which never make any such rule concerning alcohol.
Psychology’s idea of “projection”
Psychology has a concept it calls “projection”. The phenomenon goes something like this: person A goes on a tirade against topic X. Person B then looks very confused because they they know that person A in fact does X themselves.
Sometimes the people who most loudly and passionately criticize something are the ones who struggle with it the most, and their overly-impassioned criticisms are more or less a psychological defense mechanism. It may seem very strange and irrational when observing such situations from the outside, yet human self-deception can be decidedly hard to spot within oneself.
One might also compare the famous quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
At any rate, this is the very phenomenon that the Bible warns us against here. Verse 2 says that God’s judgment is based upon truth—which means that God will evaluate us not based upon what standards come out of our mouths, but how we actually behave. So if we condemn others for some behavior while yet doing the same thing ourselves, verse 3 makes it clear that we will not escape God’s judgment for such behavior, even for all our condemnation of its sinfulness with our lips.
Tolerating evil is cowardly, and “avoiding legalism” does not mean we cannot condemn the sin of others
Remember how Romans 1:32 speaks against the practice of approving evil?
Yeah, that verse literally comes right before the ones we are talking about here (as mentioned before, there were no chapter or verse divisions in the original text). The idea then that “judge not” means that we are not supposed to ever stand our ground on right and wrong is therefore complete nonsense.
Our culture at present—in 21st-century America—is vehemently opposed to taking hard and fast moral positions, and especially calling out the behavior of others based upon them. But even as we make efforts to guard against hypocritical legalism, we must also make efforts to speak up when we need to. Not because we ourselves are without sin or qualified on our own authority to pass judgment upon other humans, but because we are servants of a God who has all the authority in the world to do so, and He calls us to stand up for the truth as good Christian soldiers.
Romans 2:4 - Is the point of this verse to equate passing judgment upon others with showing contempt for God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience?
Summary
In essence, Romans 2:4 introduces another “possible explanation” for how the people in view here can be so insane as to to ignore natural revelation and natural behavior—in the manner Paul talks about in Romans 1:18ff. In verse 3, Paul asks if maybe it is because they somehow think they won’t face the judgement. But in verse 4, he uses a connecting conjunction (“or”) to introduce another possibility: perhaps these people persist in this folly not for the former reason, but instead because they show contempt for God’s kindness (that he demonstrates in delaying judgement). The sense is that were they to not make light of God’s kindness and patience, then they would not act in such a depraved way.
Content
Is the point of Romans 2:4 to equate passing judgment upon others with showing contempt for God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience? In a word, no. Verse 4 is set more opposite the “do you think you will escape judgment?” part of verse 3, rather than the “when you pass judgement yet do the same things” part.
The structure here in Romans 2:3-4 is similar to Matthew 7:3-4, in terms of how the Greek word ἤ is used in the latter verse in either context.
In both places, it is not a mutually-exclusive or, but rather a construction to introduce an additional question (i.e., interrogative clause) to provide more evidence in another way. Thayer’s lexicon gives the following cross-references for this sort of usage of ἤ: Matthew 7:4, 9; Matthew 12:29; Matthew 16:26; Matthew 26:53; Mark 8:37; Luke 13:4; Luke 14:31; Luke 15:8; Romans 9:21; Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 6:16.
In Matthew 7 we have:
- Verse 3 - “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
- Verse 4 - “Or (introducing another question to make the same point) how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”
And here in Romans 2 we have:
- Verse 3 - “Do you suppose this, O man, […] that you will escape the judgement of God?”
- Verse 4 - “Or (introducing another question to make the same point) do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”
So, as I say, basically the same sort of usage.
What does all this mean, then? In Romans 2:3 Paul is trying to reason with his audience, saying that anyone who does evil will in fact face God’s judgement (no matter what they might say with their lips in their condemnation of others), since God’s judgement in this is “according to the truth” (verse 2). Then in verse 4, he poses another question, this time looking at it from the perspective not of these people thinking they will somehow escape the judgement, but from the perspective that they are spitting on God’s kindness and patience by continuing to persist in their evil. In both cases, the point is these people’s disordered and twisted thinking.
If this is all still confusing, perhaps a loose paraphrase of Romans 2:1-4 will help (note that I worded this paraphrase in the third person, while the actual text is in the second person, and I also added some things = it is a very loose paraphrase):
All these people we are talking about have no excuse, those who hypocritically pass judgement upon others while doing the exact same things. God’s judgement rightly falls upon these people. Do they suppose that somehow God won’t judge them, even though they do the same things they condemn others for? Is that why they persist in this folly of evil? Or is it that they make light of God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience, not understanding that God’s kindness is what leads to repentance?
Verse 4 is therefore just another “possible explanation” for how these people can be so insane as to ignore natural revelation and natural behavior—in the manner Paul talks about in Romans 1:18ff. The sense is that were they to not make light of God’s kindness and patience, then they would not act in such a depraved way.
Romans 2:4 - How exactly does God’s kindness lead to repentance?
Summary
God’s kindness leads to repentance in the sense that He spares sinners from His judgement for some long time, to give them space for repentance. If He always rendered immediate judgement upon sinners, then absolutely none of us would have a chance at being saved. But instead, God is incredibly patient with humanity—even those deeply ensnared by evil. Because He spares people in such a way, some do come to repentance, like the people of Ninevah in the Old Testament book of Jonah. And this is not something we should be bitter about (“God, why were those sinners given such chances for repentance when XYZ good person died young?”), but instead celebrate joyfully, as people who were once dead have now found life (cf. Luke 15:24).
Content
In asking “how exactly does God’s kindness lead to repentance?”, the idea behind the question is sort of that discipline not kindness might seem like a likelier motivator for repentance. Compare Hebrews 12:4-11—the Bible is clear that God disciplines all those who are truly His children (for our own good, of course). So then why wouldn’t God’s divine discipline generally be what leads us to repentance, not “kindness”?
It is a perfectly valid question… but it is sort of grounded on a couple implicit assumptions. For example, what comes to mind when you think of “kindness”? Probably doing nice things for someone, giving them things, letting them know your love and care, things of that sort.
But what about not punishing someone when they deserve it? Mercy is kindness too. And when you view the verse with this sort of “kindness” in view… suddenly things start making a bit more sense. God would be justified in wiping out sinners the instant they transgress His perfect Holiness. And if He would be justified in doing such with no delay, giving sinful man a short period of delay as an opportunity to repent is already kinder than God would need to be. But it is not just some short delay God gives sinners to repent—it is weeks, months, years of continual chances to turn from their folly. God holds back His judgement for literal eons so that people might turn to Him, if only they would not say no. For “The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love” (Psalm 103:8, NIV11).
So Romans 2:4 is an example of the longsuffering of the Lord. These individuals Paul has been discussing are despising God’s mercy and forbearance by continuing on in their evil ways. Eventually, the time for mercy for them will expire. (Cf. the whole chapter of 2 Peter 2, and perhaps especially 2 Peter 2:3b—“their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep”). That God does not blot them from the face of the Earth immediately is a kindness. It is a kindness that God does not do this to us all as sinners (for we are all sinners, every last one of us; cf. Romans 3:23)—but that He does not do so even in cases like the people of Romans 1:18ff. is a true testament to His patience with humanity. By not immediately destroying the sinful/evil, God gives them space for repentance… and some do repent (which they would not be able to do if He had not in mercy spared them for some long time).
We might compare the people of Nineveh in the Old Testament book of Jonah. That is the “kindness of God” we ought to have in mind here.
Romans 2:5-6 - Others aside, is your heart stubborn and unrepentant?
Summary
We need to take care when thinking about the stubborn and unrepentant people that are the subject of Romans 2:5 not to think ourselves so divorced from such an attitude that we have no need to examine ourselves reflexively and see if there are places we too might do better. In fact, every day we also make decisions wherein we stubbornly cling to our pursuit of worldly things rather than keeping our eyes upon the eternal as we ought. Because everything will be laid bare before the Throne of Judgment, we should strive as much as possible to order our lives in such a way that this coming evaluation of our actions before the Throne will bring us only praise and honor—that our actions will do us credit, rather than being shown to have been characterized by stubbornness and a lack of true repentance.
Content
In the first several verses of Romans 2, Paul condemns hypocritical judgment. It is in this very context that verse 5 picks up.
We should take care then, when thinking about these people addressed in verse 5, to not think ourselves so far removed that stubbornness and an unrepentant attitude can never characterize our own behavior, or that we are somehow qualitatively different and distinct just because we are believers.
In fact, every day we too make decisions wherein we stubbornly cling to our pursuit of worldly things rather than keeping our eyes upon the eternal as we ought. God demands that we put His truth first and let it fill all parts of our lives, not picking and choosing from it in some half-hearted, piecemeal affair. Just like those who go into military service, our job as good Christian soldiers is not something that we get to design ourselves, telling our superiors what we will and will not do as part of our duties. No, instead we receive orders from our Commanding Officer, and only “pull our weight” in the ranks when we execute all of them (not just those we fancy) faithfully and completely.
So each of us needs to reflexively examine ourselves to make sure that there are not things in our lives right in the present where we have decided to dictate to God about what actions we will take, or whether we will view something as wrong (in accordance with the truth), instead choosing to willfully blind ourselves to it. For on that Great Day of Days, all will be laid bare before the Throne of Judgment, and no amount of excuse-making or rationalization will be able to turn away the truth of the verdict passed upon our actions in this life.
Romans 2:7-11 - Why do we make life hard for ourselves, when the decision is so clear?
Summary
If we are honest with ourselves, the paths before us are actually rather clear: on the one side, blessing and eternal life; on the other, cursing and wrath. Given this, we should just stop choosing the bad! God really does give us free will, which means we really do have the ability to choose between these two paths. So rather than deluding ourselves with a pile of excuses, we should buckle down and start doing what God wants us to do—not on our own strength (for there is no success in that approach), but instead by admitting that we cannot do it on our own, and leaning into God for help.
Content
Verses 7-10 follow an ABBA structure in terms of topic. Verse 7 starts by describing the positive outcome (eternal life) for those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory and honor and immortality. Then verse 8 states that wrath and indignation will be the lot of those who are selfishly ambitious and obey unrighteousness rather than the truth. Verse 9 is talking about the same group of people as verse 8, emphasizing that the consequences apply both to Jew and Greek alike, and then Verse 10 is talking about the same people as verse 7, back to the positive as a foil.
Verse 11 then caps off this detailing of consequences by noting that God is completely impartial—which is why verses 9-10 say what they do in terms of one’s background (Jew vs. Greek) not changing God’s judgement.
All this is a long way of saying that those who follow God’s truth are blessed, while those who choose unrighteousness instead will face God’s wrath. Given this simple truth, why then do we make life so much harder by choosing the wrong path?
It is worth thinking about, for no one forces us into choosing the wrong path. The consequences are plain before us: on the one side, blessing and eternal life; on the other, cursing and wrath. Why then do we pretend that things are murky and hard to untangle? Just stop choosing the bad!
You do have free will. So stop making excuses and start making the choices God wants for you. No one can make the decision to properly follow God for you, and you can’t fake it in the least (not before the all-seeing eyes of the Lord, at any rate). But take heart, for if you cry out to God for strength, He will help you follow Him as you ought. But you must humble yourself, admit that you can’t do it all on your own, stop lying to yourself that you are a “good Christian” and acting in the way God wants you to if you are not in reality, and then ask Him for help in changing your spiritual temperature from “lukewarm” to “red-hot”. If you say with your lips you want that kind of faith, you’d best start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk.
Romans 2:12-16 - Wait, are Gentiles held to looser standards and excused due to their ignorance of the Law?
Summary
Romans 2:12-16, far from saying that the Gentiles who die without ever having the words of the Law will somehow be excused on account of ignorance, is instead more making the point that even if people hear the words of the Law, they will not be saved merely on account of hearing it, but must actually obey it in the true sense. And so it is that Jews who trusted only in the Law for their salvation will find themselves condemned on Judgement Day just like those Gentiles who never even heard the Law to begin with—for no man can be justified by the works of the Law (Romans 3:20)—while Gentiles who ended up submitting to the Law in practice (by following their consciences), despite not having the blessing of its actual words, will at that time nonetheless be declared righteous.
This is because there is no salvation to be had by Law-keeping; we cannot work our way into heaven. “Obeying the Law”, then, is not mere physical observance of this rule or that regulation, but believing in the Law’s true message: that we are hopeless sinners incapable of making it on our own, in great need of God’s mercy to provide a substitute for us.
Content
The general question
Does Romans 2:12-26 say that Gentiles held to looser standards and excused due to their ignorance of the Law? Verse 12 in particular is not the simplest to explain. Compare these two interpretations:
“Perishing apart from the Law” means the Gentiles were not held responsible for following the Law.
Vs.
“Perishing apart from the Law” does not mean that Gentiles were not held to the standards of the Law, but simply that they will perish (i.e., face the second death = eternal condemnation) while never having any explicit knowledge of the words of the Law.
It’s not so much that the correct (second) interpretation is so impossible to understand once explained, as that the incorrect (first) interpretation complicates what would otherwise be a reasonably straightforward discussion.
If you read the correct (second) interpretation and think something along the lines of “How is it at all fair for people to be judged by a Law they were never even informed of?”, remember that just before this (Romans 1:18ff.), Paul had just spent time talking about how no one at all has any excuse. None, whatsoever.
In short, if a person rejects natural revelation, what’s the point in giving them more (here, the Law)? They already made their choice.
We’ll circle back to this previous text of Romans 1:18ff. in a bit, to make much the same point again. The connection bears repeating, for it really is central to the correct interpretation of these verses here in Romans 2:12-16.
No, Romans 2:12 does not say that ignorance is an excuse
If you were pulled over by a police officer for going 70 MPH in a 15 MPH school zone, do you think “Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know the law” will really fly with the officer and get you out of consequences? Of course not.
The problem is that if you take it the wrong way, at first glance, Romans 2:12 does kind of seem to suggest something similar to that. That is, that only those who had the Law were judged by it, meaning those without it would not be responsible for following its commands. We kind of intuitively know something is wrong with that thinking, but, well… doesn’t the verse’s wording kind of inherently imply that?
This is one of those places where context is very important in interpretation. In the void, isolating verse 12 from its context, the problem can seem severe. In context, it merely becomes a matter of continuing to read to see exactly what is meant by this. The interpretive challenge here is more difficult than elsewhere mostly because the immediate context is decidedly hard to piece together too (true in the Greek just as much as the English).
Why is the immediate context hard too?
Because Paul here digresses on a tangent (verses 13-15) before getting back to his main point in verse 16. To quote Dr. Luginbill of Ichthys.com:
[…] Paul has a unique tendency to defer his main point and digress through the use of a subordinate clause which, if translated literally into English, would confuse most English readers (and no doubt confused more than a few Greek readers; cf. 2Pet.3:15-16).
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law…
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
…16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
The above would be red-penciled by most English composition teachers, but it is not unique in Paul’s corpus (e.g., Rom.1:13; 1Cor.1:2; Col.2:22; 2Thes.1:10; 2Thes.2:8; and cf. 1Cor.1:4 to which the relative pronoun of verse 8 refers; also in 1Cor.12:2 the hyperbaton of the participle from the main verb). It is also strikingly present in Hebrews:
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels…
(for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor)
…that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
Both of these examples, necessarily cleaned up as much as possible in the English versions, are even more striking and vivid when read in the Greek.
As the closing sentence of that quote mentions, this tendency of Paul’s to digress may end up somewhat muted in translation (given that most translators try, in whatever way, to get rid of the “problem”), but it is quite striking in the Greek.
I am focusing on this technical gee-whiz information about Paul’s writing style here because it is important in understanding verses 13-15, and verses 13-15 are essential in understanding what Paul was getting at when he penned verse 12.
The KJV and NKJV take the digression as verses 13-15. This is what I personally agree with. Some other translations (e.g., NIV11) do not include verse 13 in what they set apart with parentheses, but just verses 14-15. Other translations yet (e.g., NASB95, NLT, ESV) don’t even use parentheses it all, which I personally find suboptimal because it makes it a lot harder to “get” that there is a digression here. Since I believe that failing to set it apart in any way makes proper interpretation more difficult, I like this translation decision the least by far.
Verses 12, 13, and 14 all begin with gar (γὰρ), a Greek particle that we typically translate as “for”. It is used a lot in Greek to introduce more information, in order to explain what was just said.
Verse 12 is explaining exactly how God is impartial (verse 11), which is straightforward enough. By way of contrast, the topic transition to verse 13 is difficult to understand without properly understanding verse 12 (which I explain more fully below)—basically, Paul is weighing in against the school of thought that elevated the Jews just/only because they had the Law, and he is using that to support what he said in verse 12 (that the Law will judge those under it—which is everybody, positionally… but the critical point is that the Jews are included too). And then verse 14 gives more information about Gentiles following the Law by nature, helping explain and clarify what Paul meant by “doers of the Law” in verse 13. Those are more or less the “sense of the γὰρ’s”.
Whether you take verse 13 as part of the digression mostly hinges on whether you see it as an integral part of what verse 12 says, or whether you see it as grouped more with the statements of verses 14-15. Personally, it seems very obvious to me that it goes more with verses 14-15, which is why I view it as part of the digression. I will say that the logic “works” if you exclude it from the digression, as the prepositional phrase of verse 16 (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ – “on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus”) works with the δικαιωθήσονται (future passive) in verse 13 just about as well as it does with the ἀπολοῦνται (future middle) and κριθήσονται (future passive) in verse 12. So textually speaking, taking things that way is not impossible. I just view it as less likely.
In any case, it honestly doesn’t change the meaning all that much one way or the other. The really important thing, in my opinion, is to make it clear that Paul digresses here before getting back to his point in verse 16. One does that when translating by setting apart the digression (regardless if you have decided it is three verses, or only two verses) with parentheses.
If Paul were saying ignorance were an excuse in Romans 2:12, we’d expect verses 13-15 to be a digression about how morality is somehow conditioned by personal knowledge
If one remembers that the epistles were circulated throughout the Mediterranean among the churches, and read through as letters in a way that we often fail to do in the present, then the words Paul spoke about natural revelation in Romans 1:18ff. were perhaps only a minute past in the minds of those listening to the letter being read. (Most people in antiquity were illiterate, so the letters would be read out loud to the group by a single individual who could read). Those past verses already make it very clear that no humans can ever use ignorance as an excuse, and nobody reading the letter through like this would forget that those past verses were there just before this present passage.
That notwithstanding, if Paul were to be making such a point about ignorance being an excuse in verse 12, then we would expect the direction he took in verses 13-15 to focus on matters relating to such. In actuality, Paul does talk about Gentiles, but rather than arguing that Gentiles under the grip of sin are in some way excused from it due to ignorance, he discusses those Gentiles that end up doing the things required by the Law simply by following their consciences. Put simply, the points that Paul makes here (namely, that it is obeying not hearing that matters in God’s eyes, that the human conscience actually leads all humans to follow the Law implicitly if they listen to it) do not at all support taking verse 12 as saying that ignorance is some sort of excuse. Quite the opposite, actually.
OK, so what is verse 12 getting at then?
The verse is getting at something like this (this is a very interpretive/loose paraphrase on my part):
All the Gentiles who live in sin and don’t obey the Law will obviously perish (i.e., face the second death), since they don’t have the Law helping them see right from wrong. (Duh—you arrogant “Law keepers” already agree with this, that these people are hopeless). But hear this too: all those who know the Law yet have sinned under the Law in even the smallest way will be justly condemned by it. So have you people ever sinned under the Law, you who think you are so great because you know the Law?
I should be clear again that this is a very interpretive/loose paraphrase. I added a lot that is simply not there in the text. But this is the essential meaning of verse 12 in how I interpret it.
It is ironic (in a darkly amusing sort of way) that so many people stumble in thinking that this verse is a fig leaf for Gentiles. In reality, the unbelieving Gentiles mentioned in this verse are essentially presupposed as being doomed: they stand condemned, under the grip of sin, and entirely apart from the Law that would help instruct them. Rather, Paul is largely targeting this verse—as well as all those that follow, as we shall see—towards his Jewish listeners who consider themselves superior simply on account of having the Law, as if merely possessing it (rather than following it) were the important part.
The gist of the verse is that the Jews with the Law who try to work their way into heaven through Law-keeping are actually hopeless too (just like those Gentiles without the Law they are so quick to look down upon), since no human can actually keep the Law properly. They too will die under sin, judged and condemned by the words of their precious Law.
If you’d like to read a bit more on this matter, here are some quotes from Dr. Luginbill of Ichthys.com:
Paul phrases things in this way to cover every possibility. Jews who felt that keeping the Law was the way of salvation would be happy to admit that those who have nothing to do with the Law will be condemned. They also would admit that for those who are “under the Law”, sin is a problem (though as mentioned above they have restricted the meaning of Law-breaking to things they were capable of refraining from). The surprise is that “those who do” are justified, not just those who hear. And “doing” is doing everything perfectly from the beginning to the end, and not just a select menu that fits nicely with one’s proclivities to sin. This part of the verse causes reflection upon what had just been said: “will be judged by the Law”. For it says, in effect, that such individuals will be held to account by the Law, the perfect standard, so that at this point anyone with the slightest bit of humility or the least suspicion that they have not always been and are not now absolutely sinlessly perfect will begin to see the impossibility of Law-keeping as a means of salvation.
On Romans 2:12 […] the text is clear enough: if you rely on the Law for your salvation, the Law will be your judge, and you will perish, because “by the works of the Law will no flesh be justified in His sight” (Rom.3:20).
Back to verses 12-16 as a whole
Putting it all together now, these verses fit together in this way:
- In verse 12, Paul informs his listeners that they are just as hopeless as the sinful Gentiles who don’t have the Law if they try to trust in the Law for salvation, for in that case, they too will be judged by this Law of theirs—the Law that they say is so dear to them—and justly condemned by it. Compare Romans 3:20. It is impossible for the works of the Law to justify us before God.
He then digresses a bit:
- In verse 13, Paul explains that this is because God does not care about who hears the words of the Law, but instead cares about who actually acts righteously and does what it says.
- In verse 14, Paul likely blows their minds by informing them that Gentiles can “keep the Law” too, by acting in accordance with their consciences, thus becoming a law unto themselves. This implicitly means that the Gentiles that are mentioned negatively in verse 12 are not all Gentiles, but only those who do not obey the Law. (Inasmuch as by “obey the Law” we mean in the real sense, rather than seeking salvation by means of legalistic Law-keeping).
- In verse 15, Paul explains the mechanics of this a bit more, outlining how the words of the Law written upon the human heart, alongside the human conscience, accuse or excuse us as we go through life, making it possible to determine right from wrong, if only we care to listen.
And then finally he returns to the main point:
- In verse 16, Paul says that the perishing of the unbelieving Gentiles apart from the Law and the judgement under the Law of those Jews who trusted only in the Law for salvation (i.e., both the things that were mentioned in verse 12) will take place on the Great Day of Judgement. It is also then that, by way of contrast to these two groups, those who are doers of the Law will be declared righteous (verse 13)—be they believing Jews who saw the real message behind the Law (rather than trying work their way into heaven), or Gentiles who followed their consciences (in the way that verses 14-15 describe).
As a closing thought, I’ve always found the way other translations and interpretations deal with the prepositional phrase in verse 16 more than a bit confusing. A lot of translators and interpreters follow what would be “normal grammar” and try to force it to go with the accusing/excusing of the human heart and conscience in verse 15. I submit that trying to force that leads to all sorts of nonsense. Because rather than hearts or consciences accusing or excusing people on the Day of Judgement (what would that even mean, exactly?), on that Great Day of Days:
- People who lived lives of sinful unbelief without hearing or knowing of the Law will face the second death (the unbelieving Gentiles of verse 12).
- People who did hear and know of the Law but tried to work their way into heaven through Law-keeping will be judged—and justly condemned—by the Law (the unbelieving Jews of verse 12; these people are not facing the second death without ever hearing or knowing of the Law like the first group—quite to the contrary, the very reason why these people too will be facing condemnation and the second death is because despite having the mirror of the Law to show them their own need for a savior, they did not care to truly comprehend it or understand it, instead trying to claim a hollow righteousness of their own works).
- People who obeyed the Law—whether because they actually had it and truly comprehended what it represented, or instead did not have it but merely obeyed their consciences—will be declared righteous (Jew and Gentile alike; those mentioned in verse 13).
In short, the prepositional phrase of verse 16 has nothing to do with verse 15, the verse that immediately precedes it.
And this is again why I focused so much on explaining the digression present in this passage. The grammar is a bit weird when you take things this way (i.e., why is there this random prepositional phrase chilling 4 verses after the things it goes with?), but that doesn’t make it the wrong interpretation. It need not dent our faith in inspiration to have some passages that are hard to parse out grammatically. And I should note that to native Greek speakers, what Paul did would have been completely intelligible, if perhaps still a bit hard to follow. As Dr. Luginbill put it, this sort of digression is simply a distinguishing quirk of Paul’s Greek writing style.