Romans 2:1 - No excuse

This chapter has several difficulties in seeking to interpret it. One is where Paul starts speaking specifically about the Jews, the other main difficulty is how we are to take the things like verse 7 which seem to imply salvation on merit. We will deal with the latter problem when we come to it. With regard to the former two options are that the first sixteen verses are directed to generally "moral" people" and then from verse 17 specifically to the Jews. The second option is that all of it is directed primarily to the Jews, but with it also having several sentiments that are applicable to all people who consider themselves "moral". The latter alternative seems preferable. The Jews did often consider themselves to be morally superior to the Gentiles and Jews are specifically mentioned as early as verse 9.

The NIV has "you who pass judgement ...", the ESV has "O man, every one of you ..." The latter is more accurate. This is an example where the desire to use gender inclusive language leads to a loss in translation. I am pragmatically in favour of using gender specific language where the original text does. Some people get very excited about this, sometimes too strongly so. Often where the Bible refers to "brothers" or "sons" we know that it includes females as well and in reading such a passage, or preaching on it I will often say that it includes women as well as men. However, if we change the text itself we may lose something, as here. "O man " is a rhetorical term and Paul is seeking to address an imaginary opponent who after hearing the stuff in chapter 1 is nodding sagely, smugly considering himself to be better than that.  Remember Jesus did the same in one of the gospels. So Paul is writing here in a rhetorical style. This may have relevance when we come to interpret verse 7 etc. There is a difference in how precisely language should be interpreted between a rhetorical speech and an academic paper.

The basic thesis is that the one who is condemning the sinners of chapter 1, enjoying considering himself better than them is actually guilty of doing the very same things. How can this be? If this is indeed directed primarily at Jews then they knew God existed, and they certainly did not indulge in homosexual acts. And the same could be said of the "moral" person. So does Paul have in mind the words of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount that if we have lustful thoughts we are guilty of adultery, and if we have hateful thoughts we are guilty of murder? Now on those words we do need to say something. Jesus was not saying that thinking evil things is the same as doing evil things. I would much rather you just had bad thoughts towards me than actually murdered me! And a marriage where adultery has actually taken place is far harder to heal than one where the husband looks at another woman with lustful thoughts. What Jesus is saying is that the condition of the heart in both cases is equally serious, and something needs to be done. And that is Paul's central argument in Romans. All have sinned and need the cross in equal measure.