Romans 2

David Lipscomb Commentary On Romans 2Rom 2:1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:—Having shown that the Gentiles were themselves to blame for being without the law of God only because when they had it they would not observe and obey it, he then turns to the Jews and warns them, for they were guilty of rejecting and refusing to obey the law of God.for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.—In con­demning the Gentiles they condemned themselves. This is not a charge that the Jews had run to the same excesses. It was the plant that bore these bitter fruits. In refusing to believe in and obey God they had chosen the course that led to the same degrading vices. When men cut loose from God, they all go the same course. Disobedience to God is the mother of all vices.

Rejecting and refusing to obey God leaves the spirit weak and helpless and subjects man to the sole rule of his fleshly lusts and passions. Lust rules, and man deifies that which gratifies lust. [To condemn another for his sin is to admit that the sin in question leads to and justifies condemnation as to all who commit it, even including the one who condemns.

The one who condemns sins in others, yet commits them himself, is absolutely defenseless and without excuse.]Romans 2:2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things.—God’ s judgment against those who commit these vices is according to justice and right, to all, both Jews and Gentiles. He will no more spare the Jews than the Gentiles. Justice and righteousness are the highest characteristics of God.Romans 2:3 And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?—Because the judgment of God had not been executed upon the Jew as on the Gentile, and the law had not been formally withdrawn from him, he imagined that he was specially favored of God. [That he trusted in his rela­tion to Abraham, to his circumcision, and to the fact of hav­ing the law, for salvation, is indisputable. On these grounds he clearly counted on God’ s partiality. Consequently, al­though he knew himself to be guilty of the same sins which he condemned in the Gentiles, he yet evidently did not expect God to condemn him. He expected God to overlook in him, because a Jew, what he knew he would not overlook in the Gentile, and what even he himself did not overlook; but Paul here shows that sin is sin by whomsoever committed; that sin does not lose its essential character by being committed in the midst of religious privileges; and that those who profess to be the people of God have no peculiar license to sin.

This false trust is rebuked by John the Baptist. (Matthew 3:7-9). The same error exists today.

Many expect to be saved because they are the children of wealth, culture, refinement, or because their parents are godly.]Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou—Does the Jew imagine, without any pretense of reason, that he shall escape God’ s judgment? Or in case he does not have this conceit, does he base his hope of escape from future retribution on the forbearance of God in delaying the punishment as a sign that the judgment will never come? If so, this is a flagrant abuse of that forbear­ance, which is in effect despising it, looking upon it with a feeling of contempt under pretense of honoring it.the riches of his goodness—The abundance and greatness of his kindness expressed in bestowing favors and withholding punishment.and forbearance and longsuffering,—[The difference be­tween “ forbearance” and “ longsuffering” is, the former de­notes the disposition to bear long, while the latter denotes the outward manifestation of the disposition in patience.] God holds back his vengeance for a while. He suffers long. He who thinks he can continue to live in sin with impunity, because he has gone so long unpunished, may fancy that he is magnifying God’ s goodness; but in reality he is abusing his forbearance and despising his long-suffering by his con­temptuous unconcern as to the righteous purpose of it.not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to re­pentance?—An ignorance resulting either from willful disin­clination to know or willful neglect of the means of knowing, possibly both. God’ s patiently bearing the ill use which the Jews made of the privileges they enjoyed as his people was designed to bring them to repentance.

Jesus was long-suffer­ing, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Long-suffering is another name for patient forbearance.

Jesus did not wink at or cease to con­demn the wrong; he constantly in precept and in his life held up the truth, but gave them time and opportunity to learn and turn. He did not speedily execute the law on them for their errors of failures to learn the whole truth. This is the course we should pursue toward our fellow men, especially toward those trying to serve the Lord, yet failing to see the full truth. [The same thought is expressed by Peter: “ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slack­ness; but is long-suffering to youward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9).]Romans 2:5but after thy hardness and impenitent heart—Instead of being led to repentance by his goodness and forbearance they had hardened their hearts and used his forbearance to still further sin against him. [The word “ hardness” is used to denote insensibility of mind. It literally means that which is insensible to the touch, or that on which no impression is made by contact, as granite or steel. Hence, it is applied to the mind to denote a state when there is no motive or impres­sion, which is insensible to all appeals made to it. (Matthew 19:8; Matthew 25:24; Acts 19:9). Here it expresses a state of mind where the goodness and forbearance of God have no effect.]treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath—They had pursued the course that treasured up a severer judgment and called down on them the deeper wrath of God. [They added day by day to their sins, and therefore to the anger of God, hidden now as in a treasure house, but in safe-keeping.]and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;—[While the judgment day will reveal God’ s wrath, it will also reveal to all, both good and bad, to all intelligences of the universe, that God is righteous; that not only in the last act of judg­ment, but in all his dealings and dispensations, he judges righteously.]Romans 2:6who will render to every man according to his works:—God will render to every man, whether Jew or Gentile, accord­ing to the works he did while in the body.

He will execute judgment with an impartial hand. [This strips from the Jew all hope of partiality. In the great day of final accounts God will not know him as a Jew.

His descent from Abraham will not be known, neither will his circumcision. He will only be a human being, and as such will stand before God. Thus will the Jew stand on a level with all other men.]Romans 2:7to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:—[Paul now divides man­kind into two great classes— those who obey God and those who obey unrighteousness. To the first class God will render eternal life; to the second, wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish.] Those who seek for glory and honor and in­corruption, through faith in doing the will of God, shall re­ceive eternal life. “ Glory” denotes the highest happiness and distinction which the saved will attain; “ honor,” the esteem in which they shall be held; and “ incorruption” is the freedom from suffering and decay and absolute exemption from sin and impurity. God only has incorruption and immortality. Man is eternal in existence, but will be given immortality as the reward of his seeking it.Romans 2:8but unto them that are factious,—[Those who act in the spirit of a hireling, or in a spirit of factiousness and self­seeking.

Such persons generally cause factions and intrigues. They spread evil principles, and maintain them by keen disputings.

This is the vice of many now, who dispute them­selves into unbelief of the plainest principle laid down in the Bible and viciously argue in support of the most impious things which atheists, infidels, skeptics, and agnostics propa­gate with a view to destroying the religion of Christ and to defend their own vicious principles and practices, as is boldly proclaimed by the Association for the Advancement of Athe­ism as follows: “ It seeks to remove the cause of intolerance. Its main purpose is to wage war on religion itself. In accom­plishing this purpose we shall begin by attacking theism, the taproot of the upas tree of religious superstition. There is no God, and our supreme effort will be to free mankind from the fear of a nonentity. The worshiping of a verbal idol must end. Our methods will be in keeping with our principles.

No concessions will be made. . . . Christianity, as one of the worst forms of theism, must give way to the humanism of the enlightened pagans, wherein man, not God, is the meas­ure of things.

The decadent philosophy of the New Testa­ment, with its unnatural ethics and insane sex ideas, debasing the race, fills the world with the unfit. . . . The morality lie will be refuted. Faith in the supernatural neither insures nor promotes good conduct.” ]and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness,—[They willfully refuse to do everything God requires of them, and they do everything God forbids them to do.]shall be wrath and indignation,—[“ Wrath” expresses per­manent feeling and settled disposition. “The wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36). “ Indignation” is the momen­tary impulse or actual outbreak of wrath on the day of judg­ment.]Romans 2:9tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil,—Misery of all descriptions, without the possi­bility of escape, will this righteous Judge inflict upon every man that doeth evil. Of course, this takes for granted that the sinner has passed through life in sin, or has never repented and been forgiven.]of the Jew first,—To the Jew first only because he had been favored above all others, and had fuller knowledge, and, there­fore, deeper responsibility.and also of the Greek;—This word, though usually denoting the Greek, includes the other Gentiles also. The two words, “ Jew” and “ Greek,” include the whole human family.Romans 2:10but glory and honor and peace to every man that work­eth good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:—To all who work good God will bring honor and peace. These blessings shall come first to the Jew, then to the Greek. [As in the matter of punishment the Jew outranks the Greek because of his failure to take advantage of his better opportunities, so in the matter of blessing the same unbiased justice gives him pre­eminence because of the better life.]Romans 2:11for there is no respect of persons with God.—God does not deal with men by partiality, for one against another; “ but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous­ness, is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:35). [To respect a person is to be partial to him on account of his family rela­tionship, wealth, learning, social or political standing.

As God does not respect persons, the Jew stands before him on the same ground as the Greek; so that, without some new means of approach, he is lost. If he can be made to see the hopelessness of his trust in his being a son of Abraham, his circumcision, his legal religion, and the partiality of God, he will be prepared for the message of “ justification through faith in Christ.” To this end the apostle steadily advances.]Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law:—The Gentiles had been without law, yet sinned.

They were without law because they were gross sinners and refused to honor the Lawgiver and obey the law. During all the ages of the Jewish nation any Gentile could come under and obey the law by becoming a Jew. Then so soon as Gentiles were willing to obey God they were blessed. If the Gentiles, who were without law, sin, God will punish without the law because they would not obey the law.and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;—But if the Jews under the law sin, they will be con­demned by the law, and so perish. All who sin, whether within the law or without the law, perish. If any who are not under the law, the Gentiles, come to know the things that are in the law, and of their own choice do the things of the law, they become a law unto themselves, and, doing the things contained in the law of their own free will, show that the works required by the law are written in their hearts.

They obey the law not because they are under the law, but because in their hearts they love the things contained in the law, so they will be saved by the law. All persons out of Christ are in a lost condition, and can be saved only by the redemption that is found in Christ.Romans 2:13for not the hearers of the law are just before God,—The Jews heard the law, but did not obey it.

Hearing the law will not help a man unless he obeys it. For a man to hear the law and refuse to do it renders him less excusable and more worthy of stripes. “ And that servant, who knew his lord’ s will, and made not ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47).but the doers of the law shall be justified;—Only those who do the law will be justified by the law.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;—The reference here made is to the law of Moses. This does not imply that the Gentiles, who do not know the law, can obey the law which the Jews with the knowledge of God could not keep. But in vindication of the justice of this dealing with the Gentiles, he assumes that even though God did not give the law to them, yet when they did by nature, not by command, the things of the law, they be­came the law unto themselves, and were accepted. Many Gentiles, like Cornelius, living among the Jews, attracted by the superiority of the God of the Jews and the holiness of his law, while not formally coming under it, rendered homage to it without becoming Jews. In the days of Solomon there were one hundred fifty-three thousand six hundred such per­sons in Judah. (2 Chronicles 2:17).Romans 2:15in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts,—Those who, while not under the law, yet keep it, show that it is written on their hearts.

Their affections have taken hold of it, and they do it because they, from the heart, fear God and his law. This cannot mean that their hearts prompted them to do what was in the law while ignorant of it, but that the heart— the understanding, the will, the affections— would embrace the law, and then they would obey the law of the new covenant because they loved God.

So this means that the Gentiles might know the law, and while it was not given to them, they might from love of it keep it, and in so doing become a law unto themselves.their conscience bearing witness therewith,—Their con­science in such cases would bear witness to their love and obedience to the law, for conscience is a witness of what passes within the heart.and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excus­ing them);—[They reasoned among themselves on questions of right and wrong, as well as on acts of right or wrong. In these reasonings they criminated or defended one another according to the facts in the case. They thus showed their knowledge of duty, or of the things which the law required.] This passage is often quoted to prove that man can be saved without obeying the commands of God. No passage in the Bible is further from this. Even those not having the law must be saved through doing the things contained in the law. Compliance with the law is the essential prerequisite.

Hence, conscience is not a law even unto those who have not God’ s law. The province assigned to conscience is that it bears witness as to whether the person did the service from the heart, with the thoughts accusing or excusing.

A man, to render acceptable service, must have a good conscience; but a promise of divine blessing is nowhere made to one who keeps his conscience pure. A good and understanding heart is needful to acceptable service; yet no blessing is promised to an understanding heart, even of the word of God. On the other hand, Paul says: “ If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2). These are conditions of acceptable service; but in themselves they do not secure acceptance, save as they lead on to the obedience of the gospel. Verses 25-27 confirm this conclusion.Romans 2:16in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men,— This verse connects with verse 12. The three verses between are parenthetical and explanatory.

So the connection is: as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.according to my gospel,—All secrets and hidden things of man will be laid open by God in the last day by Jesus Christ in the light of the truths preached by Paul. [Paul was en­trusted with the gospel to make it known, and that one of the great prime articles was that God would judge the world. To make this known he was appointed, and it could be called his gospel only as being a part of the important message with which he was entrusted.]by Jesus Christ.—[That Jesus is the appointed Judge of men is plainly and repeatedly affirmed in the Scriptures. (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:22; John 5:27; Acts 17:31; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10).]Romans 2:17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew,—He describes in this and the following verses the self-confident and boastful condition of the Jews.

They were now the representatives of the stock of Abraham. All the families of Jacob had been swallowed up in that of Judah. [In their estimation the name “ Jew” carried with it a high and peculiar distinction. Paul, being himself a Jew, knew well the sense in which the Jew used it, and could, therefore, speak advisedly. It was the national name in which the greatest pride was felt, and the verbal badge which marked them better than others. How much they presumed upon this name we learn from Galatians 2:15; Philippians 3:5; Revelation 2:9.and restest upon the law,—They were content to rest upon the mere fact that they had the law. [A description of their condition is strikingly given in the following: “ The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet they lean upon Jehovah, and say, Is not Jehovah in the midst of us? no evil shall come upon us.” (Micah 3:11). The law to which reference was made is that given by Moses.

In their estimation, its bare bestowment on them proved them to be the favored of God above all others. Confident of this favor, they had no fear.

But the law was not a thing to be simply had; it was a thing to be obeyed. In this lay their safety.]and gloriest in God,—They boasted that they were the fa­vored of God after the flesh, as if he were their guardian. [To boast in God or in Christ is right (Galatians 6:14), if it proceeds from a sense of weakness and unworthiness, and a corre­sponding sense of the goodness of God as our sure refuge and strength; but where the boast is only a boast arising from bigotry and conceit, it is a sham on which God frowns.]Romans 2:18and knowest his will,—They possessed the divine reve­lation and claimed to know God’ s will. [It is right and highly commendable to know God’ s will, and culpable not to know it when there is opportunity. The wrong, then, lies not in know­ing his will, but in regarding the mere knowledge as a mark of superiority and ground of acceptance with God. It is not knowing that makes one better than another, but doing. The point made against it is that, although he knew God’ s will, he did not obey it. He did more; he even sunk to the level of the Gentile in vice.]and approvest the things that are excellent,—They claimed that they understood and judged that which is best. [Their education the more highly qualified them to distinguish be­tween the things that differ and approve correctly as to which is right or wrong.]being instructed out of the law,—Having been instructed out of the law of Moses from childhood, they claimed superior­ity of judgment in these matters. [This they did by the aid of better light, but practiced the worse.

This they did from a perverted nature and a corrupted heart. This is the charge made against them.]Romans 2:19and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind,—[There is no trait of the Jewish character more promi­nently exhibited than their self-confident superiority to all others.] They never doubted their knowledge of the truth and of their ability to guide and teach the Gentiles, whom they regarded as blind and in darkness and alienation from God.

They thought they had greatly improved the law of God by the customs and traditions of the elders.a light of them that are in darkness,—[The rabbis frequently called themselves “ the light of the world,” and every Jew who was versed in the law considered himself as a light to the Gentiles.]Romans 2:20a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes,—They felt confident that they were able to correct the foolish and teach the babes.having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;— They had the form, or letter, of knowledge and truth in the law, but did not perceive or drink of the true spirit of the law; did not take it into the heart so that it might become a power to mold their hearts and lives. [It was this that rendered their condemnation so sure.]Romans 2:21thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?—As a result of their holding the form of truth with­out drinking into the spirit of it, they did not practice what they professed. They did not practice what they taught others.thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?—While they taught the law, “ Thou shalt not steal,” they themselves stole, cheated, defrauded, and misrepresented. [They were gross hypocrites. While preaching against a sin. they themselves at the very time were committing it. We must not, however, suppose that every Jew was a thief. It is only necessary to suppose that the sin was very general. It is introduced to make the inconsistency of their conduct more apparent.

We expect a man to set an example of what he means by his public instruction.]Romans 2:22thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery?—There is no doubt that this was a very common practice among the Jews, showing itself in the corrupt practice of permitting divorce without reasonable or righteous cause. Moses, on account of the hardness of their hearts, had allowed them to put away their wives for any cause and to take others if they so desired.

This was adultery in the sight of God. They had not taken the true spirit of the law into their hearts, which was to have one wife. The twain became one.thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?—They were horror-stricken at the very mention of idols, but they themselves in various ways committed sacrilege, profaned the law of God by setting it aside and substituting human tradi­tions for it. [Anything devoted to God and then used for some other purpose is sacrilege.] We rob God when we withhold from him the honor which is due him, and this is robbing him in a higher sense than to keep or misuse the gold or silver that was sanctified to him. To substitute any­thing else for God as the object of our devotion and affections is sacrilege in a spiritual sense. “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10).Romans 2:23thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?—He makes the direct charge that while they boasted of being the guardians of, and sup­porters of, the law, they dishonored God in breaking it, while professing obedience to it. One guilty of great and open sins is forbidden to accuse others, and none can make ground­less and uncertain accusations against any. When an accusa­tion is made, if denied or in any part doubted, a fair and just adjudication should be made of the matter.

Christians have faults. The aim of the Christian religion is to correct these faults.

They are to help each other. They are to do it as tenderly and kindly as one helps another that has some fleshly hurt, and the reproof that is given to help should be received with hearts as grateful as for help given to relieve a fleshly wound. Sometimes the help given to relieve a fleshly wound is painful at the time, but we feel and cherish no ill feeling toward one who hurts the flesh in helping us. We ought to be as kind in feeling for spiritual help that will save us from a spiritual death. “ He who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19).Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,—So that God’ s name was reproached and blas­phemed among the Gentiles through the violation of the law by the Jews. Their course of sin was such that it caused the Gentiles to despise and blaspheme the name of God.even as it is written.—[The allusion is to Isaiah 52:5; Ezekiel 36:18-24. The dishonor done to God arose from their greed of gain, their deceit, and their hypocrisy, which were fully known to the Gentiles, among whom they lived.

Paul weaves the prophetic rebuke into the tissue of his own language, but by the “ as it is written” he reminds his readers that he is adapting it from their own inspired Scriptures. Thus far Paul has shown that the Jew is a sinner like the Gentile.

The next step will be to drive him from his refuge in the rite of circumcision. This was the outward mark which distin­guished him from his heathen neighbor and showed him to be a descendant of Abraham.]Romans 2:25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law:—Circumcision was the mark of the Jews, and was given to bind or consecrate them to the service of God. But it profited only when those circumcised kept the law which circumcision pledged them to do. [The statement just made in verses 23, 24, which summed up the charge against the sin­ful Jew, is now corroborated. This turn in thought is not abrupt, for the Jew would at once answer the indictment by adducing his privileges as one circumcised. On this he staked probably more than on any other fact of his history. That the value of circumcision was contingent on his keeping the law was certainly something new to him.

It was disastrous to his hope. If the law is not kept, being a son of Abraham, having the law, and being circumcised are useless.

Everything de­pends on keeping the law. The same general principle holds good under the gospel. One thing is void without another. Faith is worthless without repentance, and so is baptism with­out faith; and coming into Christ is useless unless it is fol­lowed by a life of devotion to God.]but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.—Circumcision was a seal and pledge of God’ s blessings to those who kept the law. It was a seal of unfaithfulness to those who did not keep the law and assured the deeper condemnation.Romans 2:26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circum­cision?—If those who are not circumcised, the Gentiles, keep the law, then the righteousness they acquire in keeping the law is counted to them for circumcision— that is, makes them children of Abraham. The keeping of the righteousness set forth in the law was the thing aimed at; and if the Gentiles, who were uncircumcised, kept the law, then the ends of cir­cumcision were accomplished better than with those who were circumcised, but kept not the law. [But there is a difference which must not be overlooked.

For a Jew not to be circum­cised was not the same as for a Gentile not to be circumcised. In that case the Jew broke God’ s covenant (Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:3), but not so in case of the Gentile.

But after the Jew became circumcised, then unless he kept the law his cir­cumcision amounted to nothing.]Romans 2:27and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature,—[The persons in question uncircumcised in virtue of their Gen­tile birth.]if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and cir­cumcision art a transgressor of the law?—If the uncircum­cision, who were not under the law and to whom it was not given, with fewer advantages, keep it, they condemn the cir­cumcision, who, with better advantages and with the seal of circumcision, fail to keep the law— just as the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with that generation be­cause it refused to hear the One greater than Solomon. (Matthew 12:42). The interpretation given to verses 13-16 harmonizes with these verses.Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly;—The name “ Jew” as here used means the true servant of God who kept the law and walked in the steps of Abraham. He is not onewho observed the outward form of the law, but failed from the heart to keep its precepts. neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:—The outward circumcision, without this circumcision of the heart, goes for nothing. Paul is here making an application of the truths presented unto those under the law of Christ.Romans 2:29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter;—He is a true Jew approved of God who is one inwardly, and the circum­cision is that of the heart. He alone who is such commends himself to God, who sees the secrets of the heart. The hidden man of the heart, and not the outward Jew, with his outward circumcision and mere letter, will meet with the approval of God. Hence, Paul says: “ In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12). And: “ For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:3). [In the word “ inwardly" Paul lays his first corner­stone of the foundation of the edifice in Jesus Christ, and breaks the ground for the gospel.

In this soil it is to take root and grow. Faith is within—“ with the heart man be­lieveth unto righteousness” (Romans 10:10)— and justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). We have here the first note of preparation for “ the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:24). When men’ s thoughts are turned from the without to the within, the primary work of salvation is fully begun.]whose praise is not of men, but of God.—[The Jew, as we have seen, made his boasts and praised his privileges; but though the true Jew, such as Paul describes, shall be ill spoken of by men, he shall have the praise of God. The whole section shows that religious privileges, resulting from birth, the revelation of God’ s will, ritual observances, and knowledge, increase the guilt of those whose morality does not correspond. The Jews, especially the Pharisees, were very eager for the praise of men; but the true Jew, the real child of Abraham by faith, will have what is infinitely better — the praise of God.]

“THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS”

Chapter Two IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To see how people without a direct revelation of God’s Will can still be lost

2. To see how people who may have a written Law from God are also in need of salvation

SUMMARY Having vividly depicted the condition of the Gentile world in chapter one, Paul now addresses his comments to those who pass judgment on others when they themselves are guilty of the same things (Romans 2:1). He points out that they are in danger of God’s righteous judgment, who “will render to each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:2-6). This judgment will offer either eternal life or wrath and indignation, given without partiality, and the decision is based on whether one does good or evil (Romans 2:7-11).

To justify the condemnation of Gentiles who did not have a written Law (like the Jews), Paul affirms that the Gentiles could “by nature do the things contained in the law” and that their own consciences will bear witness of their guilt on the day of judgment. In this way Paul demonstrated the Gentiles’ need of salvation (Romans 2:12-16).

Lest the Jews think their having the Law frees them from condemnation, Paul proceeds to demonstrate that they too are in need of salvation. Though they have the Law, their failure to keep it perfectly caused them to dishonor God and blaspheme His Name (Romans 2:17-24). Introducing a thought he will expand upon later in the epistle, he points out that a true Jew is one who is circumcised in his heart, and not just in the flesh (Romans 2:25-29).

OUTLINE (adapted from Jim McGuiggan)

I. THE ’ NEED OF (Romans 2:1-16) A. EVEN THE “JUDGES” WILL BE JUDGED (Romans 2:1-11)1. The inconsistent judge judges himself (Romans 2:1) 2. The hypocritical judge is judged by truth (Romans 2:2) 3. The foolish judge reasons poorly (Romans 2:3) 4. The presumptuous judge treasures up wrath (Romans 2:4-11)

B. NOT HAVING A “WRITTEN” LAW DOES NOT EXEMPT FROM (Romans 2:12-16)1. Those who sin will still perish (Romans 2:12) 2. The Gentiles DO have a law (Romans 2:13-15) 3. Jesus Christ will judge accordingly (Romans 2:16)

II. THE JEWS’ NEED OF (Romans 2:17-29) A. THE JEWS BY THEIR OWN LAW (Romans 2:17-24)1. The Jewish self-portrait (Romans 2:17-20) 2. The Jewish inconsistency and dishonor of God (Romans 2:21-24)

B. THE OF (Romans 2:25-29)1. Voided by transgressing the Law (Romans 2:25-27) 2. The true Jew is one circumcised in the heart, in the Spirit (Romans 2:28-29)

WORDS TO PONDER judgment - in some places, the idea is “discernment;” in other places “condemnation” is the idea - the context must determine

wrath - anger (in God’s case, a just displeasure in response to sin)

law - when preceded by the definite article “the” (in the Greek) it usually refers to the Law of Moses, otherwise it may refer to the principle of law in general; there are exceptions, and the context must determine

by nature - “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (THAYER)

conscience - that faculty of thought which makes moral judgments (either excusing or condemning our actions); developed through training

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. List the main points of this chapter- The Gentiles’ Need Of Salvation (Romans 2:1-16)

• The Jews’ Need Of Salvation (Romans 2:17-29)

2. Why is one who passes judgment without excuse? (Romans 2:1)- They are guilty of the same thing and so condemn themselves

3. How does God try to lead one to repentance? (Romans 2:4)- Through kindness, forbearance, and longsuffering

4. What is the reward given to those who do good? To those who do evil? (Romans 2:9-10)- Eternal life to those who do good; wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish to those who do evil

5. How will God judge those who do not have a “written” law? (Romans 2:14-16)- The law of their conscience will condemn them when God judges the secrets of their hearts by Jesus Christ

6. Without a “written” Law, how did the Gentiles know the difference between right and wrong? (Romans 2:14-15)- “by nature” (note the definition above); they are able to do the things contained in the Law, for they have the “work of the Law” written in their hearts

7. Why were the Jews in need of salvation? (Romans 2:21-24)- Through inconsistency and disobedience to the Law, they dishonored God

Verse 1 God’s eternal, intrinsic righteousness is the theme Paul was developing in the latter part of Romans 1 and in the first 16 verses of this chapter, that part in chapter 1 being concerned with God’s righteousness in dealing with Gentiles, and the first 16 verses here referring to another class of persons, the non-Christian Jews. God’s inclusion of Israel, along with the entire race of man, and his judgment of all of them, Jews and Gentiles alike, as sinners, Paul justified in the first 16 verses of this chapter, the Jews also being included in the universal condemnation, not exclusively upon the premise of their rejection of Christ, although that was enough, but also upon the basis of their negative and inadequate response to God’s revelation in the Old Testament. The Jews had held, theoretically, to the teachings of the Old Testament, but had not obeyed it, and were just as excessively sinful as the Gentiles, and were here declared by Paul to have been guilty “of the same things” (Romans 2:1), a reference to the catalogue of 21 grievous sins of the reprobate Gentiles he had just recorded in Romans 2:28-29. The Jews had actually caused God’s name to be blasphemed (Romans 2:24); and yet, despite their abominable conduct, the Jews imagined that they would be exempted from God’s wrath, on the grounds of their being the children of Abraham, having the true revelation from God in the form of the Old Testament, and of holding to the covenant of circumcision. Obviously, no such exemption of Jewish sinners (or any others) could be reconciled with any concept of a just God; and, therefore, in these first 16 verses, Paul laid down a list of ten particulars, or principles, upon which God’s judgment of all people will be based. OF GOD’S ETERNAL . People are self-condemned when they practice what they condemn in others (Romans 2:1). II. God’s judgment will be according to the truth of the word of God, that is, his revealed word in the Bible (Romans 2:2). III. God’s goodness to sinful people does not indicate approval of their sins but longsuffering in hope of their repentance (Romans 2:4). IV. God’s judgment of man will be according to their works (Romans 2:6). V. God requires obedience of man and will punish disobedience (Romans 2:8). VI. Greater privilege only entails greater responsibility (Romans 2:9-10). VII. God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11). VIII. Judgment will be according to the light people have (Romans 2:14-15). IX. Judgment will be according to the New Testament (Romans 2:16). X. It will be through Jesus Christ, now constituted judge of all, and according to his word (Romans 2:16).LINES> The error found in a number of commentaries which would interpret these 16 verses as a castigation of “self-righteous Christians” requires a little deeper exploration into the question of just who was addressed by Paul here. We cannot agree with Lenski who imagined that the subject of these verses (Romans 2:1-16) is “the self-convicted moralist,"[1] because a careful reading of this passage shows that the people under consideration were not “moral” in any sense. There can be no reasonable doubt that the typical unbelieving Jew was the focus of Paul’s attention in this place. John Locke was certain that “By these words, Paul meant the Jews”;[2] and Murray logically defended that conviction thus: (1) The propensity to judge the Gentiles for their religious and moral perversity was peculiarly characteristic of the Jew. Hence, the address, “O man, whosoever thou art that judgest” identifies the Jew by means of his national characteristic. (2) The person being addressed is the participant of “the riches of his (God’s) goodness and forbearance and longsuffering,” which would indicate the riches of special grace such as the Jew’s enjoyed in the covenant privilege. (3) The argument of the apostle is to the effect that special privilege or advantage does not exempt from the judgment of God (Romans 2:3 Romans 2:6-11). The relevance to the Jew is apparent because this was an outstanding abuse of privilege on their part that, as the children of Abraham, they expected an indulgence not shared by others (Matthew 3:8-9; Luke 3:8; John 8:23 John 8:29 John 8:53; Galatians 2:15). Furthermore the priority accorded the Jew (in these very verses) in judgment (Romans 2:9) and in glory (Romans 2:10) indicates that the special privilege is that enjoyed by the Jew. (4) The express address to the Jew (Romans 2:17) would be rather abrupt if now for the first time the Jew is directly in view, whereas if the Jew is the person in view in the preceding verses, then the more express identification in Romans 2:17 is natural.[3]This complete, logical, and conclusive argument of Murray has been included here to foil the eagerness of commentators to apply all of these first 16 verses to their favorite whipping boy, “the conceited Christian who thinks he belongs to the true church”! The bias of all such writers is implicit in the truth which cannot logically be denied, that no “Christians” of any description whatsoever were under Paul’s consideration in these verses. [1] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 128. [2] John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 262. [3] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), vol. I, p. 55. Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practice the same things. (Romans 2:1) Thou art without excuse … is the same condemnation Paul hurled at the Gentile (Romans 1:20), and here it is applied likewise to the Jew, “O man,” as used in this passage, being more fully identified as bearing “the name of a Jew” (Romans 2:17), and as having the characteristic of judging other people. Thou dost practice the same things … is a reference to the long list of abominations catalogued as the shame of the Gentiles in the last chapter (Romans 2:28-29); and those persons here addressed are condemned as guilty of “the same things.” This is absolutely unreconcilable with such a view as Lenski’s: They have reformed, they see all this horrible wickedness of men, they turn against it, do it seriously, the Jewish moralist even with God’s own perfect law, and they deem this the way of escape for themselves as well as for others.[4]Absolutely no! The people here mentioned were non-Christian Jews who had refused to accept the Saviour, had projected their hatred of Christianity into the second generation, and at that very moment were intent on hunting Paul down and killing him, and who were declared by this apostle a little later in this very chapter to have been profaners of sacred things (Romans 2:22), thieves (Romans 2:21), adulterers (Romans 2:22), impenitent and hardhearted (Romans 2:5). Paul was affirming here that God’s conclusion of Jews under sin was upon exactly the same basis of his having so included the Gentiles, that is, upon the basis of their wickedness. They certainly had not reformed and seriously turned away from wickedness. The question of why, under the circumstances of their wickedness, Paul should have addressed any words at all to them is answered by the fact of the great influence those evil men were having upon Christians, especially those of Jewish background. No one besides Paul could have so appreciated the fact and power of that influence as did he; for he had been brought up a Pharisee, and was a noble Pharisee himself; and no person of that day could have better understood the Jewish syndrome than he. Paul was here concerned with destroying the hope of any person who ever thought or thinks that justification can ever come from anything except acceptance of and obedience to the gospel. Wherein thou judgest another … It was the peculiar guilt of those persons here spoken of that, despite their wickedness, they imagined themselves to have been the heirs of eternal life because of descent from Abraham, membership in the chosen race, circumcision, etc. Having so long experienced God’s goodness and mercy, they had come to suppose themselves entitled to it, and assumed that they would be saved regardless of their conduct. Yet, strangely enough, their own sins did not prevent them from looking upon those identical actions, when visible in others, as reprehensible and damnable. To any person, especially those of Jewish heritage, in the first century, this false sanctuary of the Jewish people (false because: (1) they had not lived up to its holy requirements, and (2) because when Christ came, the old covenant itself had been abrogated) was indeed a temptation, for it advocated a cheap and easy salvation unrelated to any requirements of righteous living. The same temptation exists today when people think to be saved through membership in some group, or the acceptance of some theological doctrine, as for example, salvation by faith alone, or because they have been baptized, or because they attend church, or partake of the Lord’s supper - or upon any grounds whatever apart from obedient faith in Christ’s teaching and that holiness invariably identified with membership in the body of Christ. Thou condemnest thyself … Here is the first of the ten principles of eternal judgment outlined by Paul in this passage. The well-known position of the adherent to Jewish privilege as the basis of hope was something like this: “Oh yes, of course, we deplore such sins as you mention; but you cannot put us in the class with that riff-raff, for we are the children of Abraham, heirs of the promises of God to the patriarchs, and members of the chosen people. God always looks after us; and we shall be judged upon the basis of who we are, rather than upon what we do!” If it be thought that this is too strong a statement of their views, the Jewish writings themselves fully corroborate the attitude thus attributed to them. For example, in the book of Akedath Jizehak (fol. 54, Colossians 2), it is taught that: “Abraham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there."[5] So strong was the feeling on circumcision that Paul devoted a special section to it a little later. A whole generation earlier, John the Baptist had warned the Jews against trusting in any such thoughts (Matthew 3:8), but his warning had not been taken to heart. Paul proceeded to refute this type of spiritual arrogance by outlining the true basis upon which God’s judgment rests; and the very first of ten principles laid down is: I. People are self-condemned when they practice what they condemn in others. This proposition, like all the others Paul outlined, is corroborated and backed up by the other sacred writers. Thus, “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things” (1 John 3:20). Before leaving this first verse, an explanation of Paul’s style should be noted. As Greathouse observed: Paul is here addressing his readers in the ancient diatribe style. Throughout the epistle, it will be easier to follow his argument if we imagine the apostle face to face with a heckler who interrupts his argument from time to time with an objection, which Paul then proceeds to answer, first rebuking with a “God forbid!” (Perish the thought) and then demolishing with a reasoned answer.[6][4] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 129. [5] Charles Hodge, Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 63. [6] William M. Greathouse (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 60. Verse 2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practice such things.In this verse, as in the preceding, it is the CONDUCT of people which is condemned, a fact reiterated throughout this section. Paul was not speaking of “moralists,” either Jewish or Christian, but of bold and arrogant sinners. Paul’s “we know” was his method of stating an axiom of truth relative to God, namely, that God’s judgments are righteous, and according to truth itself; and therefore God’s judgments, especially his condemnation of gross sinners, derive from the abhorrent character of their deeds, and will not be averted by any claimed exemptions on their part. According to truth … Here is the second proposition of ten principles in God’s judgment of man. It will be “according to truth,” that is, according to what God’s word in the Bible teaches, for this is a plain reference to the Sacred Scriptures which will form the grounds of man’s eternal judgment in the last day. Such passages as “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17), etc., show this is true. Also, Christ said, He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48). Verse 3 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?Thus the second of the ten principles is: II. People will be judged according to the Bible. This verse makes it clear that Paul’s real subject in this paragraph is the judgment of God and the basis upon which same will be executed. Those persons who thought that God’s Judgment would ever be exercised upon partial and unequal judgments were fantastically wrong. Paul here exclaimed in utter astonishment at the foolishness of persons who fancied that they might escape the judgment of God when they were condemned even by their own consciences, a self-condemnation just mentioned in verse 1. If a man cannot escape his own judgment against himself, how could he ever hope to stand before the holy God? As Wuest expressed it: The Jew certainly thought, in many cases, that the privilege of his birth would of itself assure his entrance into the kingdom (Matthew 3:8-9), this having been his practical conviction, whatever was his proper creed.[7]It was for the purpose of refuting such widespread errors regarding God’s judgment that Paul sternly propounded the true principles of it in these verses. ENDNOTE: [7] Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 40. Verse 4 Or despised thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?Here is the third great principle of divine judgment: III. God’s goodness to sinners is not a sign that he approves of sin but that he looks to their repentance. The goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, called here “the riches” of God, have reference to the special privileges of the covenant people, the Jews, who again were answered by Paul in the form of a diatribe. The argument which was refused is: “God has been very good to us, and therefore we shall continue to expect goodness and favor at his hands.” The argument is false because it is founded on a misunderstanding of the purpose of God’s goodness, which is not to show approval of people’s sins, but to extend to them further opportunities of repentance, and to persuade them by means of such goodness. Despise … means “to look down upon,” or “to place a low estimate upon” something of far greater value than is recognized by the despiser. This is exactly what was done by those people, who treated the goodness and longsuffering of God as if it had been a tacit approval of their wickedness, and made it the basis of presumption that they would not finally be condemned. Of special interest is the revelation here that God’s goodness is designed to lead people to repentance, it being apparent that if God’s goodness cannot lead people to repentance, nothing else can. The response of the soul to all the mercies of heaven, the response of the human individual to all the joys, benefits, and privileges of life, as given to men by the heavenly Father that response is the God-implanted instinct of gratitude to the Creator, to the end that people should seek after God, draw near to him, and serve him with joy, and certainly not for the purpose of allowing people to feel presumptuously secure in their sins. Thus, in this verse there is continued emphasis upon the master theme, of Romans, that of the righteousness of God, his righteous being the particular aspect of it considered here. Note that this is also true of the next verse. Verse 5 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.The day of … Thus Paul followed the teaching of the Saviour who made repeated reference to “the day of judgment” (Matthew 7:22 Matthew 11:22-24, etc.). Impenitent heart … shows the wrong response to God’s goodness, the purpose of which was to lead men to repent, but which had been perverted by some who had accepted it as tacit approval of THEIR wickedness, and with the result of hardness and impenitence in their hearts. How paradoxical that the very goodness of God which should have produced penitence, as intended, produced instead an arrogant, hard-hearted impenitent, who by such misuse of God’s goodness had treasured up for himself a terrible weight of wrath in the last day. The same paradox is evident in the influence of the gospel, as Paul said, For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; and to the other a savor from life unto life (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). Treasurest up … God will reward iniquity. As Hodge noted, “To treasure up” is to lay up little by little, a store of anything whether good or evil The abusers of God’s goodness accumulate a store of wrath for themselves.[8]ENDNOTE: [8] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 49. Verse 6 Who will render to every man according to his works.Those who fancy that Paul’s special brand of salvation was by faith without any works at all find here an insurmountable denial that he taught any such thing. On the other hand, it is plainly stated in this passage of holy writ that one of the great principles of eternal judgment is, IV. God will judge people according to their works. Moreover, Paul’s reason for so emphatically stating this principle in the beginning of Romans is apparent. Its inspired author was about to write the great dissertation which would stress salvation by faith in Christ, and was about to include many things in it that are capable of being misunderstood and abused; accordingly, he took caution here at the very outset to guard against those very misapplications of his words which he doubtless foresaw, and which misapplications have become in these present times the basic platform of a so-called “gospel” utterly unknown to Paul, at variance with practically the entire New Testament, and contradictory of Rom 2:6, above. We do not refer to the gospel of salvation by faith, or faith in Christ, or by grace, or by the grace of God, salvation in those terms being Pauline indeed; but reference is made to salvation by “faith alone,” “faith only,” or by “faith and nothing else.” The great Protestant heresy founded upon the theory of an “imputed righteousness” solely as a result of faith alone contradicts Romans 2:6 in this place as well as countless other plain words of scripture. Romans 2:6 makes it clear that on the judgment day every man will be rewarded according to his deeds. Only the good will be saved; and only the bad will be lost. This was the same doctrine Paul wrote the Corinthians: For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, whether it be good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10). Also, if Paul’s teaching with reference to salvation by faith in Christ had been intended to negate the teaching of this verse, it is inconceivable that he would have thrust this statement into such prominence here. Out of regard to the ages-old conflict of religious views in this sector of thought, and in recognition of their importance, both practically and theoretically, some little space is here devoted to an exploration of this theme. FAITH AND WORKSThe New Testament declares definitely and positively that a man is justified by faith and that he is justified by works. That this is surely true appears from the following two verses, both of them from the New Testament, and here placed side by side for comparison: Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith (James 2:24). In the light of the above two verses, it is just as true that a man is saved by works ALONE as that he is saved by faith ALONE; but, of course, the word of God says neither thing. Therefore, any proposition to the effect that man is saved, or justified, by work ALONE, or by faith ALONE, contradicts a plain statement of the word of God. Whatever the correct view may be, it must, of necessity, be one that does not contradict any statement of the scriptures; and from the two verses cited, it is revealed as a certainty that the justification of sinners in Gods sight is contingent upon BOTH faith and works. Significantly, Paul brought both faith and works together in a single text addressed to the Galatians: For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love (Galatians 5:6). First, attention is directed to a class of New Testament statements which, upon first glance, appear to contradict James’ statement (James 2:24) that men are justified by works; but it must continually be borne in mind that James did not say people are justified by works ALONE. These are statements to the effect that man’s salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9), “not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves” (Titus 3:5), and “therefore, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Romans 3:20). In all such references to works which are alleged to have no part in justification, different classes, or kinds, of works are in view. Therefore, to determine what kind of work entered into the justification mentioned by James, it is necessary to classify works in the same manner that they were classified by the sacred writers. Seven classes of works are distinguished in the New Testament: (1) Works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), the same being principally the indulgence of lusts, passions, etc. (2) The works of Satan, specifically, lying and murder (John 8:44), all sins being in one sense works of Satan, but these being specifically so-called by Christ himself. (3) The works of men, including all human achievements from building of the Great Wall of China to walking on the moon. The works of the law of Moses (Romans 3:20). (5) The works of moral goodness. The moralist follows a path of behavior parallel in many places to the Christian life; but between the two ways there is a river wide and deep, the river of the blood of Christ. Both Cornelius and the rich young ruler are New Testament examples of morally upright persons who were unsaved. (6) The works of human righteousness (Romans 10:3) are those religious activities of people which derive their authority from people alone and not from God, being the ceremonies and doctrines people themselves devised and having not the Creator as their author. Such are the traditions, precepts, and commandments of men denounced by Christ himself (Matthew 15:9). (7) A seventh New Testament classification of works is called the “work of faith” (1 Thessalonians 1:3). This work is clearly in a class by itself and may be defined as any action whatever undertaken or discharged by man in to a divine commandment. Here is the key to untangling the most persistent theological problem from the days of Martin Luther and the Reformers until the present. The doctrine of justification by faith ALONE was first advocated by Martin Luther; but he ran into what seemed an impossible contradiction of his theory in James 2:24, which was said to have raised some question in Luther’s mind for a while regarding the canonicity of James. Modern reverberations of the supposed conflict between Paul and James (though actually between Luther and James) have continued to echo through succeeding generations, the wide-spread heresy that salvation “through faith” releases people from the necessity of obeying the Lord’s commandments, especially the commands requiring baptism, the Lord’s supper, etc. And how is the problem resolved? Quite simply. Where Paul stated that people are not justified by works, let it be determined which works he meant; and where James wrote that a man is justified by works, let it be determined what kind of works he meant. It is perfectly easy to discover both. Paul, in his repeated affirmations that men are not saved by works, never had reference to the work of faith (No. 7, above); and James never had in mind anything except the work of faith. Thus Paul’s teaching was directed against any notion that keeping the works of the law of Moses could save, or any personal morality apart from Christianity could justify.

Another type of works which Paul categorically rejected as being the basis of salvation was called the work of human righteousness, and referred to religious practices of mere human authority (No. 6, above). A little diligence on the part of any student will show what a vital distinction this is. James gave examples of how certain persons were justified by works; and in every case, the “work” was an obedient act to a divine command, as when Abraham offered Isaac, etc. That Paul also accepted the principle stated by James that justification is due to such actions of obedient faith is clear from Romans 2:6 in this chapter and from Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26. In fact, Romans 2:6 here is absolutely equivalent to saying that man is justified by works, not the other kinds, but the works of faith. Romans 2:6 harmonizes absolutely with James 2:24.

Therefore, Paul’s frequent words, to the effect that people are not saved by works, never have reference to the “work of faith” which he himself announced as one of the glories of the Thessalonian church (1 Thessalonians 1:3). If he had meant any such thing, he never could have written Romans 2:6. When James spoke of justification by works, he did not refer to any of the works set at naught by Paul, When James stated that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar, that inspired author made it impossible to misunderstand the kind of works that justified Abraham. What kind of work was the offering of Isaac? It was an act of obedience to God’s command; had it not been that, it would have been murder, hence a work of the devil; and that is exactly the difference that turns upon the question of who commanded a given action. Specifically, this principle applies to every humanly derived innovation in worship and to all human religious ordinances without divine authority. But for the Christian, the kind of works by which he is justified are, as in Abraham’s case, the doing of what God has commanded. Such things as repentance, baptism, the Lord’s supper, etc., are thus not acts of human righteousness, nor works of human beings in any sense whatever, but are the work of faith. Thus there can be no excuse for minimizing the great imperatives of the gospel of Christ on the basis that people are saved by faith, for they are also saved by the work of faith and will be thus judged eternally (Romans 2:6). People are saved by faith when they believe and obey the gospel. Titus 3:5 has this: Not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. This passage is frequently cited in support of the view that such acts of obedience as baptism are not necessary, but the specific reference to baptism in the last clauses of that verse proves that the ordinance of baptism, even when submitted to by believers, is not to be considered a work of human righteousness in any sense. It is, on the contrary, a work of faith, having been commanded and required of all people by none other than Christ himself. “Works done in righteousness” is a reference to religious actions outside of God’s commands, that is, to works other than those of faith. To set aside one of Jesus’ own commands on the basis that such is a work of human righteousness is to ignore distinctions made by the holy apostles themselves. Therefore, it is not out of harmony with the true teachings of scripture to declare that people are saved by faith and that they are also saved by works, or the work of faith. Note the following passages of the word of God: If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17). Men and brethren, what shall we do? … Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to work (Philippians 2:12). Repent and do the first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick out of its place (Revelation 2:6). Faith without works is dead, being alone (James 2:17). Then may people trust God, believing in Christ with all their hearts, and obey the gospel. Even when they have done that, and everything else within their power to do, people do not become their own saviour; although, in a sense, those who obey are scripturally said to “save themselves” (Acts 2:40). No amount of righteous living, or of good works, can place God in the position of owing salvation to any person. Salvation is the free gift of Almighty God; but it is also conditional, there being revealed in the New Testament pre-conditions which must be fulfilled by people in order to comply with the terms upon which the free salvation is given. Faith is such a pre-condition; and the obedience of faith is another. Reference to these distinctions will be made throughout this commentary. Verse 7 To them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factions, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation.Here is another unequivocal declaration of a master principle underlying God’s judgment, the fifth in this passage: V. God will reward well-doing and punish disobedience. These verses connect closely with Romans 2:6 and show the manner of God’s judging people according to their works. Together, these verses declare dogmatically that well-doers shall inherit eternal life and that the disobedient shall receive wrath and tribulation. Whiteside saw a definition of eternal life in Romans 2:7. So far as this text shows, eternal life consists of glory, honor, and incorruption - a happy existence in the heavenly kingdom. … Eternal life is conditional, for eternal life must be sought by patience and well-doing. In the 8th and 9th verses, Paul affirms that tribulation and anguish will be visited upon those who do evil. If damnation is conditional, then salvation also must be conditional. 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.[9]“Doing” and “obeying” are made to be the basis of being saved, and “obeying not” is established as the basis of being lost; and such was no new concept with the apostle Paul.

It invariably entered into all his letters. For example, he wrote the Thessalonians: Rest with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus, who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8). It should be noticed in the above reference that Paul did not set up a special category for “disobedient believers,” who through faith and nothing but faith would be saved anyway! Nor yet was there provision made for another class of disobedient who had had God’s forensic righteousness transferred to them through faith only. ENDNOTE: [9] R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas: The Mannery Company, 1945), pp. 53-54. Verse 9 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.“To him that worketh not,” which Paul was to write in Romans 4:5, must be understood in conjunction with these verses where “worketh evil” and “worketh good” dogmatically are affirmed to be the basis of being saved or being lost. They cover exactly the same ground, but in the reverse order. In the previous two verses, the patient seekers of eternal life are contrasted with them that obey unrighteousness; and in these two verses, the soul that worketh evil is mentioned first and contrasted with him that worketh good. It is as though Paul had written: “Take it either going or coming, the judgment will be based upon what people do, whether or not they obey the Lord.” But more appears here in the repeated mention of “the Jew first.” This established the sixth principle of judgment, thus: VI. Greater privilege will only entail greater, responsibility. Far from having any kind of exemption, the Jew, due to his greater blessings, will actually receive priority in judgment, making either their damnation more severe, or their redemption more glorious than that of others. The same principle was enunciated by the apostle Peter thus: For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God: and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel? And if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? (1 Peter 4:17). Verse 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.This, of course, is the seventh principle of judgment: VII. There is no respect of persons with God. This crystal-clear statement of God’s impartiality hardly needs an interpretation. It simply means that God will judge people on the basis outlined in these verses, upon the basis of their deeds, whether good or bad, and not upon the basis of any fancied exemptions. The Jew will not be able to claim exemption on the basis of his descent from Abraham; and the Christian will be unable to claim exemption because he was a member of “good old Mother Church”! As in all the scriptures, the writings of the apostles complement each other and corroborate the doctrines taught. Thus, Peter’s comment on this same principle is just what one should have expected. He wrote: Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him (Acts 10:34-35). Respect of persons … according to Thayer, means: Partiality, the fault of one who is called on to requite or to give judgment, has respect to the outward circumstances of men, and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers as the more worthy, one who is rich, high born, or powerful, to another who is destitute of such gifts.[10]How reassuring it is to know that God will give just judgment, not after the prejudices of people, but according to truth and righteousness; and, although there is ground here for great assurance, there is likewise the basis of dreadful apprehension, when the essential unworthiness of all flesh in God’s sight is contemplated. ENDNOTE: [10] Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 43. Verse 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; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.In these verses, Paul began to deal with a dramatic difference between Jews and Gentiles. In the preceding verses, he had shown that God was no respector of persons, and that he would judge Jew and Gentile alike upon the basis of their deeds, whether good or bad; but until these verses Paul had taken no account of the fact that the Jews had been the custodians of God’s divine revelation called “the law,” here and throughout Romans. The Gentiles had possessed no such advantage; and Paul, to continue his great argument relative to God’s intrinsic righteousness, was here concerned with showing how, under those diverse circumstances, God’s judgments would still be fair and impartial. The two great facts with regard to the Gentiles were: (1) that they had sinned, and (2) they had not received the law of Moses. For good and righteous reasons, already set forth in chapter 1, the Gentiles perished anyway because of their dreadful rebellion against God. The Jews, on the other hand, did have God’s law; but they never kept it. However, they were still to be judged upon the basis of the law they never kept, the mere fact of their having had it being in no sense a guarantee of a favorable judgment; “For not the hearers of the law, ,but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Not the hearers … is of interest and contrasts with “readers of the law,” which might have been expected; but Paul’s terminology was correct because most of the Jews, every sabbath day in the synagogues, heard the scriptures read, very few, if any of them, having copies of God’s word in their homes. Again, the words of an apostle confirm Paul’s declaration (rather they confirm each other), thus: But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing (James 1:22-25). That the actual doing of God’s law, whether the Old Testament law as it concerned the Jews or the perfect law of liberty as it concerns Christians (for James was talking about the latter), is required of those who would be saved is thus taught both by Paul and by James; and significantly, the very first reference to justification in the whole Roman letter is right here! There is no intimation in these words that any true justification, in the absolute sense, was ever achieved by any under the law of Moses; but, inasmuch as there were countless persons under that system who were saved, a justification sufficient to that Paul’s meaning is therefore to the effect that whoever was saved under the law of Moses was of the class called “doers” of God’s commandments, rather than mere hearers. Verse 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; 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).These verses reveal the eighth principle of divine judgment, namely, VIII. That God’s righteous judgment will take into account the light people had or did not have. Paul never implied in these verses that the ancient Gentiles were all saved, because they had lived up to all the light they had; for he repeatedly made it clear that they did not do that. This parenthesis, therefore, would best be viewed, it seems, as setting forth the basis of judgment. Those who believe that they find some basis for what is called Paul’s universalism in this passage must go beyond what is written in order to do so. Paul’s intimation that Gentiles might do by nature the things of the law shows that the eternally righteous God will certainly take into account all of the good conduct of any Gentiles whose lives might warrant doing so, even though they were not under a specific law like the Jews; but the practical verdict had already been stated in verse 12, “that as many as sinned without law shall also perish without law.” From this, and the whole tenor of Paul’s letter, it is clear that Paul’s great proposition is that both Jews and Gentiles have failed to achieve any true righteousness, or to be justified in any adequate sense. This was due to the failure of the Jews, who, having the law, treated it as a charm or a talisman rather than honoring it by their obedience; and it was also due to the failure of the Gentiles who were not any more proficient in living up to the light they had than were the Jews. Thus, these two verses are an apostolic enunciation of the great truth that God will judge every man according to the light he has, and not according to the light he has not. If there were, in antiquity, any Gentiles who truly lived up to the light they had, one may rest assured that God will reward them. In speaking of these things, so utterly beyond the unaided knowledge of man, it should always be assumed as an axiom that “God is too wise to make a mistake and too good to do anything wrong.” Verse 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.This concluding statement of the paragraph shows that the theme of the general judgment on the last day was under discussion; and two more propositions relative to that final scene are added here, as follows: IX. The final judgment will be according to the New Testament. X. The judgment will be by Christ as Judge. According to my gospel … Since Paul was the principal author of the New Testament, the extended meaning of the world’s being judged by Paul’s gospel is that it will be judged by the New Testament, there being no disunity whatever between Peter’s Gospel, Paul’s Gospel, and Matthew’s Gospel, etc. It is the entire New Testament that shall confront people in judgment. Jesus Christ declared of his word, that the same should judge men in the last day (John 12:48); and there is no other authentic source than the New Testament for either the words of the Master or the gospel of Paul. By Jesus Christ … The fact of the judgment’s being “by Jesus Christ” is comprehensive: (1) Christ is to be the judge (John 5:22). (2) Christ’s word is the basis of judgment (John 12:48). (3) The word of the apostles is also part of the platform of eternal judgment (2 Peter 3:2). (4) All authority in heaven and upon earth belongs to Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). My gospel … does not imply any difference between Paul and other New Testament authors. It is simply a term of endearment, such as “my God” (Romans 1:8). Paul’s use of this expression in the context could also be his way of emphasizing the truth that the doctrine of eternal judgment was indeed a valid and prominent element in his teaching. As Murray suggested, And when Paul says, “my gospel,” he is reminding his readers that the gospel committed to him, unto which he is separated (Romans 1:1), and with which he was identified, though it was truly the gospel of grace, was also one that incorporated the proclamation of judgment for all, just and unjust. Grace does not dispense with judgment. Only in the gospel does this proclamation come to full fruition.[11]Thus, right down to the very last word of this section (Romans 2:1-16), the final judgment of all mankind is the theme, with special emphasis on the principles upon which that judgment will be executed. The secrets of men … include the inner thoughts, hidden motives, all actions concealed or hidden from others. In fact, the judgment will be of the whole man, as only God sees, knows, and understands him. By way of summarizing thoughts on these 16 verses (Romans 2:1-16), two things should be kept in mind: (1) that the subject treated in this section is that of the final judgment, handled in such a manner by the apostle as to vindicate the righteousness of the just Judge who shall conduct it, and to reveal the basic principles of God’s law that will form the basis of it; and (2) that the persons to whom this passage was particularly addressed were the antagonistic Jews, who, unlike the noble Jews who formed the very first nucleus of Christians (including Paul), were in a state of utmost wickedness and rebellion against God, despite which they still imagined that they would inherit salvation because of the privileges of Judaism. As Murray expressed it, We cannot overlook the fact that in this passage as a whole the apostle is concerned with the unbelieving Jew.[12]Therefore, when it is reflected upon that these entire 16 verses are taken up completely by a discussion of judgment to come and directed to the enlightenment of an exceedingly wicked class of citizens who were in a state of totally rejecting Christ and denying the gospel, any allegation that this section pertains to self-righteousness and Phariseeism among Christians must be denied; although, to be sure, the principles Paul taught here are applicable to the entirety of mankind. Romans 2:17-19, following, constitute a section where Paul pointedly applied the principles just enunciated to those persons he had in mind. They were Jews, that is, certain wicked Jews, and not necessarily all Jews, Paul himself being a noble and righteous Jew. The class confronted with these words were those who felt that their knowledge of the law of Moses, the fact of their having been circumcised, their descent from Abraham, and other high privileges which they enjoyed - that all these things would entitle them to be judged upon some other basis than a mere question of whether they were wicked or holy. It seems nearly incredible that any rational being with the most elementary knowledge of God could possibly be so self-deceived; and yet, from what is written here, it must be received as fact that the people Paul had in view were certainly so deceived. In this section, there is first an enumeration of the prerogatives upon which certain Jews based their false hopes (Romans 2:17-20); then comes a withering charge of hypocrisy (Romans 2:21-24); and next follows a particular discussion of circumcision, the truth regarding that rite being so presented that not even that honored ceremony could any longer be claimed as efficacious by those whose lives did not measure up to the covenant of which that rite was only a sign (Romans 2:25-29). [11] John Murray, op. cit., p. 77. [12] Ibid. Verse 17 But if thou bearest the name of the 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 confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a corrector oy the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth.“But if you call yourself a Jew” (RSV) would indicate that Paul did not consider the persons here addressed as worthy of so honorable and worthy a name as that of “Jew.” He made the same distinction at the end of this chapter where he denied them any right to be so called. It is as though Paul had said, “I do not associate myself with you in your usurpation of this honored name.” The name “Jew” first occurs in 2 Kings 16:6; but after the Babylonian exile, it was used frequently. It is thought to be derived from “Judah,” the name of the principal tribe of Israel, especially of the southern kingdom, after the division. It was an honored and sacred name. Murray said, It was a name associated in the mind of the Jew with all upon which he prided himself.[13]“Judah” means “praised,” being the name given by Leah to her fourth son, because, as she said, “Now will I praise the Lord” (Genesis 29:35). The same meaning of “praise” is therefore attached to the name Jew. The name had the highest status among the Hebrews. Even upon his death-bed, Jacob said, “Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise” (Genesis 49:8), which is an evident reference to the glorious name of the fourth son, which came, in time, to be adopted by all the Hebrews in the abbreviated form. This is an appropriate place to note that the noblest of those who wore that name deserved it in every sense of the word. Antiquity reveals no more noble persons than those great Jews whose names adorn the pages of the Old Testament.

All of the patriarchs and prophets, some of the kings, and many God-fearing members of this chosen nation must be reckoned among the noblest ever to live on earth and surely met Paul’s specifications for persons worthy to be called Jews (Romans 2:28-29). To be sure, none of those ancient worthies was perfect; but their lives as a whole established new bench-marks of character in an age when virtue itself had been almost banished from the earth. Thus, it is clear that Paul thought that some who called themselves Jews were utterly unworthy to wear the name. And restest upon the law … Here Paul began to list the prerogatives that surely pertained to the honorable but were falsely claimed by those whom Paul addressed. They rested in the law, not by keeping its teachings but by glorying in it as a national possession ministering to their pride and conceit, and as having nothing at all to do with their behavior. And gloriest in God … Paul did not mean that any of the things in this list were wrong in themselves, but that they were, like a jewel in a swine’s snout, wrong by circumstance, that circumstance being the wickedness of those glorying in God, etc. Of course, they were not actually glorying in God in the sense that it was lawful and commendable to do so. True glorying in God is right and proper, as the scriptures teach: He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:31). Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercises lovingkindness, judgment, righteousness in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord (Jeremiah 9:23-24 KJV). What kind of glorying was it then which Paul enumerated here as reprehensible? It was a vain and empty glorying of wicked men which nourished their conceit that they were something special in God’s sight, and in which they attributed to God an attitude of indifference, or even approval of their sins. And knowest his will … Just as above, knowing God’s will is very well indeed; and it is the solemn duty of every man ever born to know God’s will as perfectly as possible; but it is a mark of honor to know God’s will, only if the knowledge is accompanied by a sincere intention to do it. On the other hand, when mere knowledge is made to support human conceit and causes the possessor to fancy that such knowledge endows him with some kind of superiority over his fellow man, or when it may be supposed that the mere possession of the knowledge of God, apart from the true obedience to God’s will, conveys any eternal merit - then occurs the condition reproved here. Approvest the things that are excellent … A glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin shows an alternate translation of this clause as “dost distinguish the things that differ”; and Murray stated that it was impossible to decide exactly what Paul means.[14] A probable meaning of both clauses taken together might be expressed thus: “You have the ability to make accurate moral judgments and to distinguish and appreciate moral values.” That ability was derived from God’s law in which those people had been instructed. Every Jew, through parental training and weekly attendance of the sabbath worship, was instructed in the law, at least to the extent of hearing it repeatedly read, and of hearing the public discussion of it. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind … These men were precisely the same kind of persons of whom Jesus said, They are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a pit (Matthew 15:14). There was a certain superficial sense in which those people might indeed have led the blind and served as the light of the world; but the moral cancer within them negated such an ability completely. Moreover, their minds had already been darkened in the manner Paul described in Romans 1:21; and the mere fact of their clinging to the external and superficial glories of the old covenant and conceitedly glorying in it could not take away their essential blindness in spiritual things. A corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes …Here Paul completed the list of Jewish prerogatives begun in Romans 2:17. The things listed here are synonymous with some already mentioned. Collectively, the expressions listed provide an excellent picture of the way Gentiles were regarded by the enlightened Jews of Paul’s day. Tragically, the picture is accurate. The Gentiles were indeed blind, ignorant, babes, walking in darkness, an extremely foolish people who desperately needed the wisdom and guidance which properly instructed Jews might have given them. These covenant people detested the ridiculous idolatry of the Gentiles and were in full possession of the most wonderful revelation that ever came from God until Christ appeared upon Calvary. Having in the law the form of knowledge … identifies the source of all Jewish knowledge and superiority as the law of Moses. The words strongly suggest Paul’s words to Timothy, For men shall be lovers of self, etc. … holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away (2 Timothy 3:2 2 Timothy 3:5). Greathouse thought that Paul’s use of “form” is the same in both references;[15] but Murray wrote, “Form” in this instance does not have the same meaning as in Timothy. There is no suggestion of semblance or unreality. In the law the Jew had in his possession the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth in well-defined and articulated form.[16]Nevertheless, a comparison of Paul’s words in the two places leaves a strong impression that Greathouse was right. Certainly, as Murray said, the law was absolutely genuine; but when the power of that law had been negated by the sinful rebellion of them that knew it, it was only a mere shadow of the real thing that they had left. Jesus said of the temple itself, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). The same principle holds with regard to the gospel itself, wherein is mighty power to save; but when sin corrodes the life of Christians, they are invariably left holding to a mere form, a feeble shadow of reality. [13] Ibid., p. 82. [14] Ibid. [15] Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 71. [16] John Murray, op. cit., p. 83. Verse 21 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? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.This devastating blast is a charge of hypocrisy, immorality, dishonesty and general wickedness leveled against the persons Paul addressed. The interrogative form of the charges is idiomatic and does not raise the slightest uncertainty concerning their sins, and should be understood as the bluntest and most dogmatic affirmation of their unmitigated guilt. Paul evidently selected the very sins which were most odious to the Jews, at least in theory; for, of all the sins of the pagans around them, the Jews particularly detested their idol worship and the abominable sexual excesses. Theft and blasphemy were also regarded similarly. Therefore, it is amazing that Paul charged them with guilt in all these areas.

Although there were doubtless many personal exceptions to the gross wickedness Paul charged against the Jews, the tragedy lies in the fact of its being so generally true of that particular generation. Christ himself supported Paul’s charge of theft thus: And he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers (Matthew 21:13). The persons charged in Jesus’ indictment were none other than the social, religious, and political leaders of the nation. Paul’s charge of adultery was supported by all the Old Testament prophets, especially Jeremiah, who wrote, (They) assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife (Jeremiah 5:7-8). Jeremiah even went so far as to say that the Israelites had committed adultery “under every green tree” (Jeremiah 2:20). The charge of robbing temples is more difficult to understand because, grammatically, it does not seem to fit in. For that reason commentators take it in a secondary sense, like “profaning sacred things” or robbing God through non-payment of tithes (as in Malachi 3:8-10); but there is no need of any attempt to soften this. Those addressed were guilty as charged. True, we are unable to cite specific examples, as of adultery and theft; but, what is more important, their reputation for doing just that is established in the word of God. Again, from Murray, Since the town clerk at Ephesus defends Paul and his colleagues against any such charge as robbing temples (Acts 19:37), we cannot suppose this wrong was one to which the Jews were entirely immune![17]How strangely perverse is the human heart, which, in the midst of abounding depravity and sin, and while participating in and sharing in the very sins known to be prohibited and abominable, the heart is yet capable of indulging in delusions of spiritual safety and security; and never in history were there any more pitiful examples of such a phenomenon than those persons Paul addressed in these verses. Thou who gloriest in the law … This and the following clause constitute a summary of what Paul wrote in Romans 2:17-20, and the second clause of Rom 2:23, whether understood as affirmative or interrogatory, is a pronouncement of guilt upon those people in all points as charged, namely, theft, profanation, adultery, etc. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you … is the pinnacle of Paul’s indictment, the same being a paraphrase of Isa 52:5, last clause, which reads, “And my name continually every day is blasphemed.” It is worth noting that the blaspheming of God’s name mentioned by Isaiah was due to the captivity of Israel, it being the view of the pagans that any god who could not protect his people from captivity could be blasphemed with impunity; but this circumstance does not invalidate Paul’s appeal to this verse for support of what he said, because the captivity itself was due to the sins of Israel, thus making their sin to be the originating cause of the blasphemy. ENDNOTE: [17] Ibid. Verse 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.Beginning here, and to the end of the chapter, Paul discussed circumcision, which was to the Jew, and especially to them here addressed, a refuge of last resort, wherein, if all else failed, he still might claim eternal life as his just inheritance. Charles Hodge noted that: It is obvious that the Jews regarded circumcision as in some way securing their salvation. That they did so regard it may be proved, not only from such passages of the New Testament where the sentiment is implied, but also by the direct assertion of their own writers. Such assertions have been gathered in abundance from their own works by Eisenmenger, Shoettgen, and others. For example, Rabbi Menachem, in his commentary on the Book of Moses (folio 43, column 3), says, “Our Rabbis have said, that no circumcised man will see hell."[18]Circumcision, as Paul discussed it here, refers to the rite itself, not to the whole law of which that rite was a covenant seal. The fact that Paul began with a declaration that circumcision was profitable for them that kept the law was apparently in anticipation of the advantages pertaining to the Jew which he discussed immediately afterwards inRomans 3. But, while allowing the validity of the rite when used as God intended it, Paul did not hesitate to blast this last refuge of apostates by showing that not even circumcision could do a man any good eternally, if he did not keep the law.

To transgressors of the law (not occasional and inadvertent transgressors, but the hardened and impenitent) circumcision became uncircumcision. Every Israelite should have known that already. Historically, circumcision had never been alleged as any reason why the death penalty should not have been executed upon sabbath breakers (Numbers 15:35) and such men as Achan (Joshua 7:24), nor as any impediment to their Rabbi’s casting out of their synagogues persons they judged unworthy. From these well-known facts, they should have been able to deduce the great corollary that no such thing as circumcision could possibly prevent the judgment of God upon apostates. ENDNOTE: [18] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 64. Verse 26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinance of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?In Romans 2:18, the alternative translation of a key clause was noted: “distinguish the things that differ”; and the crying need to do just that becomes apparent in the study of a verse like this. All kinds of false teachings are advocated as a result of Paul’s statement here. For example, Hodge wrote in his comment on this place, If circumcision is in itself nothing, its presence cannot protect the guilty; its absence cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous.[19]In Hodge’s statement there is a failure to distinguish things that differ. If he had said, “Its absence in those persons of whom God has not required it cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous,” then his: statement would have been true. To take Hodge’s statement as it stands, it would have to mean that a “righteous Jew” who had refused to obey God’s commandment regarding circumcision would not thus have invalidated his righteousness. The tremendous importance of this distinction will be seen a little later as applied to the subject of baptism. Obviously, Paul taught nothing like that. The above raises the question at once of who were those uncircumcised people keeping the ordinances of the law; and which law and which ordinances are meant? Without any doubt, Godet’s identification of those uncircumcised keepers of the law is correct. He said, We are to regard the apostle as referring to those many Gentiles converted to the gospel who, all uncircumcised as they were, nevertheless fulfilled the law in virtue of the Spirit of Christ, and thus became the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 4:16).[20]Here then is the instance where uncircumcision had become circumcision, and here is the case where uncircumcision could not invalidate the claims of the righteous; Hodge’s statement noted above does not take into account this distinction and is not correct. Many of the Christians of Jewish descent in the early church insisted upon circumcision for Gentile converts, a requirement Paul fought vigorously and never allowed; and it is the shadow of that old controversy that looms here. The law required circumcision; and, therefore, any person credited with “keeping the ordinances of the law” would positively have to be a person of whom God had never required circumcision in the first place, and who was fulfilling the law, not in the shadow of its old ordinances, but in the realities of the new life in Christ. Every Christian, though literally uncircumcised, is nevertheless circumcised “in Christ;” in the same sense that he has paid the penalty of death due to sin, “in Christ.” All who are truly “in Christ” thus fulfill the law. [19] Ibid. [20] F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 130, Verse 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?The words “by nature” in this verse are made the basis of referring this statement to pagans, or Gentiles, of the nobler variety, who were presumably living up to all the light they had; and, in that vein of thought, Hodge declared: The idea is that the obedient uncircumcised heathen would be better off; he would stand on higher ground than the disobedient circumcised Jew.[21]While Hodge’s paraphrase might in itself be true, in a sense, it is the conviction here that the words “if it fulfill the law” absolutely preclude Paul’s having had any such thing in mind. The only way that the law can possibly be fulfilled is “in Christ,” and that mountain fact solidly identifies the “uncircumcision which is by nature” as those Gentiles who had become Christians, the expression “which is by nature” being but another way of saying they had been Gentiles. Any notion that unregenerated Gentiles had indeed “fulfilled the law” dissolves in light of Paul’s extensive argument in Romans 1:18-21, where Hodge’s noble unregenerated Gentile is simply not visible! However that may be, that author, in the very next sentence makes one of those deductions from this verse which no Christian should allow. He said, It is only putting the truth taught in this verse into different words to say “the unbaptized believer shall condemn the baptized unbeliever."[22]The fallacy in this corrupt deduction is startlingly clear, for it is resident in the fact that God never required of any Gentile that he should be circumcised. Therefore the uncircumcised Gentile was not violating any ordinance of God by remaining so; but this is nowise the case with so-called “unbaptized believers.” Consider the monstrosity of the “unbaptized believer,” who in truth does exist necessarily for that small time between the coming of faith in his heart and his actual submission to God’s ordinance of baptism, but who is not the “unbaptized believer” spoken of by the commentators. All no, he is presented with full status as a believer with no intention of being baptized; and what of him? He is a contradiction of terms, because no believer can remain a believer in the true sense while willfully continuing in an unbaptized state. May God open men’s eyes to see the truth. Charles Hodge was selected out of many exponents of this false teaching imported into these verses, because of the clarity of his views and obvious sincerity of his arguments. Judge thee … refers to the same thing Jesus mentioned when he declared that the people of Nineveh should rise in judgment and condemn that (the Lord’s) generation (Matthew 12:41). [21] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 64. [22] Ibid. Verse 28 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 the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not is the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.In these two verses, the principle is stated both negatively (Romans 2:28) and positively (Romans 2:29) that the rite of circumcision is useless unless the moral values of the law, which were pledged and symbolized by that circumcision, are also maintained. The false circumcision would therefore be the circumcision of one whose life showed no regard for the moral values of God’s law; and the true circumcision would be the case of the circumcised person who regarded and honored such values. To make Paul’s statement in this context mean that every external rite, such as baptism, which was commanded by the Lord himself, may be dispensed with, and that some vague inward experience or strong emotional commitment may be substituted for it, is to make it speak a falsehood. There is not a particle of evidence that Paul here had in mind Christian baptism, or that these words may be forced into an application to that rite. Paul was only declaring that the only circumcision that could avail the Jew anything was a circumcision honored by a life consistent with the rite. In the spirit not in the letter … does not mean that the external rite of circumcision, as commanded by the law, might have been dispensed with by the Jew and replaced by some “spiritual” experience, but simply that the external rite ALONE, without the God-honoring life that was supposed to accompany it, was worthless. The question before Paul in these verses is not a Christian question, but a Jewish one, and to get this all mixed up with baptism, as so: many of the commentators have done, is an error. These words, “in the spirit not in the letter” do not mean that the external rite of circumcision was not necessary under the law, any more than Peter’s “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” (1 Peter 3:21) means that the outward ceremony of baptism was to be omitted, but only that there was an inward meaning designed to accompany the outward act. The legitimate deduction is that: just as there was an absolute necessity under the law of Moses to combine the external rite of circumcision with a holy life, so there is for the Christian the absolute necessity of combining with the external ordinance of baptism that newness of life which there begins. These verses refer back to Paul’s introduction of this paragraph in Romans 2:17, where he said, in effect, “You call yourself a Jew”; and it is plain, from the definition Paul gave of who may qualify to wear such an honored name, that he did not consider the reprobate type of Jew under discussion in this chapter as any fit subject to wear it. True, the word “Jew” means praise; but Paul pointed out forcefully enough that “praise of God,” not “praise of men,” was meant. Lenski, Hodge, and many others have built theological castles upon the five verses which conclude this chapter, expressed in many pages of eloquent denunciations of “moralists” who trust in outward rites instead of genuine faith in the Lord, no less than fifteen pages, for example, in Lenski being devoted to these five verses: But to borrow a word from Shakespeare, “Methinks thou dost protest too much!” It has already been noted that Christians, and things pertinent to their redemption, are not even under discussion in these verses, where Paul was dealing with the presumption of reprobate Jews whose reliance upon such an external rite as circumcision was both naive and unrealistic. What Paul said here, therefore, in order to take away that delusion from their hearts, and to prevent their influence from spreading among weak Christians, has no direct reference to Christians and can become meaningful to Christians only when Christians become blinded with the same delusions which deceived those ancient Jews. Has this occurred? There is the possibility, at least, that it might occasionally have occurred in a few instances; but in general, the answer to this question is NOT. The stereotype “moralist” who is usually made the whipping boy by certain commentators, and who is heralded as the modern counterpart of those reprobate Jews, is nothing but a figment of feverish imagination, a straw man that does not exist, and probably never has existed within the confines of the Christian faith since the Middle Ages, and whose stereotype description fits nobody at all. Where is that so-called “moralist” who thinks that merely because he has been baptized, he is thus, per se, entitled to heaven, regardless of his conduct? Within the forty years and more of this writer’s experience as a minister of the gospel, he has never met even one Christian who believed anything like that. Where, then, do a hundred or more commentators, from Calvin and Luther to Lenski and Barrett, find their specimens of this strange, perverse person who is said to believe that baptism alone leads to eternal life, regardless of holiness or the lack of it, and who is diligently intent on leading the whole world through that door which, according to Lenski, is “not the door of heaven but the door of hell”? Any knowledge of Christians during the half-century immediately past, especially any knowledge of their earnest efforts to serve the Lord, must surely result in the conviction that the straw man so effectively shot at by so many for so long must long ago have disappeared. The stylized definition of that straw man is not only void of any resemblance whatever to the countless thousands of Christians this writer has been privileged to know, but is also void of any likeness to those reprobate Jews who were the object of Paul’s warning here. Despite the straw man mentioned above, to which such impossible attitudes are attributed, there is, nevertheless, real danger in supposing that mere outward compliance with the Lord’s commandments, any or all of them, removes the need for true and genuine spirituality and devotion which are always the hallmark of authentic Christian faith. As Griffith Thomas summed it up: While we must ever insist with all clearness and firmness on obedience to the ordinances of God, we must never fail to remember that the ordinances themselves, apart from genuine spiritual disposition of the recipients, never convey or guarantee the reception of grace. Ordinances are visible signs to which are annexed promises. Faith lays hold on the promises, and the signs are the pledges of God’s fulfillment of them; but, if there be no faith in the divine promise, there is nothing left for the ordinance to seal.[23]Thomas’ final sentence, quoted above, seems to imply that submission to the ordinance of God is dissociated from “laying hold of God’s promises,” but such a view is wrong. In the case of baptism, for example, the submission to the ordinance is itself a part of the laying hold, for in that ordinance, faith becomes obedient; and the salvation Paul taught in Romans has nothing to do with anything else, other than an “obedient faith” (Romans 1:5 Romans 16:26, etc.). Having at this point completed his argument concerning the sinfulness of all people, Jew and Gentile alike, and having established the broad principles of it, Paul then proceeded in the next chapter to answer some objections to it, employing the device of the diatribe as a vehicle for the conveyance of his thought. ENDNOTE: [23] W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 92.

---

Questions by E.M. Zerr Form Romans 21. Who is inexcusable? 2. Does this mean that it is always wrong to judge ? 3. In what did these judges condemn themselves? 4. What nation were these self-condemned judges ? 5. Of what was Paul sure? 6. What did these judges think they could escape? 7. Tell what they despised. 8. What leads men to repentance? 9. State the kind of heart these people now had. 10. What were they treasuring up ? 11. On what day was it to be revealed? 12. What else was to be revealed then? 13. What will be rendered to every man? 14. Will all men receive the same recompense ? 15. For what should we seek? 16. What kind of doing is necessary in the seeking? 17. Tell what you understand by immortality. 18. Who will receive indignation and wrath? 19. Does this apply to the Jew or to the Gentile? 20. What is said of God’ s respect of persons ? 21. Can the ones who sin without law escape ? 22. Who shall be judged by the law? 23. State advantage of doers over hearers of the law. 24. What people are without the law ? 25. Do these ever do the things of the law ? 26. How are they led to do this? 27. Is their conduct accepted of God? 28. Where is their work shown written? 29. Tell what part the conscience performs. 30. What accuses and excuses? 31. At what time will sinners of verse 12 be judged? 32. Will God be alone in this judgment? 33. What gospel did Paul mean by “ my gospel” ? 34. To what people is this chapter specially addressed ? 35. In what did they rest? 36. Of what did they boast ? 37. Was this boast entirely false? 38. In what was their failing? 39. What is sacrilege? 40. On what account did Gentiles blaspheme God ? 41. Had this ever been predicted? 42. On what condition will circumcision profit ? 43. How did breaking the law affect their cireumsision ? 44. What peoples are “ circumcision” and “ uncircumcision” ? 45. How may the uncircumcision judge the circumcision ? 46. Who is not the real Jew? 47. State what kind of circumcision is not counted. 48. Describe the real Jew and circumcision. 49. How may the heart be circumcised ? 50. From whom will such receive praise ?

Romans 2:1

2:1 Rom 2:1. Before reading further into this chapter, I shall insist that the reader see the comments on chapter 1:7, then come back to this place. The closing verses of that chapter pertain to the evil practices of the Gentiles. The Jews were free in their condemnation of the Gentiles, yet they were just as guilty, in principle, as were the Gentiles; therefore this chapter will be directed against them. In condemning the Gentiles for their iniquities, they condemned themselves for things as bad in principle.

Romans 2:2

2:2 Rom 2:2. We means Paul and all others who were acquainted with the ways of God. His judgments are always in harmony with the truth, whether against Jews or Gentiles.

Romans 2:3

2:3 Rom 2:3. O man means the Jew who was condemning the Gentile. He thought that his being a Jew would exempt him from the judgment of God.

Romans 2:4

2:4 Romans 2:4. Despisest means to belittle or disregard, and the Jew did that with reference to the goodness of God. It was the quality of goodness and longsuffering of God that caused him to put up with the unrighteousness of both Gentile and Jew. The goodness of God would lead the self-righteous Jew to repentance if he did not “despise” or overlook it.

Romans 2:5

2:5 Romans 2:5. A hard and impenitent heart is one that stubbornly persists in a course of wrongdoing. Treasurest up means that such a life is sure to make a record that will bring the wrath of God upon it in the day of wrath; that will be the day of judgment spoken of by Paul in Acts 17:31.

Romans 2:6

2:6 Romans 2:26. The uncircumcision is used figuratively, meaning the Gentiles to whom the rite was never given. Keep the righteousness of the law means the same as doing them by nature as set forth in verse 14.

Romans 2:7

2:7 Romans 2:7. Eternal life will be rendered to one class of persons. They are the ones who seek for glory, honor and immortality. They are to do this seeking by patient continuance in well doing.

Romans 2:8-9

8-9Romans 2:8-9. These verses designate the other class as those who are contentious (resort to trickery), resist the truth and obey unrighteous instructions. To this class God will render indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish. The apostle gives additional reasons why they will receive such from God; it is because they are souls that do evil. Jew first and also of the Gentile again suggests comments at chapter 1:7.

Romans 2:10

:10Romans 2:10. This verse is for emphasis on verse 7.

Romans 2:11

:11Rom 2:11. Respect of persons all comes from one Greek word, and it is defined “partiality” by Thayer. It means God will not favor the Jew any more than the Gentile.

Romans 2:12

:12Rom 2:12. All sinners, whether Jews or Gentiles, will be punished for their sins. The word law in this verse means the law of Moses; the Jews will be judged for their sins under that law. The Gentiles will be judged for their sins, but it will be without law; that is, not by the law of Moses, for they did not live under that. The law by which they will be judged is stated in verses 14, 15.

Romans 2:13

:13Rom 2:13. The principle set forth in this verse applies to whatever law the people lived under, whether they were Jews or Gentiles.

Romans 2:14

:14Romans 2:14. The Gentiles have not the law (of Moses), yet they do have the law and evidences of nature (creation, chapter 1:20). If they make use of such law it will serve as a rule of action for themselves. Many of the requirements stipulated in the law of Moses were in line with natural prin ciples (such as love of parents and children, and respect for a neighbor’s wife, etc.) The Gentile was expected to respect these natural laws, and he will be condemned if he does not. It must be remembered that all of the aforesaid comments about the two laws apply to the years before the giving of the Gospel of Christ. After that, all persons everywhere were commanded to be subject to that universal law. (See Acts 10:35 Acts 17:31.)

Romans 2:15

:15Romans 2:15. Another part of the law in nature for the Gentile was his conscience. That is a part of every human being and he was born with it. For an extended definition of the word see the comments at Acts 24:16. The conscience may be erroneously informed, hence a man might follow it and still be wrong. But no man can go contrary to his conscience without being guilty of wrong. The Gentile was required never to do anything for which his conscience would condemn him.

Romans 2:16

:16Romans 2:16. This verse states the day on which the judging will be done; it is the one Paul mentions in Acts 17:31. My Gospel does not denote origin or ownership, but the one that Paul was preaching; the Gospel that was the subject of his preaching.

Romans 2:17

:17Romans 2:17. This and the following three verses set forth the claims (which were true) of the Jew. He could boast (glory) because God had given the law to his nation.

Romans 2:18

:18Romans 2:18. God’s will was made known in the law, hence the Jew could have knowledge of it. Approvest means to decide between right and wrong, and the Jew could do that by the instruction the law provided him.

Romans 2:19

:19Romans 2:19. The knowledge furnished by the law, enabled the Jew to feel that he could extend guidance and enlightenment to others less fortunate.

Romans 2:20

:20Romans 2:20. Even persons without ordinary discernment could be instructed by one who had the law for his own support. Teacher of babes is figurative, meaning the Jew could give information to the most unlearned, because he had the background of the inspired law. The Jew was not restricted to the mere principles of right doing, but he had the form or ritual in which they were to be carried out.

Romans 2:21

:21Rom 2:21. With all of the foremen-tioned advantages, the Jew had no reason for coming short of the proper conduct in his own life. However, many of them were satisfied to rest on their knowledge of what was right, without setting an example of the things they told others to do. They would steal to enrich their own purse, yet condemn the Gentiles for the sin of theft.

Romans 2:22

:22Rom 2:22. An adulterer would be condemning himself when he told another not to commit that wrong. Commit sacrilege means to rob a temple. The Jews would profess a horror for idols, yet would not hesitate to enter the idols’ temple to steal the metals.

Romans 2:23

:23Rom 2:23. It is wrong to commit any lawlessness; it is worse to break the very law that one has praised as being the law of God.

Romans 2:24

:24Romans 2:24. The Gentiles could see the disorderly conduct of the Jews, and it led them to speak against the God whom they professed to serve. As it is written. “My name continually every day is blasphemed” Isaiah 52:5.

Romans 2:25

:25Romans 2:25. Circumcision was one of the rites required by the law. These Jews were insisting that it be attended to, yet were indifferent about the many practical duties that the same law required. (See Matthew 23:23.)

Romans 2:27

:27Romans 2:27. Uncircumcision and cir-cumsion are used to mean the Gentiles and Jews. By nature (see verse 14) means the Gentile did by nature what the Jew did not do, though he had the written law that showed him plainly what his duty was. By this better example of the Gentile, he judged (condemned) the Jew in his transgression of the law that had been given to him by letter (had been written in words).

Romans 2:28

:28Romans 2:28. The word Jew is used to designate a real servant of God, not one who merely professes to be one just because he wears the national name. On the same principle, fleshly circumcision has ceased to count favorably for anyone whose general life does not harmonize with the spiritual significance of the rite, namely, the cutting off of the sins of his life.

Romans 2:29

:29Romans 2:29. The real Jew in God’s sight is one whose circumcision has been of a spiritual character, cutting off from the heart that which is evil. Such circumcision is not in the letter (is not literal), but is spiritual. And such a rite will obtain the praise (ap proval) of God, although the Jew with his love of rituals will not approve. This circumcision is stated in Colossians 2:11.