Romans 2

Romans 2:1-2

Romans 2:1 : Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever Mau art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practice the same things. This verse has been so twisted as to make it teach nonsense and also to condemn its writer. It has been twisted into meaning that, if you judge another to be guilty of a crime, you thereby become guilty of the same thing. Paul had just charged many crimes against the Gen-tiles. It is foolish to put a meaning into his words that makes him guilty of the same things. What does the language mean?

 

Paul had charged that the Gentiles were guilty of many crimes and were, therefore, worthy of death. The Jew charged the same things against the Gen-tiles, therefore, Paul, in effect, said: “You are as sin-ful as the Gentiles; you practice the same things they do. Hence, in judging them to be such criminals as to be worthy of death, you condemn yourself.” The Jew was, therefore, himself under condemnation, for Romans 2:2 says, We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practice such things. There was no use for the Jew to think he would escape the judgment visited upon the Gentiles so long as he was as guilty as they.

 

God had been rich in goodness and forbearance and longsuffering toward the Jews. Instead of being led to repentance by this goodness, as God had intended, they had despised it and had grown more sinful. They were treasuring up for themselves “wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his works.” In that day the Jew will not escape any more than will the Gentile.

Romans 2:3-5

Romans 2:3-5 : And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practice such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbear-ance and longsuffering, not knowing that the good-ness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. It was an easy matter to get the Jew to agree that the Gentiles were sinners; but, for his own good, it was necessary for the Jew to see himself as a condemned sinner, else he would not see his need of the gospel. But to convince the Jew that he was a sinner and needed salvation was a task that demanded a good deal of skill. Paul’s first point was that the Jew had no right to condemn the Gentile, for he was also guilty of the same sins.

The Jew boasted that he was the object of God’s special favor. Because of this Paul asked: “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” That is, the goodness of God was intended to lead them to repentance, but they despised it and were treasuring up, or heaping up, wrath for themselves.

Romans 2:6-11

Romans 2:6-11 : Who will render to every man accord-ing to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eter-nal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: For there is no respect of persons with God.

God “will render to every man according to his works.” God will judge without favoritism and will render to each man according to his works. It is not that God will sum up all you have done, whether good or bad, and pay you wages in proportion to the amount you have done. He will not count the hours you have worked and measure out your wages on the basis of so much pay for so many hours. But the kind of works you do shows what sort of person you are; they are the index to character. God rewards according to the nature, and not the amount, of our works. Some peo-ple whose heart is as far from God as it can well be never commit as many crimes as some others who are no worse.

Some lack the energy and the courage to be great criminals, and others lack physical ability or are hindered by their environments. Some people whose heart is as true to God as the heart of any are lacking in ability or are hindered by physical defects. Such people do what good they can. God will render, or give back to you, according to the nature of your works.

 

A Caution.–We must not put a construction on the teaching of salvation by works that will contradict the doctrine of salvation by grace. Ponder this: On God’s side our salvation is wholly a matter of grace, for he receives no pay for saving us; on our side our salvation is wholly a matter of works, for we can furnish no grace.

 

Eternal life is to be rendered “to them that by pa-tience in well doing seek for glory and honor and in-corruption.” Romans 2:7 connects closely with Romans 2:6. “Eternal life” is the object of “render”–God will render eternal life to those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption.” Of course, the glory and honor that we are to seek is the glory and honor that we shall have with God in the world to come. We are forbidden to seek the glory and honor that comes from men in this life. We shall attain to glory and honor and incorruption in the world to come by patience in well-doing.

 

But what is eternal life? The materialist holds to the idea that eternal life is mere eternal existence. He might not avow that in so many words, but he does say it in other words just as plain and emphatic. If you have ever heard one in a discussion on eternal punishment, you have heard him try to make the doc-trine absurd by referring to eternal punishment as eternal life in hell! But Paul’s language, as well as other scriptures, shows eternal life to be much more than eternal existence. God renders eternal life to those who seek glory and honor and incorruption.

Does Paul mean to say that- if we will seek one thing, God will give us another? Will he not give us what we seek? Can you not see that Paul here really defines eternal life? Hence, so far as this text shows, eter-nal life consists of glory, honor, and incorruption–a happy existence in the heavenly kingdom.

 

If you are still in doubt, consider the matter recorded in the following parallel passages: Matthew 19:16-29; Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30. A rich young ruler asked Jesus: “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Jesus told him certain things to do, and added, “And thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” As Jesus was giving him the information he sought, we know that having eternal life and enjoying treasure in heaven are the same. When the young man refused the offer, Jesus said: “It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Here we have another term describing the same thing. To have eternal life, to enjoy treasure in heaven, and to be in the heavenly kingdom are the same. But this statement about the rich man startled the disciples, and they asked: “Who then can be saved?” Certain-ly they were asking a question about the matter under discussion–namely, eternal life. They referred to salvation in the world to come, or everlasting salvation.

To have eternal life, to be enjoying treasure in heaven, to be in the heavenly kingdom, and to have eternal salvation are the same. Arid to show that eternal life was still the matter under consideration, Jesus tells his disciples that those who had left all worldly things for his sake and the gospel’s would have a hundredfold in this life, “and in the world to come eternal life.” So, then, mere eternal existence and eternal life are as wide apart as hell and heaven.

 

Eternal life is conditional for eternal life must be sought by patience in well-doing. In the eighth and ninth verses Paul affirms that tribulation and anguish will be visited upon those who do evil. Any person who can think at all should be able to see that, if dam-nation is conditional, salvation must also be condition-al. One cannot be conditional and the other unconditional. If doing wrong causes a person to be lost, then, to be saved he must leave off the wrong and do right. If being lost is conditional, so is being saved.

There is no way to escape that conclusion. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said: “If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.” Of Jesus Paul said “Having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9). And we have already seen that God will render eternal life to those who by patience in well-doing seek it. “Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). If eternal life is not conditional, no one can give a reason why one person is saved and another lost, “for there is no respect of persons with God.” “Of a truth I per-ceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous-ness, is acceptable to him.” It would be well if all preachers could come to see as clearly as did Peter.

Romans 2:12

Romans 2:12 : For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law. In Paul’s language, “the law” referred to the law of Moses. The law of Moses did not extend to the Gentiles. The grievous sins charged against them in the preceding chapter had not been committed under the law of Moses, nor against the law. We are sure of two things with reference to them–namely, (1) they had sinned, and (2) they had not sinned under the law of Moses. This being true, they would not be judged by the law of Moses, but would perish with-out the law.

From Mount Sinai to the cross of Christ the children of Israel were under the law of Moses. The sins they committed were committed under the law and against the law, and by the law they will be judged. But Paul’s language clearly shows that only those who were under the law will be judged by the law. As this law did not extend to the Gentiles, they will not be judged by it.

Romans 2:13

Romans 2:13 : For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified, The Jews trusted too much in the fact that had made them custodians of the law, and that it was always with them. They could read it when they so desired, and they heard it read in the synagogues every sabbath. They put too much stress on their hearing the law and on their knowledge of the law. As a result, they neglected the doing of the law. That was a fatal mistake; for not hearers, but doers of the law were justified.

 

The law condemns the guilty and justifies the innocent. Paul does not affirm that any Jew had so kept the law that he would be justified by it. He merely lays down the principle that the doer of the law shall be justified. Absolute justification by the law could be had only by perfect obedience to the law. But no one kept the law perfectly, and for that reason the law justified no one. “Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). “Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Galatians 2:16). It is plain, therefore, that no Jew kept the law so perfectly as to be justified by it. The law convicted the violator instead of justifying him.

Romans 2:14

Romans 2:14 : For when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves. Macknight gives a more exact translation of Paul’s language: “When therefore the Gentiles, who have not a law, do by nature the things of the law, these persons, though they have not a law, are a law to themselves.” You will notice that he puts “the” before “law” only once. In that respect he exactly represents Paul. The Gentiles had no revealed law, and so they were a law un-to themselves. The Gentiles never had the law of Moses, but there are certain fundamental principles that inhere in the nature of our existence and in our relations to one another. Some things are right, and some things are wrong, within themselves.

If a man never had a revelation from God, he would know that it was wrong to murder his fellow man, or to rob him of his possessions, or in any way to infringe on his rights. Cain sinned in killing his brother and felt his guilt, though we have no record that God had told him not to kill. God’s moral law is the same to all nations. The moral requirements of the law of Moses are the things which the Gentiles might do by nature. The Jews did these things by revelation; the Gentiles, by nature; that is, in so far as they did them at all. But let us remember that the law under which any person lives condemns him, if he does not keep it perfectly.

Paul does not say that the Gentiles lived up to their natural law any more than the Jews lived up to the revealed law. On the contrary, he was seeking to show that all were sinners and needed the gospel of Christ to save them. But they did have an idea of right and wrong.

Romans 2:15

Romans 2:15 : In that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them. The construction of the Greek shows plainly that it was the work of the law, and not the law itself, that was written on the hearts of the Gentiles. This, of course, referred to the moral requirements of the law. The moral requirements of the law are just such things as any decent set of people would recognize as proper and right, even if they never had a revelation. Their conscience, like the conscience of those who had a revealed law, would accuse them when they failed to live up to their standard of right, and approve them when they did right as they saw it. That is the office of conscience.

 

But what is conscience? It is frequently referred to as a guide. But conscience is not a guide at all that is not its office. Also, it is said that conscience is a creature of education but I see not how anyone would go about educating his conscience. It is also defined as the moral judgment, but that definition does not fit. Your moral judgment may tell you that a certain person did very wrong, but his act does not affect your conscience in any way, unless you feel responsible for his action.

Liddell and Scott define the Greek word that is translated “conscience” thus: " (1) A knowing with one’s self, consciousness; (2) conscience." Where we have two words–“consciousness” and “conscience” the Greeks had one word, and the connection determined its meaning, or, perhaps speaking more accurately, the connection determined its application. “Consciousness” has a broader application than “conscience.” A person is conscious of his own bodily sensations, whether pleasurable or painful; he is also conscious of his own thoughts and emotions. We are getting at conscience when we think of it as that feeling of pleasure when we do what we think is right, and of pain when we do what we think is wrong. It is that which backs up our moral judgment. Saul of Tarsus always did what he thought was right, and therefore always had a good conscience. But his information was wrong, and therefore his moral judgment was wrong. Our judgment may be wrong be-cause the ideas upon which we base our judgment may be wrong.

But no matter how we have been taught, we can expect our conscience to urge us to do what we have judged to be right, unless it has been deadened by long indulgence in things we know to be wrong. It seems to me that a live, tender conscience is infallible. But as to moral judgment, no man can safely say that he is right on everything. Gain all the in-formation you can so that you can form correct judgments, and give heed to the urge of conscience.

Romans 2:17-20

Romans 2:17-20 : But if thou bearest the name of Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art con-fident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a corrector of the fool-ish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth. It is not known when the name “Jew” was first used. After the ten tribes followed Jeroboam in the revolt against Rehoboam, the two remaining tribes–Judah and Benjamin–became known as the kingdom of Judah, because Judah was so much more powerful than the tribe of Benjamin.

 

Later they became known as “Jews,” the name being derived from “Judah.” When the kingdom of Judah was about to be carried into captivity, the name was used a few times in the book of Jeremiah. During the captivity and thereafter “Jew” became the com-mon name of all the people. They were proud of the name “Jew” and of what, in their estimation, the name stood for. And they gloried in God and not in idols. They were confident that they were able to teach all who foolishly worshiped idols. Their privileges, their belief in the one God, and their knowledge of his will, should have made them humble and ashamed that they had made such poor use of their privileges and blessings; but, instead of that, they were boast-ful, and they maintained an air of superiority over all other people.

And so every blessing has its corre-sponding danger. Is there not danger that we fall in-to a similar state of mind? We have the Bible, abhor creeds, glory in the name we wear, and feel able to toach the whole world. Are we not inclined to be proud and arrogant? Should we not rather feel hum-ble and ashamed that we have not made better use of what we have?

Romans 2:21-23

Romans 2:21-23 : Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples? thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God? These are searching questions. Any man is a poor teacher if he does not teach himself while he is teaching others. He is a poor preacher that cannot preach better than he can practice, but he is a poorer preach-er if he does not try hard to live up to his preaching. The Jews had reached the point where they taught much and practiced little. We are reminded of what Jesus said of the Jewish leaders: “They say, and do not.” No one should he guilty of adultery, and certainly the man who preaches against it should not be guilty of it.

The American Standard Version’s rendering of the question about abhorring idols and robbing temples is not easily understood. But the word translated “rob temples” means either to rob temples or to commit sacrilege.

The meanings are closely related for, if a person robbed a temple, he would, in the estimation of the worshipers at that temple, commit sacrilege. To commit sacrilege is to abuse sacred things, or to make common use of them. The Jews were very much given to profaning God’s holy things. Ezekiel 22:26 makes this charge: “Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things.” He immediately explains how they had done this: “They have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the clean and the unclean.” They had profaned God’s holy things by putting the com-mon and the unclean–things of their own devising into the worship and service of God. The Jews in Paul’s day had profaned God’s holy things by their traditions and in converting the temple into a place of merchandise and fraud. In many ways they com-mitted sacrilege, but it is not so manifest that they robbed temples.

Hence, on this point the rendering of the King James Version seems better: “Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” What avails it, if a person abhors idols and yet is so dis-respectful to God as to commit sacrilege against God’s holy things? It would be difficult to tell whether the idolater or the professed believer who commits sac-rilege dishonors God the more.

The Jews gloried in the law–gloried in the fact that the law had been given to them; yet in their transgressions of the law they dishonored God’s law.

Romans 2:24

Romans 2:24 : For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. The Jews sought to make proselytes. Jesus said they would compass sea and land to make one proselyte. They might have had great success, if they had lived up to their preaching. It is hard to make any one believe there is any good in your doctrine, if it has not done you any good. The Jews had so lived as to cause the Gentiles to blaspheme their preaching in-stead of believing it. The Jews had become a hiss and a byword. Read Isaiah 52:5.

The greatest hindrance to the spread of the gospel today is the conduct of many of its professed believers. Immorality, worldly-mindedness, dishonest dealing, and divisions hinder Christianity. Opposition from without is not what hurts the most. The right kind of living on the part of professed Christians gives them a favorable hearing when they present the gospel. Do not try to sell the gospel by mere talk; show them a sample of what the gospel will do for the people who really believe it. You will then likely make a believer instead of a blasphemer. “Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 6:16).

Romans 2:25

Romans 2:25 : For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. Of circumcision God said to Abraham: “It shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you.” Descendants of Abraham and Jacob were not brought into the covenant by circumcision; they were born into that covenant, and were circumcised as a sign of their membership in the covenant. If one was not circumcised, he was cut off from his covenant relationship. “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people he bath broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:14). Hence, to the Jew circumcision was indispensable to continued membership in the covenant; and it was profitable to him, if he lived in obedience to God. But if he did not obey God’s commands, his circumcision was worthless to him; he was the same as if he had not been circumcised. It was a sign, or token, of the covenant.

Paul was seeking to show the Jews that this sign of covenant relationship was worth-less to the one who did not live up to the covenant requirements. What avails it for me to show a writ-ten covenant between me and another man, if he can show that I have broken every covenant requirement? If he can do so, it is the same as if I had no written contract. And that fairly represents the condition of the Jew. Why boast of being circumcised and of hav-ing the law, if he had broken the covenant? The Jew put stress upon the sign and not the substance.

He boasted of the covenant, and broke it every day.

Romans 2:26

Romans 2:26 : therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? Paul had just stated the doctrine that circumcision was of no value to the per-son who did not live right. But what of the Gentile who lived in harmony with the moral requirements of the law, though he had not been circumcised? In not being circumcised the Gentile violated no law, for the law did not require the Gentile to be circumcised. Hence, the Gentile could neglect circumcision without sin; and if he lived a moral upright life, he would be considered as if he had been circumcised. But Paul’s reasoning on this point does not warrant any one to neglect anything God has commanded him to do.

It is singular that, in their anxiety to get rid of the necessity of baptism, some have argued that Paul’s reasoning on circumcision could be applied to baptism. They ask: “If an unbaptized person lives right, shall he not be considered as if he had been baptized?” But their effort at running that sort of parallel fails. Gentiles had not been commanded to be circumcised, and therefore violated no law, committed no sin, in not being circumcised; whereas gospel obedience, including baptism, is required of all people. And here is another point their theory fails to consider. Every one to whom the command to be circumcised extended had to be circumcised or be cut off from his people; he had broken the covenant, and was no longer considered one of God’s people. If, therefore, these theologians could establish a parallel between circumcision and baptism, they would thereby prove that everyone to whom the command to be baptized extended would have to be baptized or be cut off.

 

But Paul does not affirm that any Gentile had so kept the ordinances of the law as to be sinless. In fact, his purpose was to make all men see themselves as condemned sinners and to cause them to realize their need of salvation through Christ.

Romans 2:27

Romans 2:27 : And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the Law? Some commentators regard this as a direct affirmation instead of a question. But it matters little whether it is a question or an affirmation; in either form the meaning is the same. “The uncircumcised by nature” are the Gentiles. “Judge” is here used in the sense of condemn. “The letter” refers to the law of Moses. The Jews had the law and were circumcised. Paul, therefore, affirms that the Gentile, if he fulfilled the law, would condemn the Jew. This does not mean that the right-living Gentile would sit in final judgment on the disobedient Jew, but that his conduct by contrast condemns the Jewish transgressor, just as Noah by his obedience, condemned the world (Hebrews 11:7).

Romans 2:28-29

Romans 2:28-29 : For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. So far as the flesh was concerned, a Jew was a Jew, no matter how he lived; but he was not God’s Jew, not such a one as God would recognize, unless he was at heart true to God. Outward circumcision was necessary to a Jew, but outward circumcision was worthless unless it was accompanied by the circumcision of the heart. Circumcision of the heart is the cutting off of the stubbornness and sinful desires of the heart. So many of the Jews depended on outward appearance, but were inwardly full of corruption. In God’s sight an honest-hearted Gentile was better than a corrupt Jew. Man looks on the outward appearance, and praises show and display; God looks on the heart, and praises honesty and virtue.