Romans 2:1-8

B. The need of good people 2:1-3:8

In the previous section (Romans 1:18-32), Paul showed mankind condemned for its refusal to respond appropriately to natural (general) revelation. In this one (Romans 2:1 to Romans 3:8), his subject is more man’s failure to respond to special revelation. Since the Jews had more knowledge of this revelation than the Gentiles, they are primarily in view. As in the previous section, specific accusations follow general terms for sin (cf. Romans 1:18 with Romans 1:23; Romans 1:26-32; and Romans 2:1-16 with Romans 2:17-29).

Paul addressed those people who considered themselves exceptions to humankind’s general sinfulness in this section of the epistle. Obviously many people could say in his day, and still more say in ours, that they are not as bad as the people Paul described in chapter 1. The writer dealt with this objection more generally in Romans 2:1-16 and more specifically about Jewish objectors in Romans 2:17-29.

"Paul has still his statement in view, that the Gospel is the only power of God for salvation, and nothing to be ashamed of. If Judaism can save men, the Gospel is an impertinence; hence the radical failure of the Jew must be shown." [Note: Stifler, p. 36.]

"In chap. 2 . . . it is the second person singular, ’you,’ that Paul uses in making his accusation (Romans 2:1-5; Romans 2:17-29). This does not mean that Paul is now accusing his readers of these things; were he to do that, the second person plural would have been needed. Rather, Paul utilizes here, and sporadically throughout the letter, a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or opponent. Elements of this style include frequent questions, posed by the author to his conversation partner or by the conversation partner, emphatic rejections of possible objections to a line of argument using me genoito (’May it never be!’), and the direct address of one’s conversation partner or opponent." [Note: Moo, p. 125.]