The Moralistic Wrath-Dodger (Romans 2:1–5)

Bob Wilkin: Zane Hodges was my favorite professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Hi, I’m Bob Wilkin with Grace Evangelical Society, and I’m delighted to introduce this message by Zane Hodges that he gave at our 2005 annual conference. It’s on Romans 2:1-5, and it’s called “The Moralistic Wrath Dodger.”

In this message Zane Hodges talks about the fact that God in the present life brings His wrath upon all who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He shows the connection between this section 2:1-5 and the verses that preceded it, especially 1:18, where Paul talks about the wrath of God being revealed in this present age. And so I highly recommend this message. Enjoy.

Thank you, Bob. But uh, why are the Ides of March propitious? Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March. It’s good to be here, and already I have met many friends, and there are other very familiar faces in the audience. And it’s a pleasure to be with you today.

As Bob has already indicated, the subject of my talk today is “The Moralistic Wrath Dodger,” Romans 2:1-5.

Years ago when I was a young man, and that was quite a few years ago, there was actually a military draft. And on one occasion I received a classification from the Selective Service that I didn’t particularly like. I thought I was entitled to a pre-ministerial student deferment.

So I went to the Selective Service office, and a very prim lady sitting behind the desk looked at my file and then she looked up at me and she said, “You are not as well off as you think.”

And that made me feel a little bit like a draft dodger. But ironically her comment to me became a long-standing family joke in the Hodges household. And over the years whenever it seemed appropriate one of us would say to another member of the family, “You’re not as well off as you think.”

Well, I can’t recall any draft dodgers in the Bible, so I did the very best I could. And this morning I’m not talking about a draft dodger but a wrath, w-r-a-t-h, dodger from Romans 2:1-5.

As most of you know, I am currently working on a commentary on the Book of Romans. I am close to the end of chapter four, so approximately one quarter of the first draft is completed. There’s a long way to go, but with the Lord’s help the work can be done.

Hopefully, if God permits, the initial draft can be finished sometime in 2006.

Many of you have used an informal commentary of mine which I wrote years ago. In this book I am using that as a basis for the commentary. But as I’ve told some of you, this will be a brand new commentary with frequent changes of perspective.

My approach to the whole book has not changed, but on many points I feel that I have an improved understanding. In other words, I think I have grown in the truth of this book.

Today I would like to share with you one of my newer insights.

Part One: The New Perspective on Paul

Before I do that, however, let me just say a word about the so-called New Perspective on Paul. In scholarly circles this approach is connected with the names of men like E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, and Terence Donaldson.

What they are saying amounts to a claim that Paul does not really clash with Judaism as sharply as many Lutherans and Protestants have thought. According to this view Paul is mainly challenging Jewish exclusivism. Paul, we are told, is insisting that Gentiles can enter the redeemed community by faith in Christ.

But that good works are the way that entrance into the community can stay inside of it. As you can see, under this conception final salvation still depends on works.

The New Perspective seems to be implicitly Arminian, although a Calvinist expositor could easily accommodate himself to this view. In the Reformed perspective, of course, genuine entrance into the redeemed community only occurs when the entering faith results in the necessary good works.

I’m happy to say that I don’t need to consume your time or consume my time refuting this New Perspective. That has already been very adequately done by a recent book. I am referring to a book by Stephen Westerholm entitled Perspectives New and Old on Paul.

The subtitle is The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics, published by Eerdmans in 2004. Westerholm’s book exhibits thorough scholarship, and it is an incisive critique of this point of view.

My sense of the literature on Paul today is that the New Perspective has largely run its course and it is beginning to erode. I hope that this erosion will prove fatal to this point of view. But even if I’m not correct in this hopeful outlook, the so-called New Perspective is seriously misguided. It does not really understand Paul.

Part Two: The Moralist of Romans 2:1-5

That leads me to Romans 2. This chapter in particular has played a prominent role in the discussions related to the New Perspective. As a result I have tried to give Romans 2 very close attention in my commentary.

As you know, Romans 2:1 is addressed to a moralist. Paul’s words are,

Therefore you are without excuse, O man, anyone who judges. In fact, in the matter in which you judge someone else, you condemn yourself, since you who pass judgment do the same things.

I am surprised at the number of commentators that think that Paul has a Jew in mind in these words. I can see no basis for that in the text. Paul’s statement is obviously generalized by the words I have translated as “anyone who judges.”

Needless to say, the Greco-Roman world had plenty of critics of human behavior. Every age and every society can be expected to have this type of person.

In the previous chapter, Romans 1:18-32, Paul has been at pains to pass sweeping condemnation on the behavior of men in general. But his indictment of men is more than just an indictment. He is actually in the process of showing that God’s anger with mankind is displayed in mankind’s depraved condition.

Romans 1:28-32 is a catalog of human vices into which God has allowed men to descend and sink. This brings Paul to the moralist of Romans 2.

What about people who decry the iniquities of other people and pass judgment on those people? Are these moralistic individuals actually exceptions to Paul’s general condemnation of human beings?

This question is relevant whether the moralist is Jewish or Gentile. Paul’s answer, of course, is that even the moralist is no exception to what Paul is saying. This is indicated right up front by the words “you who pass judgment do the same things.”

The moralist, in other words, is a hypocrite.

But here we should note carefully how Paul phrases this point. In the Greek text, as my translation indicates, the condemnation passed by the moralist is a condemnation of some particular thing or other. In the phrase “in the matter in which you judge someone else,” the words “in the matter” render the Greek phrase en hō.

For you Greek students, of course, hō is singular. However, in the phrase “you do the same things,” the underlying Greek is the plural expression “the same things.”

Paul’s point is that no matter what the moralist condemns in others, he does the same wicked things that others do. This does not necessarily mean that he does the very thing he finds fault with, although that often happens, of course. It means that he does his own fair share of the sins men generally do.

Let me illustrate. A moralist might say, “I know husbands who lie to their wives. That’s wrong. I would never do that.” However, the moralist lies to his friends, he lies to his fellow workers, and he lies to the authorities.

To take another example, the moralist says adultery is everywhere and it’s wrong. But the same person indulges in envy, greed, or hatred. Even the moralist, Paul is saying, falls under the sweeping indictment of chapter one.

He is not a glowing exception to mankind’s depravity. He too, therefore, cannot escape God’s wrath.

Part Three: The Personal Danger of the Moralist

If I may add it here for a moment, Paul is saying to the moralists, “You’re not as well off as you think.” Precisely because the moralist does the same things that other sinners do, he is himself confronting personal danger. This is made clear in Romans 2:2-3.

Now we know that God’s judgment against people who do such things corresponds to the truth. So do you suppose, O man, you who judge people who do such things and you do them also, that you yourself will escape God’s judgment?

Here Paul is affirming that God’s wrathful judgment against sinful behavior is valid. It is according to truth. That is, it corresponds to the reality of men’s sins and is fully justified. Since this is the case, how does the moralist expect to escape this wrath?

The moralist condemns people who do the type of things Paul has cataloged in chapter one, but the moralist is guilty of such things as well. Paul’s question, of course, is pointed and sharp. “So do you suppose, O man, that you yourself will escape God’s judgment?”

Sooner or later the moralists will be overtaken by God’s wrath just like other men are. How does he propose to avoid this? There is in fact a way in which he might avoid it. This is suggested in verse 4, where Paul says,

Or do you despise the wealth of His kindness and tolerance and long-suffering, not realizing that God’s kind behavior is drawing you to repentance?

The moralists should seriously consider why he has not yet been overtaken by the wrath that has fallen on other people all around him. The reason is that God is dealing with him in kindness, tolerance, and forbearance.

The kind behavior on God’s part is in fact God’s way of drawing him to repentance. Repentance, therefore, is the means by which God’s wrath could be evaded.

But the moralist is so busy condemning others he does not stop to consider why it is that God is bearing patiently with the moralist’s own sins. God wants this moralist to repent. Paul’s statement here is quite revealing.

Although in chapter 1 mankind is seen as universally under God’s wrath, here we see that God also individualizes His wrath. To put it simply, God’s wrath does not overtake men the moment they commit sin. That wrath may be delayed by God’s wish not to have to inflict it.

Let me illustrate this. Here is a man who drinks heavily, but he does not destroy his liver overnight. Yet if he continues to drink that may well happen to him. That would be God’s wrath. He should repent of his heavy drinking before it is too late.

Or take another case. Here is a man who engages in gay sex. His first sinful liaison may not be with somebody who carries the AIDS virus. In fact he may go through a long series of such encounters without contracting AIDS.

But then one day he contracts AIDS. That is God’s wrath. He should repent of his sexual activity before it is too late.

Obviously God would prefer that the heavy drinker not reach the point of severe liver damage. He would prefer the homosexual not to contract AIDS. But if there is no repentance from such behavior, God’s wrath in some form or other is inevitable.

Therefore the moralist of Romans 2 should carefully consider his own danger instead of focusing on the failures of others.

Part Four: The Day of Wrath

Paul now concludes his exchange with the hypothetical moralist by the words of Romans 2:5. Before I quote 2:5, however, I want to point out that a period should follow this verse, not just a comma. Despite the King James Version tradition of a comma after verse 5, it is preferable to place a period there along with the NIV and the Jerusalem Bible.

The following relative pronoun in verse 6 functions as a virtual personal pronoun, introducing a new line of thought.

Romans 2:5 reads as follows,

And by means of your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself in a day of wrath and of revelation and of the righteous judgment of God.

I add a parenthetical comment here. I pause to point out that the last “and” in this verse is not found in the modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. I am following the Majority Text, surprise, surprise. But the presence or absence of the “and” really does not materially affect what I’m saying today.

What we are looking at here in 2:5 is what exegetes refer to as an inclusio. An inclusio is a stylistic device that picks up a word or a phrase or an idea from the beginning of a unit and repeats it at the end of the unit as a structural marker that the unit is complete. The writer of Hebrews, for example, is very fond of the inclusio.

More than one commentator has noted that the wording of Romans 2:5 clearly recalls the material of 1:18. To begin with, there is the double use of the word “wrath.” In 2:5 that is the first explicit use of this word since 1:18. Secondly, there is the word “revelation.”

In Romans 1:18 Paul affirms that the wrath of God has been revealed from heaven. In 1:18 the verb is used, and in 2:5 the cognate noun is used.

Thirdly, the word translated “righteous judgment” is the Greek word dikaiokrisias. This is its only use in the New Testament. It quite clearly picks up a thought that is implicit in Romans 1:18.

In 1:18 Paul says that God’s wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth by unrighteousness. This double use of “unrighteousness” makes quite clear that God’s wrath is due to God’s righteous judgment against unrighteous men.

My point is this. If ever there was an obvious inclusio, Romans 2:5 is it. This means, therefore, that in Paul’s mind Romans 1:18 to 2:5 is a single unit. Let me repeat that.

This means therefore that in Paul’s mind Romans 1:18 to 2:5 is a single unit of thought.

The basic idea of the unit is very simple. The idea is this. All men are exposed to the righteous wrath of God, including the moralist who thinks he is better than others. There are no exceptions.

This also leads to another obvious conclusion. When Paul tells the moralists that he is storing up wrath in a day of wrath, he is not talking about the eschatological future. He is talking about right here and now.

Now I have to confess to you that I previously had read Romans 2:5 as if it had said that the moralist is storing up wrath for the day of wrath. Perhaps with a little straining the Greek would bear that translation. But Paul does not say “for.” He says “in.”

Neither does he say “in the.” But “in a.” The moralist is in a day of wrath. Paul’s point is something like this. I am paraphrasing. You who are as guilty as other people are actually heaping up a real abundance of wrath in this very time which is already a day of wrath.

In other words, Paul is emphasizing the thoughtless folly of the moralizer. Everywhere around him he can see, or should see, the manifested wrath of God. But instead of trying to avoid that wrath, he is heaping it up for himself as well. This very day you live in, says Paul, is a day of wrath.

Part Five: Conclusion

The point I am making today from Romans 2:1-5 is important for several reasons. First, it helps us to understand that there is a break in the thought between Romans 2:5 and 2:6. Not a radical break in the thought, of course, but a significant one.

In 2:6 to 16 Paul proceeds to the issue of the final judgment of the unrighteous. Of course there is no such judgment for those who are righteous by faith. As Paul says, no charge can be brought against those who are righteous by faith, Romans 8:33.

Our proposed understanding of Romans 2:1-5 places Paul’s one and only reference to repentance in Romans in the context of God’s temporal wrath. Let me talk about this for a moment.

One commentator states, “Repentance plays a surprisingly small part in Paul’s teaching, considering its importance in contemporary Judaism.” I’m quoting Douglas Moo from his commentary on Romans, pages 133 to 134.

If we abandon the New Perspective on Paul, however, surprise is an uncalled-for reaction. If the Epistle to the Hebrews is left out of consideration, in the Pauline Epistles the word group metanoia, metanoeō occurs a grand total of four times. I think you will agree that this is not a very big number for thirteen epistles.

The simple fact of the matter is that in Pauline thought repentance is not relevant to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. May I repeat that? The simple fact of the matter is that in Pauline thought repentance is not relevant to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith.

Romans has only this reference to it, and Galatians has not a single reference. These facts speak for themselves.

Repentance in the Bible is always connected with man’s need to adjust his behavior to avoid trouble and to escape the temporal judgment of God.

Finally, there is a third importance to our consideration this morning. It is this. Even in their unregenerate condition God desires men to repent in time to avoid His wrath on their particular sins. As Jeremiah said in Lamentations 3:33,

God does not afflict willingly or grieve the children of men.

Even though God is angered by men’s sin, and even though He righteously inflicts wrath upon them, He does not enjoy doing so. He would prefer that they repent. Think of the sin that makes you angrier than any other sin. Maybe it’s theft or murder or adultery or homosexuality or something else.

But remember one thing. God loves those sinners as individuals. His wrath is not immediate in individual cases, and in every case God would be glad to withhold His wrath if there is genuine repentance.

A whole city found this out one time. Its name was Nineveh. If you and I are going to be people of grace, our attitude towards sinners should be a real improvement on Jonah’s. James and John once asked Jesus about a Samaritan village, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them like Elijah did?”

Jesus replied, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” Luke 9:54-56.

Hopefully GES people know what spirit we are of. Thank you.

The questions are coming forward. I take it that would be good. Yeah.

The question is, if we put a period at the end of verse 5, how would you translate verse 6? “He will render to every man according to his deeds.” Very good.

Do we in the Christian community act like the moralist when we get involved in so-called righteous crusades like many of the politically active things that people are doing? Uh, do we become wrong when we act like the moralist sometimes in those circumstances and in those undertakings? We do, I think we do come over as more or less.

Okay, here’s a comment. The person says, I taught the first Epistle of John a year ago and I started using three commentaries: Marshall, Stott, and Zane Hodges. After using your commentary I had to stop using the other two. Blessings on the whoever wrote that question.

Okay, here’s another one. Are you saying that the day of the Lord in Thessalonians and elsewhere and the day of wrath in Romans are different? Are there any textual evidence for this? Yes, there are differences in the contextual evidence. The contextual evidence is contextual.

The question is, uh, in context I can see where this answer is going to go. In context is the moralist regenerate? In the context the moralist is imaginary, and so his words could be the words of anybody who feels as he does.

Okay, the question is, is the “you” in Romans 2:5 the same “you” in 1:7 and 1:13? Is the “you” referring to believer? I think it either says believer or reliever. I’m not sure. Maybe this is a baseball pitcher. Well if it’s a baseball question it’s not a reliever, it’s a starter.

You better repeat that question. Is the “you” in Romans 2:5 the same as the “you” in 1:7 and 1:13? No, the “you” is addressed to the imaginary interlocutor of Romans 2:1-5.

Okay, the next question is, do you regard Romans 2:5 day of wrath a particle which finds its summation in culmination in Revelation 6:17? A particle, that’s what this says. I don’t know, it’s a subatomic or something. I don’t know. It says it’s a party. My answer is it’s not a particle. Is it related to Revelation 6:17, which I can’t think of offhand? Would make not in Romans 2:5. No, it’s not eschatological.

Okay, so go over again. If it’s not eschatological, what does that mean? That means it doesn’t pertain to the future. It refers to the right here and now in this life. That’s right.

So the same wrath as is mentioned in 1:18. The wrath of God is revealed, not will be revealed, but is now revealed. So this is a day of wrath because God’s wrath is coming upon sinners.

Okay, it says, do we have to use a period at the end of verse 5 to be compatible with your viewpoint or would a comma still work with your viewpoint? I’d compromise with a semicolon. Comma, no.

Okay, uh, a quick question on the term wrath. I remember I put in Confident in Christ that whenever wrath occurs in terms of temporal judgment, something of that effect. But I talked about it never, it something about eternal wrath. And then people have pointed out to me that the word for wrath, orgē, never seems to appear in Scripture as referring to everlasting wrath.

Does God have wrath forever or does God’s wrath cease at the end of the millennium? The way I want to answer that question is to say that God’s wrath is a temporal expression of His anger. The word is orgē normally, of course. And God doesn’t hold His anger forever. God’s anger is temporary.

Now when we’re talking about the final judgment we’re talking, we’re not talking about wrath. We’re talking about judgment. If I go down to the courthouse to have my case heard and the judge sitting on the bench there has his face flushed with anger and his eyes flashing, I may question whether I’m going to get a fair hearing.

Really wrath and anger have no place in the final judgment. And there are no passages of Scripture that I know of that relate wrath to the final judgment. So then would the Lake of Fire be an expression of judgment or wrath? Or judgment, just judgment. So God’s wrath does end. Yeah, yeah.

God doesn’t hold His anger forever. That’s one of the teachings of Scripture. God’s anger is controlled and time-bound.

Okay, I repent of what I put in Confident in Christ. When we rewrite it I’ll fix that. You’ll probably avoid wrath for that. I’m the wrath dodger.

Are there any more before we close? And what, there’s one right there. Uh, Mike in the middle. And uh, anyone else? Pass them on up.

And is it not true that almost all commentaries take the day of wrath in Romans 2:5 as referring to after this life is over? Yes, I think they do. Uh-huh. Or they take it eschatologically either way. But of course for most people eschatological wrath is eternal wrath too, so the two things are get fudged.

Okay, in Romans 1:24 is the homosexual behavior a reason for God’s judgment or is this behavior a sign that God has already judged due to the behavior of Romans 1:23? Now I think that the intent of Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter is to describe not merely that men do things wrong but they do them wrong to such an extent and with such intensity that they have sunk down into a depraved condition.

And it is the depraved condition with all of its accompanying effects that is what is described as God’s wrath. But I think it’s very clear, and this is one of the points of the talk this morning, that it is possible to engage in some of these activities at least for a time without experiencing wrath.

Another question. And I know this is a key verse in Romans and in your discussion of Romans, and that’s Romans 5:9. What is wrath in Romans 5:9? It’s the wrath of 1:18. And once we are saved, this is of course the whole point of Romans as far as I’m concerned, once we are saved, once we are justified by faith, then it is possible but not inevitable that we can escape the wrath of God by escaping the domination and control of sin. And that’s what Romans 5 through 8 is all about.

Maybe you could come in just very briefly on the term “save” and “salvation” in Romans. I noticed you just made a distinction there. How would you explain when Paul talks about soteria, salvation, or sozo, to be saved? What does he mean in Romans when he uses those terms?

As I’ve said a lot of times, and oftentimes in writing, the word “saved” is what the technical people call a polymorphous word. It means it’s used in a lot of senses and therefore it doesn’t have a set or stereotype meaning. It doesn’t have in English. I, by the way, I was racing through the stop sign, another car was coming at me but he stopped and I was saved. Context determines what the word “saved” means.

There now you caught me though. I used the word “saved” in connection with Romans where what we mean by the word “save” normally is what Romans means by justification. And then what Romans uses as “saved” is our deliverance from the dominion of sin and therefore our deliverance from the wrath that God expresses against those who are under sin.

When you talked about the fire coming down and the disciples, I guess it was James and John, wanted to call down fire and he said the Son of Man didn’t come to destroy but to save. Is that the use of “saving” there? Is that broader than eternal life but he’s trying to save people from the deadly consequences of their sins in that context or no?

Well I feel you’ll consider that context. Jesus says the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives. That’s what the disciples were planning to do, just wipe them all out. That’s not what I came for, he said. I came to save men’s lives.

All right, if a person believes in Christ and gets eternal life and begins to live the Christian life, their life is preserved thereby and lent them thereby in accordance with all the wisdom literature. He that pursueth evil pursues it to his own death, but the tree of righteousness is a tree of life to those who partake of it. So that’s a theme that occurs in James and in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

Great. We’ve got uh, Earl, I’d like to ask if financial limitations are restricting your finishing the commentaries sooner. I consider that question a temptation. I would say to be honest with you, Earl, that financial considerations are not a primary inhibiting factor on this commentary. What’s the inhibiting factor is that Romans is a tough book and it takes time to write it in a way that I feel satisfied with.

But I may yield partly to your temptation there to say that the more comfortable we are financially the faster we can move. But I don’t think it would be fair to say that’s a major impediment. Thank you.

Any more? Any more? Uh, final questions. Uh, someone has one. No, to what chapter? Romans 2:8. All right, we’ll give you absolution for this morning. Yeah, you say I think tribulation. Yeah.

The principle he’s establishing in the first part of this section it seems to me is that God gives every man what they have coming to them. And that in the final judgment that’s the way he will operate. So in the final judgment not the hearers of the law are justified before God but the doers of the law. In the final judgment only the doers of the law will be justified. And according to chapter 3 there ain’t no such person.