Romans 2

This chapter’s review is provided by Eric, a former Evangelical and current Mormon.

Summary/analysis: Romans 2 is middle of a larger section, ending at 3:20, in which Paul lays out his thesis that both Jews and gentiles have sinned and are subject to the judgment of God. This section cannot be fully understood out of that context.

In 2:1-11, Paul suggests that when we judge others we are also judging ourselves. He speaks of a coming day of judgment and wrath (2:5) in which people, both Jew and gentile, will be repaid for their deeds, with those who did good receiving eternal life (v 7) and those who were self-seeking receiving wrath (v 8). This judgment of glory for the good and distress for the evil applies to all, as God shows no favoritism (v 11).

In vv 12-16, Paul teaches that those who are living under the law (presumably referring to the Old Testament law of the Jews) will be judged by the law, and those under the law who don’t follow the law severely dishonor God (vv 23-24). And for those who aren’t living under the Law, they have a “law to themselves” that they can sense inwardly, and they will be judged accordingly. In other words, the judgment applies to Jews and gentiles alike, even though they receive instruction in different ways.

In vv 25-29, Paul emphasizes that, at least for Jews, it isn’t just outward conformity that matters. In fact, he suggests in v 27 that those who are uncircumcised and follow the law they know are better off than those who are circumcised yet don’t follow the law. The real circumcision is something of the heart and spirit, Paul says, not an outward physical condition.

Reflection and comment: The section of this chapter that speaks to me the most are Paul’s words at the end of the chapter where he emphasizes one’s inward condition. He basically says it doesn’t matter what outward good I do if my heart isn’t in the right place. So it is important not only to seek to do good, but to seek to do good for the right reasons.

Paul also sets a high standard for those who know the law. Although it isn’t clear from this section how the law applies to believers today, in a sense that doesn’t matter, for all of us have consciences that are meant to direct us. While Paul doesn’t say so directly in this section of his letter, he hints (not saying so explicitly until 3:23) that all of us, Jew and Gentile alike, fall short.

LDS application: Somewhat surprisingly, my searches showed few instances where this section has been quoted by LDS authorities. That may be partly because Paul is using a complex argument in which a few verses here and there can’t be isolated well. Romans 2:13 is sometimes taken somewhat out of context to point out that merely hearing the law is insufficient, and the final two verses are often used to point to the necessity of inward conversion. More interesting, I found several references to 2:15 as teaching that at the time of judgment our own consciences bear a record of how we have lived our lives.

The final two verses of the chapter dovetail nicely with the LDS teaching about the importance of “real intent” when praying, repenting or seeking answers from God.

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “Romans 2

  1. “The real circumcision is something of the heart and spirit, Paul says, not an outward physical condition.”

    Yes. Yes.

    Transforming words.

    Everything changes.

    I love it. love it. love it.

  2. How do you take the “Therefore” that starts this chapter? It clearly links back to Ch 1, which concludes with Paul discussing people who reject God and righteousness. Thus, I would think that his “therefore” can only refer to those (wicked) people; i.e., not to righteous people who properly honor God. In that case, he’s really saying, “If you’re wicked then you can’t judge others (but if you’re righteous then you can).”

    Granted, he’ll go on to say that everyone sins, but in 2:1 he specifically says that we who judge “do the same things” as those who we judge. Maybe he means that in a very general way—“same things” means “reject God in some way or another”—but Paul doesn’t really spell that out; i.e., “same things” is more easily read as “the same kinds of evil sins mentioned in 1:29-31.”

    The reason I think this is a…’problem’…is that I know plenty of people who do none of the things listed in 1:29-31. Are they therefore free to judge? Likewise, if I’m never “insolent” or “boastful,” am I free to judge those who are?

  3. The bible tells us that “all of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags” (Isaiah).

    So much for our good intentions.

    Because of sin, our intentions always have a drop of self interest in them. And like the pure, clean, fresh glass of water that just has one little drop of poison in it…it is no longer fit to drink.

    If our good intentions had a role to play in our works, Christ would not have had to go to the cross. He could have just lined us all up and compared our good intentions.

    No, we have nothing to offer Christ, but our sin. And He gladly bore it (bears it) for our sake.

  4. On the grace/works issue, what to Evangelicals make of
    Verses 6-11.

    Paul seems to say that people will be justly rewarded for their good works. Even if they are not Christians.

    6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

    To me it this passage makes Paul’s discussion of universal depravity in Chapter 3 seem more rhetorical. It seems either this point, that people will be justified or rewarded for their righteousness is valid, or the other, that people are depraved, can’t be taken literally. If that is the case, I think either Paul’s rhetoric is weak or his reasoning is confusing, or both.

    At the very least Paul is not being very clear, at least to me.

  5. theoldadam: I think you’re misreading Isaiah, taking a condemnation meant for a specific type of “righteous doer” and applying to it all people who work righteousness.

  6. BrianJ said:

    How do you take the “Therefore” that starts this chapter? It clearly links back to Ch 1, which concludes with Paul discussing people who reject God and righteousness. Thus, I would think that his “therefore” can only refer to those (wicked) people; i.e., not to righteous people who properly honor God. In that case, he’s really saying, “If you’re wicked then you can’t judge others (but if you’re righteous then you can).”

    Perhaps. But I see another way of reading it. Paul seems to be saying that simply by the act of judging another you bring condemnation on yourself, because whoever you are you don’t meet the standard you set for someone else. So the “therefore” suggests that all of us are among those wicked people at the end of chapter 1.

    That’s one of the hints I was talking about in the original post.

    It’s has to do with the context of all this, and it doesn’t really become totally clear until Chapter 3, which is that Paul seems to be saying that all of us fall short of meeting the standard of whatever law we’re living under.

    Jared C said:

    Paul seems to say that people will be justly rewarded for their good works. Even if they are not Christians.

    Yes, he does, but the context of the passage you cite isn’t clear until you take chapter 3 into account. He’s leading up to saying that everyone, Jew and gentile alike, falls short. So therefore while it is true that if we do good works we will be rewarded with eternal life (2:6-7), the reality is that there is no one doing that (3:10-20), so there’s nobody who will receive eternal life.

    As grim as it may sound, that’s the bad news that Paul presents in a somewhat convoluted fashion from 1:18 to 3:20 (whoever divided Romans up into chapters did us a real disfavor here).

    The good news doesn’t start until 3:21, where Paul starts explaining how God’s righteousness can be imputed to us.

    At least that’s the way I understand what Paul is saying.

  7. Jared C said:

    I think either Paul’s rhetoric is weak or his reasoning is confusing, or both.

    At the very least Paul is not being very clear, at least to me.

    It definitely isn’t as straightforward as I would like. The links between his different sections of thought aren’t always explicitly stated, and that’s why my understanding of how all this relates together very well could be wrong.

  8. that’s the bad news that Paul presents in a somewhat convoluted fashion from 1:18 to 3:20 (whoever divided Romans up into chapters did us a real disfavor here).

    Never read a Bible verse.

    In Romans (and most of the Epistles) we really should just ignore the Chapter breaks.

  9. Old Adam,

    that our good works are nothing compared to God’s has nothing to do with how God sees our works.

    Paul says that God rewards the good works for the good that they are. The fact that my four year old can’t clean the whole house, and generally makes more messes than he cleans up does not mean that he shouldn’t get credit for putting his toys away, does it?

  10. I believe that God is after faith, and that is all.

    The parable of the ‘workers in the field’ tells us how God deals out His rewards. Not on the basis of our efforts, but on the basis of His grace and mercy.

    Later in Romans, Paul tells us that to those who work, their reward will be based on that work, but those who trust will receive righteousness as a gift.

    No credit for our good works. The cross is all the credit that we need, and all we are going to get.

    Anyway, I do have a theology of the cross (and not a theology of glory) which takes me away from my deeds, and keeps me focused on Christ.

  11. Eric: thanks for the reply. You say, “So the “therefore” suggests that all of us are among those wicked people at the end of chapter 1. “ I certainly see why Paul and others would say or believe this about people in general—that we all do horrible things—but it leaves me a bit cold. The reason, as I said above, is that “I know plenty of people who do none of the things listed in 1:29-31.” Thus, I’m not sure what to make of/do with Paul’s argument.

  12. I don’t think it’s meant to be the be-all-end-all list of wickedness. He’s kind of riffing off everything that comes to mind.

    There’s also a distinction from sinning, which all have done, and the total depravity he is discussing in Chapter 1.

  13. I would say that not only did someone not do us any favors in inserting chapter breaks in Romans, someone didn’t do us any favors in putting the Romans before the other epistles. And just like Tim suggests ignoring chapter breaks in Romans, you really can’t read the Epistle to the Romans in isolation from Paul’s other epistles.

    A lot of Biblical exegesis approaches Paul’s message by starting with Romans first, and then reading the other epistles in light of that first book. An easy thing to do, since Romans comes chronologically first – right after Acts.

    N.T. Wright questions this approach in his book “Justification.” He writes:

    “Suppose we conduct a thought experiment. Suppose we come to Ephesians first, with Colossians close behind, and decide that we will read Romans, Galatians, and the rest in the light of them instead of the other way around. What we will find, straight off, is nothing short of a (very Jewish) cosmic soteriology. God’s plan is “to sum up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10; compare Col 1:15-20). And we will find, as the means to that plan, God’s rescue both of Jews and Gentiles (Eph 1:11-12, 13-14) in and through the redemption provided in Christ and by the Spirit, so that the Jew-plus-Gentile church, equally rescued by grace through faith (Eph 2:1-10), and now coming together in a single family (Eph 2:11-22), will be Christ’s body for the world (Eph 1:15-23), the sign to the principalities and power of the “many-splendored wisdom of God” (Eph 3:10). Supposing that had been the vision that gripped the imagination of the Reformers in the sixteenth century; supposing they had had, engraved on their hearts, that close and intimate combination of (a) saving grace accomplishing redemption in the once-for-all death of the Messiah and putting it into operation through faith, without works, and (b) the proleptic unity of all humankind in Christ as the sign of God’s coming reign over the whole world; and supposing they had then, and only then, gone back to Romans and Galatians – the entire history of the Western church, and with it the world, might have been different. No split between Romans 3:28 and Romans 3:29. No marginalization of Romans 9-11. No scrunching of the subtle and important arguments about Jew-plus-Gentile unity in Galatians 3 onto the Procrustean bed of an abstract antithesis between faith and works. No insisting, in either letter, that “the law” was just a “system” that applied to everyone, and that “works of the law” were the moral requirements that encouraged people to earn their own salvation by moral effort. In short, the new perspective might have begun then and there. Or perhaps we should say, the new perspective DID begin – when Ephesians was written. No wonder Lutheran scholars have been so suspicious of it. But why should that apply to conservative readers for whom it is every bit as much Holy Writ as Romans or Galatians?”

    N.T. Wright, “Justification” pp. 43-44.

    He goes on to make the point that the overall message of all Paul’s epistles taken-together, is one of how God proposes to fulfill his promises made to Abraham, and how Christ’s life and death are the crowning piece of that puzzle. The emphasis is not on YOU at all. It’s not (primarily) about whether you are “saved,” or about some contrasting conflict between grace and works. Rather, it is about the establishment of a new covenant in Christ. And the transformative power of that new covenant and relationship. It is how GOD is going to pull it all off.

    It would seem, that which scriptures you read first really do make quite a bit of difference.

  14. Aren’t there Bibles that put the books in Chronological order? Might be interesting to read through them that way.

  15. The reason most scholars don’t read Romans in light of Ephesians and Colossians is very simple. Paul almost certainly did not write Ephesians and probably did not write Colossians. So, if you want to talk about what Paul said about something, then you tend to ignore Ephesians and Colossians and focus on the 7 letters Paul wrote for sure: 1 Thessalonians, Phillipians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, and Romans. Of those, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and Romans tend to have the most developed views of what Paul sees as the gospel, hence they become the focus.

    While I have don’t have an issue with reading Pauline epistles in light of the pseudo-Paulines, you have to realize that you are not going to get what Paul thought, which is what most scholars are usually after. That trickles down through the seminaries, then to the pulpit, and into the pews.

    It’s also a much trickier business to read one author’s thoughts and beliefs in light of another’s. It tends to obscure, rather than enlighten unless you are extremely careful. The best case of this is probably that of Christians reading the New Testament’s version of Messiah as being the correct formulation of Messiah for all of scripture. This led to a lot of anti-Judaism because for the Christians the Jews were “obviously” missing the point of the Old Testament, when it was actually precisely the opposite.

  16. Aren’t there Bibles that put the books in Chronological order? Might be interesting to read through them that way.

    I put the genuine Paulines in roughly chronological order, any chronology in that group tends to be guesswork anyway. In any case, if you want to read them in order it would be:

    Group #1: 1 Thessalonians, Phillipians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, and Romans.

    Group #2: 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians.

    Group #3: Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy

  17. But it’s not like Paul is the uber-Apostle. His verifiable work doesn’t get special status as uber-canon. Jude is equally weighted against Romans.

  18. No, it’s not more canonical, it’s just more Pauline.

    I have no problem with a canonical reading of scripture. I was simply trying to explain why it is generally not done that way, at least among the biblical scholars.

    Canonical readings tend toward harmonization. However, scripture does have internal tensions that can’t simply be swept under the rug. My preference is to try and understand Paul as Paul. Then, when you read the scriptures canonically, you have a good idea of the main issues involved and will think deeply about how to understand them canonically. It’s also why I think Christians should try and understand the OT books on their own terms before attempting an allegorical Christianization of them, it just prevents lots of silliness.

    By the way, NT Wright has done the necessary leg work in this area, I’m not bagging on him. I’m just trying to give some cautions before proceeding down the path of canonical readings of scripture.

  19. David, I would just note that N.T. Wright acknowledges that many scholars of the New Testament do not think that Ephesians and Colossians were authored by Paul (he acknowledges it in the page right before where I pulled the quote as it so happens). But he states that he disagrees with this assessment and feels that the epistles are suitably Pauline.

    One of the main arguments of the “New Perspective on Paul” is the genuine Pauline nature of Ephesians and Colossians. So I imagine they have their counter-arguments to what you’ve noted here – though I am not familiar with the intricacies of it.

  20. Thanks, Eric. I liked your analysis.

    I also like what theoldadam has been saying, although I can easily imagine Mormons misinterpreting him.

    Following is my extensive edit of what theoldadam said:

    Because of the fallen nature that we all inherited from Adam, the intentions of the natural man—the man who has no faith in Christ—are always selfish.

    In our natural state—before we repented and started to follow Christ, before the Holy Spirit came to live in our hearts—we had nothing to offer Christ but our sin. And He gladly bore it (bears it) for our sake.

    “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) means that before we came to Christ, we fell short of the presence of God, fell short of the holy nature of God, fell short of the spiritual life of God. We were in spiritual death, separated from God, and there was nothing good in us. The suffering and death of Jesus on our behalf was the only rescue plan possible.

    Do you agree with that, Eric?

  21. Do you agree with that, Eric?

    Not completely.

    I don’t fully buy into the total depravity thing. Depravity? Certainly. All of us have sinned. All of us fall short. None of us qualify to return to our Heavenly Father on our own. We’re all in need of a Savior. No question about it.

    But is Paul teaching total depravity? I’m not convinced. Even fallen humankind is created in the image of God. Even fallen humankind is capable of exercising free will, which I have a hard time reconciling with a belief in total depravity. And even fallen humankind is capable of responding to the Holy Spirit and/or the Spirit of Christ. Something short of total depravity is needed if we are to respond in faith as Paul is suggesting we do.

    I guess I wouldn’t make a very good Calvinist.

  22. My issue with the concept of total depravity is that it indicates that nothing human beings ever do is ever good. I understand that, compared to Christ, we are but dust, but I am not talking about our actions in comparison to Christ’s. I am talking about our actions period.

    I see nothing depraved about the individuals who, during the fires in the San Bernardino mountains in 2003, gave up their time to work at a temporary animal relief shelter sponsored by the Noah’s Wish Foundation. I see nothing depraved about the dozens of adults I know who freely give of their vacation time to volunteer at a summer leadership camp that focuses on encouraging teens to lead positive, healthy lifestyles. I see nothing depraved about the ministers who, well, minister.

    Sure, Christ is way better than us in every single possible way. Sure, there is probably some hidden selfish motive behind our actions that are generally good, but still, I think these are all indicators that we have both good and bad in us. Also, I see the numerous scriptural references to being judged “according to our works” as a sign that we as Christians are probably being too hard on ourselves when we throw in the towel and say we give up.

  23. What Alex said. And to look specifically at what Paul wrote in the first portions of Romans, I have to agree that the outlook looks pretty bleak. But even in Paul’s words here there is the suggestion that we are capable of making good choices (otherwise, why is there even the possibility of judgment?). The fact that Paul is writing this at all is a suggestion that he believed somebody would be reading and considering it — something that someone with no good at all in him/her would be incapable of doing.

  24. What does it mean here:

    2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

    Many evangelicals say that nobody will be justified at all by their own deeds. Here it seems to lay a baseline justification of “all we can do”, Leaving Christ to save the rest of our weak selves.

    this sections sounds pretty in-line with common-sense understanding of God and man and the law. The “total depravity” doctrine seems to be taking a rhetorical exaggeration literally.

    Compared to God we may be nothing, but will we be judged as if we are gods? Why would evangelicals believe that if we are fundamentally different than God?

  25. I don’t believe in total depravity either as a theological matter. I believe that there is something within humans genuinely capable of choosing good without outside interference.

    I just feel our fallen world situation makes it impossible for us to be really adequately good.

  26. I don’t believe in “total depravity”, either. I am a Lutheran.

    We believe that people are capable of a great deal of good in this world.

    We do believe, however, that people can never be good enough to effect their own righteousness. We beleive that we are bound to sin. And so, we need a Savior, to free us, in spite of our own desires to be our own gods.

  27. To Eric:
    You misunderstood me. I’m not a Calvinist—not at all (despite my name). I grew up in a Calvinistic church, and although I appreciate its positive influence on me, I rebelled against Calvinism big time, including total depravity.

    Having straightened that out, I can say I’m glad we’re in agreement.

  28. Now that I’ve read the comments following Eric’s last comment, I see that many of you may have misunderstood me! (This shows how easy misunderstandings happen.)
    I believe with you guys that humankind has the ability and responsibility to choose.
    —-
    Jared asked, “What does it mean here: 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

    I believe the context (especially 2:16) makes clear that Paul uses the word “law” in 2:13 to mean the gospel, not the Mosaic Law. We can see in 3:21 and following, that Paul uses at least two different definitions for the word “law.” Most Greek words, as well as English words, have more than one definition. It’s common for people to switch back and forth from one definition to another.

    Understanding the Word of God sometimes takes WORK! “Work” IS a good word, just so long as its God working through you by his Spirit, and not you by yourself.)

    Take care.

  29. I might be alone (here) but I believe that Scripture clearly tells us that we do not have the ability to choose, when it comes to the things of God, not at least, until He chooses us.

    In Romans 3, St. Paul reminds us that “no on seeks for God”, and in the Gospel of John, Jesus tells us that we don’t choose him, but rather he chooses us, and also in the Gospel of John, we are told that “we are not born of blood, or the flesh, or the will of man, but of God.”

    And, St. Paul reminds us that “faith is a gift”.

    And Jesus says as much to Niccodemus.

    I don’t mind being alone in this (here), as long as that view lines up with Holy Scripture.

    Thanks.

  30. So the Bible states that we can’t choose, St. Paul says as much, and Jesus makes it clear (“you have to be born again, from above”)…but that’s not good enough.

    OK. You certainly are not alone in your beliefs.

  31. The doers of the law are justified. We are justified by faith without the deeds of the law. The law is fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit, all bible and all in harmony. However, without ears and eyes of the spirit to see and hear, all will be confused. Jesus is the law of God. The law testifies of Jesus. 1 John 2:22 who is a liar, but he that denies Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, when we believe Jesus is the Christ and no longer deny that, we are not liars. John 10 to climb up any way other than faith in Jesus is to be a theif. Therefore, when we trust in faith that is in Jesus alone, we are not theives, and keeping the commandment not to steal. Paul said also circumcsion is not to be followed naturally either, it is of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter. We keep the spiritual law (romans 7:14) through faith in Jesus alone. If you want more, check out my site by clicking my name above.

  32. So the Bible states that we can’t choose, St. Paul says as much …

    Where does Paul say that?

    … and Jesus makes it clear (“you have to be born again, from above”)

    How does that eliminate choice?

  33. St. Paul says in Romans 3 that “no one seeks for God”.

    How can someone choose God when they are not seeking God?

    St. Paul also says in Romans that “God predestines us”. God elects us, not the other way around.

    Jesus says that “No man can come to him, unless the Father draw him” (Gospel of John).

    If no man CAN come to Him, then no one has the ability to come to Him.

    Jesus tells Niccodemus, (paraphrasing), ‘you can’t do this, it has to be done for you, from above.’

    Luther destroyed Erasmus in a written debate on this topic of “free-will” in his book ‘The Bondage of the Will’. Of all his 54 volumes of work (might be more than that), Luther thought this was his finest. It’s worth a read.

  34. Let’s say I’m not looking for a girlfriend.

    Then one steps out of a dark side alleyway and kicks me in the face and yells “go out with me!”

    Do I have the option of choosing to go out with her?

  35. Seems like she was seeking you and chose you!

    It’s sort of like that with God. After He calls and chooses us, THEN we make decisions about Him. We leave Him, and repent and return to Him, over and over and over. But He is the Initiator.

  36. After He calls and chooses us, THEN we make decisions about Him. … But He is the Initiator.

    Does he initiate with all people, or just the chosen few? And is he continually initiating, or just at certain times and if I miss my chance I’m lost forever?

  37. Pingback: Paul’s Epistle To The Romans | Songs From The Wood

  38. Well, there are those that He has predestined. Who, why…? I don’t know.

    I do believe that in our fallen state, we won’t choose God. God chooses us, through the hearing of His Word and the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.

    I do believe this is what Scripture tells us.

  39. I do believe that in our fallen state, we won’t choose God

    This is the sort of torturing of language that strict reading of the New Testament brings out.

    You believe that the bible says all men are bad to the core, and can’t choose God.

    Common sense tells us that people can do both good and bad and clearly can choose to be Christians, just as they choose to be Muslims.

    Holding to these sorts of interpretations of Paul’s rhetoric makes you impervious from discussing things in a commonsense fashion, using normal concepts and logic.

  40. This is the sort of torturing of language that strict reading of the New Testament brings out.

    You believe that the bible says all men are bad to the core, and can’t choose God.

    Common sense tells us that people can do both good and bad and clearly can choose to be Christians, just as they choose to be Muslims.

    Holding to these sorts of interpretations of Paul’s rhetoric makes you impervious from discussing things in a commonsense fashion, using normal concepts and logic.

    Seriously.

  41. My experience in debating this point is that hardcore Lutherans and Calvinists will often make their rhetoric more extreme than their beliefs really are – just because they know a Mormon is in the room.

  42. I just wanted to add on the issue of not taking Romans verse-by-verse or chapter-by-chapter, the Evangelical Covenant Church (which became my denomination this year) has a saying that I’ve come to really like. “No part of the Bible is the Word of God. Only the entire thing is the Word of God.”

    It sounds kind of shocking at first, but there’s a serious truth to it. Covenanters have long felt pretty strongly that all kinds of Christians and heretical groups have devised numerous false teachings by taking small sections of Scripture out of context and building entire doctrines around them without considering the rest of what the Bible says on the subject beforehand.

    The historical theologian and Bible scholar in me knows that there are problems with this philosophy. The Bible didn’t come to us all at once in a neat book wrapped in a pretty red ribbon, and it’s a saying that precludes the possibility that different parts of the Bible can contradict one another.

    Nevertheless, as Christians in our day and age, I think it’s a pretty sound philosophy to live by, and in the case of the issue of grace and works in Romans, I think it’s especially relevant.

  43. Hey Tim,
    I love your idea for this project. When things are less crazy at school/work, I plan to read through all of the commentaries. I noticed just glancing through your Romans 2 post that you didn’t find many citations to Romans 2 in LDS works/addresses. You may already be aware of this, but in case you are not, Brigham Young University has compiled a database with all of the references to every scripture in the LDS Standard Works (including the Book of Romans of course.) You can see exactly how many times and what sources have quoted any scripture. The data base is http://scriptures.byu.edu. From this I have found that verses in Romans 2 have been cited at least 53 times in LDS addresses/literature. I hope this is a useful resource to you. Gotta go. Good luck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s