1Therefore [Wherefore] thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another [the other, thy neighbor,
ôὸí ἕôåñïí
], thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them3which [those who] commit such things. And [But] thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do [those who practise] such things, and doest thesame, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing [not considering] that the goodness of God leadeth [is leading] thee to repentance?5But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto [for] thyself wrath against [in] the day of wrath and Revelation 2 of the righteous judgment of God;
6, 7Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them [those] who by patient continuance in well-doing [by endurance in good work] seek for glory and honour and immortality [will he render,
ἀðïäþóåé
, Rom_2:6], eternal life:8But unto them that [to those who] are contentious [self-seeking, or partisans], and do not obey [disobey] the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [shall be rendered]indignation and wrath [wrath and indignation],9Tribulation and anguish, [omit,] upon every soul of man that doeth evil [is working out to the end the evil,
ôïῦ êáôåñãáæïìÝíïõ ôὸ êáêüí
], of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;10[Greek.] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good [is working the good,
ôῷ ἐñãáæïìÝíῳ ôὸ ἀãáèüí
], to the Jew first, and also to theGentile [Greek]. 11For there is no respect of persons with [before] God.
12For as many as have [omit have] sinned without law shall [will] also perish without law; and as many as have [omithave] sinned in [under] the law shall13[will] be judged by the law; [.] (For not the hearers of the law [of law] are just [righteous] before God, but the doers of the law [of law] shall [will] 14be justified [declared righteous]. For when [whenever] the [omitthe] Gentiles, which have not the law [Gentiles having no law,
ἔèíç ôὰ ìç íüìïí ἔ÷ïíôá
], do by nature the things contained in the law [the things of the law,
ôὰ ôïῦ íüìïõ
, i.e., the things pertaining to, or required by, the law], these, having not the law [not having15(the) law,
íüìïí ìὴ ἔ÷ïíôåò
], are a law unto [to] themselves: Which [Who] shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) [their thoughts between one another, oralternately,
ìåôἁîὺ ἀëëÞëùí
,accusing or also,
ἤ êáὶ
, excusing.]16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by [through] Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Summary.—These are the parts of this highly important section: 1. Every judgment pronounced on another becomes the self-condemnation of the one judging; for he is in the same condemnation with the one who is judged by him. Herein the sin of the Jews is already presupposed (Rom_2:1-5). 2. The righteousness of God is exalted above all partial righteousness; and in its retribution it distinguishes between men who earnestly long after righteousness, and those who obstinately resist; between men who constantly look toward things eternal, and those whose principle of life is contention and party spirit (Rom_2:6-11). This opposition constitutes a higher ideal and dynamic opposition between pious and ungodly people above the historical antagonism of Jews and Gentiles, and independently of it, so that, on the day of the declaration of the gospel, Jews may appear as Gentiles, and Gentiles as Jews (Rom_2:12-16).
First Paragraph, Rom_2:1-5
Rom_2:1. Wherefore thou art inexcusable. It may be asked, To what does
äéὸ
, wherefore, refer? 1. To the fundamental thought of the whole section of Rom_1:18-32 (Meyer, and others). 2.
äéü
refers back to the
äéêáὶùìá
in 2:32 (De Wette, Philippi [Alford, Hodge]). 3.
äéü
points proleptically to the sins of the Jews (Bengel, Tholuck). We need hardly mention Bullinger’s explanation: It is continuationis particula; prœterea. We here find a definite reference to Rom_1:32. The
ïἵôéíåò
indicates chiefly the climax of Gentile corruption; but Gentile and Jewish corruption meet together at this climax. Gentile corruption culminates in the approval of evil, and Jewish in judging. But their common corruption is the perfect moral self-contradiction: sin against better knowledge and conscience. Therefore
ἀíáðïëüãçôïé
, inexcusable, are not merely those who contribute aid to evil-doers, but those also who pronounce sentence on them. In other words, not the
äéü
, but 2:32 is proleptic, especially in connection with the
ἀíåëåÞìïíåò
in 2:31.
O man, whosoever thou art. To whom is this address directed? 1 To the Gentiles, especially Gentile authorities (Chrysostom); their better-minded ones (Olshausen, Melanchthon); their philosophers (Clericus). 2. The Jews (De Wette, Rückert, and others). Meyer: “Judging the Gentiles as rejected by God (Midr. Tillin f. 6, 3; Chetubb. f. 3, 2, &c.) was a characteristicum of the Jews. [Alford: The Jew is not yet named, but hinted at.—P. S.] 3. All men, without distinction (Beza, Calovius). 4. All men, but with a special reference to the Jews (Tholuck). The last interpretation must be rendered more definite by the consideration that the merciless among Jews and Gentiles are meant. But, in reality, every one is meant who makes himself guilty of condemnatory judgment (for this is the sense of
êñὶíåéí
, here, as in Mat_7:1; Mat_25:35). See Rom_2:9-10. The Gentiles, too, were heartless judges. We need call to mind only Roman politics. Tholuck recalls the corruption of Jewish life at that time under Herod, and even among their scribes.—̓
Åí ᾧ
, wherein, is explained in Rom_2:21 sqq., and hence must not be understood as instrumental, by which means, whereby; still less eodem tempore quo, at the time when (Köllner), but in that wherein, in the matter in which (Luther [E. V., Meyer, Alford], and others). [Thou that judgest doest the same things,
ôὰ ãὰñ áὐôὰ ðñἀóóåéò ὁ êñßíùí
. Uncharitable judging is itself a grave offence against the law which enjoins humility and charity as the very soul of virtue and piety. Besides, even the most moral men carry in themselves the seed of all vices, and if kept from open transgression, it is either by the grace of God preventing them, or by (Pharisaic and Stoic) pride, which is itself a sin against God, the sin of Satan and the fallen angels.—P. S.] The addition of
ὁ êñßíùí
, “with reproachful expression” (Meyer).
Rom_2:2. But we are sure,
Ïἴäáìåí
. Who? 1. The Jews, as knowers of the law (Rosenmüller, and others). 2. Universal human knowledge (Rückert, Meyer, Philippi [Hodge]). 3. Jewish-Christian knowledge, with reference to Rom_3:19; Rom_7:14 (Tholuck). 4. Yet the consciousness here declared is the specifically Christian one, which is, however, anticipated by the better universal consciousness in forebodings of the common misery of sin.
According to truth.
Êáôὰ ἀëÞèåéáí
, not
ἀëçèῶò
[revera. truly] (Raphel, Köllner, it is real), but [as in E. V.] according to truth (Tholuck, Meyer [Alford]); that is, corresponding to the internal and real relations of guilt [according to justice, without error, without respect of persons]. The condemnatory judgment of God on those who judge is according to the relations of truth, by which judgment they are the most condemnable who, without knowing it, pronounce judgment on themselves. Therefore they are hypocrites. [
Êáôὰ ἀëÞèåéáí
belongs not to
êñßìá
, as the predicate of the sentence, but to
ἐóôὶí
, as adverb: it proceeds according to truth, or the judgment of God, which is according to truth, is against those, &c.—P. S.]
Rom_2:3. And thinkest thou this, O man. According to Meyer and Tholuck, Rom_2:2 is the propositio major in relation to what here follows. If the Apostle had designed such a conclusion in Rom_2:5, the minor proposition of Rom_2:3-4 would have been otherwise expressed. We have here the beginning of the conclusion from the premise in Rom_2:2. Thinkest thou that,
ôïῦôï
. Reference to the strange supposition that God will become, by way of exception, a partisan for him. Therefore also the
óý
is emphasized. Meyer: “In opposition to Jewish conceit.” Mat_3:7; Luk_3:7. Yet the expression here must not be limited to the Jews.—That thou [
óý
, thou thyself, thou above all others, thou because a Jew] shalt escape. Not by acquittal (Bengel [Hodge]), but by exemption. So Meyer: “Only the Gentiles shall be judged, according to the false opinion of the Jews (Bertholdt, Christologie, p. 206), but all Israel shall have part in the Messiah’s kingdom as its true-born children (Mat_8:12).” [Comp. Mat_3:7; Mat_3:9; Joh_8:33.] The expression escape refers at the same time to an approaching actual judgment which will overtake every guilty person.
Rom_2:4. Or despisest thou. This is a different case from the preceding. [
ἤ
introduces a new error or objection.—P. S.] In what does the difference consist? Thou regardest thyself either exempt from punishment, because thou believest thyself a favorite of the Deity, and that thou shalt escape at the coming judgment; or thou dost wickedly regard the riches of God’s goodness in delaying the punishment as a sign that the general judgment will never come to pass at all. Paul frequently uses
ðëïῦôïò
as an expression for great fulness [Rom_9:23; Rom_11:33; Eph_1:7; Eph_1:18; Eph_2:7; Eph_3:16; Col_1:17. It is not a Hebraism, but found also in Plato and other Greek classics, to denote abundance and magnitude.—P. S.].—His goodness. The
÷ñçóôüôçò
is, more specifically, mildness, beneficent goodness, in contrast with penal justice. It may be asked whether we should read: His goodness (
÷ñçóôüôçôïò
) and forbearance (
ἀíï÷ῆò
) and long-suffering (
ìáêñïèõìßáò
), or whether the
÷ñçñôüôçò
is here divided by
êáß
-
êáß
, as well, as also, into the idea of forbearance and long-suffering. We accept the latter, since the Apostle subsequently groups all again in
ôü ÷ñçóôüí
. The Apostle Peter uses the same expression,
ìá÷ñïèõìὶá
, for the two ideas: forbearance toward the weakness of friends, and long-suffering toward the opposition of enemies [slowness in the infliction of deserved punishment]. But Paul distinguishes between patience or forbearance,Rom_3:25, and long-suffering,Rom_9:22, according to the relation already indicated. The
ἀíï÷Þ
is about equal to the
ὑðïìïíÞ
, Col_1:11, and the
ðñáüôçò
, Col_3:12.—Compare
ἀíå÷üìåíïé ἀëëÞëùí
, Col_3:13;
ìáêñïèõìåῖôå ðñὸò ðÜíôáò
. It is thus natural that one idea should sometimes run into the other. Tholuck: “The word of Christ (Luk_19:41; Matthew 24.) would cause the expectation of a judgment on Israel, which really occurred about twenty [ten] years after this Epistle. Here Paul may naturally have had this in view.”—
Ἁãíïῶí
. The translation Not knowing is too weak. [Dr. Lange translates
ἀãíïῶí
: Indem du misskennst, wilfully ignoring; while Grotius, Tholuck, Wordsworth, al., render it: not considering.—P. S.] Meyer opposes the interpretation of
ἀãíïåῖí
as wishing not to know (De Wette [Alford], and others). Yet wilful and culpable ignorance is certainly meant here (comp.
ἄãíïéá
, Eph_4:18).—Is leading thee to repentance.
ἄãåé
means, at all events, not only the objective intention of God (Philippi), but also the real determination of Divine goodness. [Bengel: Deus ducit volentem duci; ducit suaviter, non cogit necessitate. Wordsworth: “The word
ἄãåé
, leads, intimates the will of God, but also the will of man. God leads, but man may refuse to be led.” To this Dr. Hodge assents, but adds, from his strict Calvinistic standpoint: “Who gives the will to be led? Is there no preventing grace [gratia prœveniens]? Does not God work in us to will, as well as to do? Surely there is such a thing as being made willing without being forced. There is a middle ground between moral suasion and coërcion. God supersedes the necessity of forcing, by making us willing in the day of His power. The Apostle, however, is not here speaking of gracious influence, but of the moral tendencies of providential dispensations.”—P. S.]
Rom_2:5. But, after thy hardness [
Êáôὰ äὲ ôὴí óêëçðüôçôÜ óïõ
]. Evidently not a continuation of the question (Lachmann [Alford]), but antithesis. The hardened one mistakes the benign purpose of Divine government, and by this means transforms the same into a judgment. The question can therefore not be one of mere frustration. [
ÊáôÜ
is taken by some, in proportion to, so that the degree of punishment corresponds to the degree of hardness and impenitence; but by most commentators in the sense of secundum, i. e., as may be expected from thy hardness, agreeably to its nature.—P. S.]—And impenitent heart. This takes away from the idea the harsh appearance of a fatalistic compulsion. The hardness is voluntarily continued and magnified by impenitence of heart.—Thou treasurest up for thyself [thou for thyself, not God for thee.—P. S.] The verb
èçóáõñßæåéí
is used in the wider sense of, every accumulation, and denotes also ironically the heaping up of evils and punishments. It here stands in striking opposition to the
ðëïῦôïò
of God’s goodness. The despising of the riches of God’s goodness in forbearance and long-suffering is the heaping up of a treasure of wrath. Unto thyself indicates voluntary guilt as well as completed folly.—In [or on,
ἐí
] the day of wrath. The construction is not
èçóáõñßæåéò åἰò ἡìÝñáí
, &c. (Luther [E. V., against], Tholuck), and also not an
ὀñãÞ
which will break out on the day of wrath (Meyer [Alford, Hodge]). But the meaning is, that the day of wrath is even now ready to burst forth, and that that furious and senseless
èíóáõñßæåéí
still continues; comp. Jam_5:3;
ἐèçóáõñßóáôå ἐí ἐó÷Üôáéò ἡìÝñáéò
. Every catastrophe of judgment which succeeds a period of longsuffering is designated a day of wrath (Eze_22:24; Zep_2:2). But each of these judicial catastrophes is a prelude to the last day of consummated wrath.—And revelation [manifestation] of the righteous judgment. The
äéêáéïêñéóßá
(in the New Testament,
ἅðáî ëåãüìåíïí
, and but seldom elsewhere). The righteous judgment of God proceeds in an emphatic way through all periods of time; but it has special epochs of its
ἀðïêÜëõøéò
. The whole contemplation of different judicial catastrophes consists in the certainty that the time of final decision is introduced with the coming of Christ. Tholuck cites Klopstock’s lines:
“Among the ways of men
God walks, with quiet tread, His unseen path;
But drawing near the goal, He rushes on,
Decided as the gleaming thunderbolt.”
Second Paragraph (Rom_2:6-11)
[It may aid the reader in the exegesis of this paragraph to have in view the following parallel arrangement in lour stanzas of three lines each, which we adopt from the Analysis of Forbes, with some changes in the translation:
6.
Who will render to every man according to his deeds;
7.
A
To those who by endurance in good work
Seek for glory, and honor, and immortality,
Eternal life:
8.
B
But to those who are self-seeking,
And disobey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,
Indignation [shall be] and wrath:
9.
B
Tribulation and anguish
Upon every soul of man that worketh evil,
Of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10.
A
But glory, honor, and peace,
To every man that worketh good,
To the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
The first two stanzas, A and B, and the last two stanzas, B and A, are antithetically parallel in each of their lines, which indicate: (1) The character of the two opposite classes to be compared; (2) their respective pursuits; and (3) the appropriate rewards. In another point of view the four stanzas are introversively parallel, the first corresponding with the fourth, and the second with the third. The glorious reward of the righteous is put first and last in order to stimulate and encourage the reader. The lines in each stanza are also introversively parallel, as is made apparent to the reader by the typographical arrangement.—P. S.]
Rom_2:6. Who will render to every man. The negative form of this declaration, see Rom_2:11. The righteousness of God is far above the partisan righteousness of man, and also above that partisan justice which believes that God’s government is restrained by the historical difference between Judaism and heathendom. The decision stated by the Apostle is pronounced by the fundamental law of the entire Scriptures, of all Christendom, and of all religion (comp. Psa_62:12; Isa_3:10-11; Jer_17:10; Mat_7:21-24; Mat_12:36; Mat_16:27; Mat_25:35; Joh_5:29; Rom_14:10; 2Co_5:10). The supposition that there is a great difficulty here, and an apparent contradiction between this sentence and the doctrine of justification by faith, is a remarkable indication of an inadequate view of works on one hand, and of justification by faith on the other. Tholuck gives an account of the question in discussion, p. 88 sqq. Solutions of the imaginary difficulty: 1. The Apostle speaks here only hypothetically of the judgment of believers, as God would judge them, apart from the standpoint of the gospel (Melanchthon, &c.). Tholuck: Here, and in Rom_2:16, the Apostle regards only the Divine valuation placed on men, apart from redemption. [So, substantially, Alford and Hodge.—P. S.]. 2. He speaks of the final judgment, when faith will be proved to be the absolute fulfilment of the law (Olshausen). This is adopted by Philippi, but under the restriction: That the
äéêáéïóýíç ἐê ðßóôåùò
will remove the deficiency in the works of the regenerate. Gerhard: Opera adducentur in judicio non ut salutis merita, sed ut fidei testimonia et effecta. 3. Fritzsche: The Apostle is inconsistent, and here opens a semita per honestatem near the via regia of justification. 4. Luthardt: The new vital form of faith must be regarded as the product of a previous direction of life; the
ἔñãá
are perfected in faith (Studien und Kritiken for 1852, No. 2, p. 368). [This view seems inconsistent with the Scripture doctrine of regeneration as a new creation, and of the new life as the reverse of the old (Rom_6:4; Rom_6:19 ff.), and with the personal experience of Paul. But see Dr. Lange’s remarks below, and consider the remarkable concession of Peter, Act_10:34-35, where a disposition to fear God and to work righteousness is supposed to exist before conversion, even among heathen, and to qualify them for acceptance with God.—P. S.] 5. Cocceius and Limborch: The faith in Christ must also be included as the highest work (
ἔñãïí
). This view is undoubtedly correct; and Tholuck’s explanation, that
ðßóôéò åἰò ÷ñéóôüí
must not be included here (with reference to Rom_4:5; Rom_11:16; Rom_10:6), obscures the whole question. The passages cited by Tholuck plainly relate altogether to a life in the works of the law. But in Joh_6:29 Christ calls faith a work of God which believers should exercise. Paul also calls faith a good work (
ἔñãïí ἀãáèüí
), Php_1:6; viewing it, however, as the operation of God. In 1Th_1:3, he speaks of an
ἔñãïí ôῆò ðßóôåùò
; also in 2Th_1:11. He means in these passages, of course, such a faith as proves itself by works. But it follows, nevertheless, most decidedly, that he distinguishes just as positively two kinds of works, just as James distinguishes two kinds of faith. We must therefore distinguish a two-fold conception of works with the Apostle, if we would escape the confusion made by a timid species of orthodoxy. The direction of faith as well as of unbelief has, according to Paul—as Luthardt has properly remarked—its antecedens in the antithesis of the fundamental tendencies which he describes in Rom_2:7-8. The one class are, in their inward frame of mind,
æçôïῦíôåò
, striving souls—therefore men of longing and aspiration, poor in spirit [Mat_5:3]. Their good works constitute a unity of effort,
ὐðïìïíὴ ἔñãïõ
; their aim is the
äὸîá
,
ôéìÞ
,
ἀöèáñóßá
(goodly pearls; precious pearls, Mat_13:45). The other class are, in their mental disposition,
ἐî ἐñéèåßáò
, contentious, even when they confess an orthodox form of faith. They are men animated by the bigotry of party spirit, and therefore wantonly rebelling against the truth, while they are the narrow-minded slaves of the unrighteousness of party spirit. But the retribution of both classes will be determined by the respective degrees of virtue and vice which they reach. As seekers, they find faith and justification by faith, which, according to chap. iii., proceeds also from righteousness. As believers, they strive for the treasure of their heavenly calling, and strive after those things which are before them, until they reach the goal of perfection. But there they do not appear with works of the law, nor with a mixture of perfect justitia imputata and imperfect works. In the kingdom of perfect love the antagonism of merit and grace disappears in a higher unity of both. It is observable that, with the Apostle, all the ideas of the Old Testament become more profound, and are made perfect: 1. The law becomes the law of the Spirit; 2. work becomes the work of faith; 3. righteousness becomes justifying righteousness; 4. retribution becomes free, rewarding love. The observation of Meyer, that we have here the law of the Jews only, and with it the natural law of the Gentiles as the medium affecting the decision, does not relieve the matter. He indeed also adds, that Paul had good reason for this statement, since the Christian, too—because he is to be judged according to his conduct—must be judged according to the law (comp. the doctrine of the tertius usus legis), and according to the
ðëÞñùóéò ôïῦ íüìïõ
introduced by Christ [Mat_5:17; Mat_25:31 ff.; Rom_13:8-10]. He justly rejects the opinion of Reiche, that the doctrine of justification by faith implies a partial abrogation of the moral order of the world.
Rom_2:7. To those who by endurance (or perseverance) in good work [
êáè
̓
ὑðïìïíὴí ἔñãïõ ἀãáèïῦ
, an adverbial qualification of the verb
æçôïῦá
], &c. Where the different works are only one good work, and where there is this perfect endurance of life and effort, the direction toward higher and eternal things can only be meant. The genitive
ἔñãïõ ἀãáèïῦ
is genit. subj. (not obj.; Meyer); that is, the endurance which is peculiar to the truly good work. [Comp.
ὑðïìïíὴ ôῆò ἐëðßäïò
, 1Th_1:3.—P. S.]. It may be asked, whether the Apostle here uses the words
äüîá
,
ôéìÞ
, and
ἀöèáñóßá
, in the specifically Christian sense, or in the more general sense. If the former be the case, they mean future salvation in its glory (2Co_4:17; Mat_13:43), in the honor connected with it (for it is the reward of victory, 1Co_9:25; joint heirship with Christ, Rom_8:17; reigning together with Him, 2Ti_2:12), and in its incorruptibility (1Co_15:52 sqq.; Rev_21:4; 1Pe_1:4). But then it must be said that the passage refers to a seeking whose object (goodly pearls, Matthew 13) is, at the beginning, more or less concealed from the seekers themselves (comp. Act_17:23). It seems more natural, however, to interpret the above ideas as stages of the development of noble seeking; the first aim is
äüîá
, spiritual splendor of life, ideality; then
ôéìÞ
, integrity, honorableness of character; then
ἀöèáñóßá
, deliverance from corruption. The
æùὴ áἰþíéïò
, as the grace and gift of God, is very nearly related to this last object of
æçôåῖí
. The restless
æçôåῖí
—dissatisfaction, and further striving, until the object is reached, here or there—(Matthew 5, the first beatitudes; Acts 17) remains the key-note. Other constructions: 1. Œcumenius, Luther:
ἀðïäþóåé
[to be supplied from Rom_2:6] is connected with the accusatives
äüîáí
,
ôéìÞí
,
ἀöè
.; and
æçôïῦóé
with
æùὴí áἰþíéïí
[i.e., “Who will give glory, honor, and immortality to those who, by patience in good works, seek eternal life]; 2. Reiche [Ewald]:
ôïῖò ìὲí
[to the one]
êáè
̓
ὑðïìïíÞí ἔñãïõ ἀãáèïῦ äüîáí êáé ôéìὴí êáὶ ἀöèáñóßáí
(
ἀðïäþóåé
)—
æíôïῦóéí æùὴí áἰþíéïí
[
æçôïῦóéí
as apposition to
ôïῖò ìÝí
]. 3. Bengel [Fritzsche] and others:
ôïῖò ìὲí êáè
̓
ὑðïì
.
ἔñãïõ ἀãáèïῦ
(
ïὖóéí
),
äüîáí
, &c.
æíôïῦóéí
—
æùὴí áἰþíéïí
(
ἀðïäþóåé
) [i.e., to those who persevere in good work, seeking glory, &c., He will give eternal life]). Beza suggests still another and very dogmatic construction: Qui secundum patientem exspectationem quœrunt boni operis gloriam. Our construction has most expositors in its favor [Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Alford, Hodge, &c.]; also the clearness of the parallel, in consequence of which, righteous retribution constitutes the conclusion both times.—̔
ÕðïìïíÞ
, not patience, but perseverantia (Erasmus). “
Ἔñãïí
, not collectively (Tholuck [Hodge] ), but dynamically. [The singular indicates the general course and habit of life, or the moral character as a unit, as distinct from isolated resolutions and actions, comp. Gal_6:4; 1Th_1:3; Jam_1:4, &c. The E. V., patient continuance in well-doing, though not literal, is well expressed.—P. S.]
Ëüîá
,
ôéìÞ
,
ἀöèáñóßá
, are the phases of the manifestation of the
æùὴ áἰþíéïò
for those who have from afar been striving for salvation. The matter is inverted in the case of believers: Power of life, worth of life, glory of life. Tholuck’s remark is strange, that “the Apostle characterized here the striving of the better class of unbelievers in such a manner as he could hardly expect to find it by any possibility among them.” But Paul had become acquainted with such men as Gamaliel, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, and others.
Rom_2:8. But to those who are self-seeking partisans. [Literally, those of self-seeking—a periphrase of the subject, indicating the origin (
ἐê
, out of, as from a root) and moral character; comp.
ïἱ ἐê íüìïõ
, the legalists;
ïἱ ἐê ðὶóôåùò
, the believers;
ïἱ ἐê ðåñéôïìῆò
, the circumcised, &c., and the cognate use of
õἱïß
and
ôÝêíá
.—P. S.]. On
ἐñéèåßá
, compare Tholuck and Meyer. We must not, with the elder commentators, derive it from
ἐñßæù
or
ἔñéò
[from which it is distinguished, 2Co_12:20; Gal_5:20.—P. S.], and therefore not identify it with
öéëïíåéêßá
, contentiousness (Vulgate: Qui sunt ex contentions, die Streitsüchtigen); but it comes from
ἔñéèïò
, a hireling;
ἐñéèåýù
, to work for wages, to act selfishly. Its first meaning is greediness, then trickery, partisanship. Aristotle, Polit. v. 2, 3, &c.; see Fritzsche, Excursus on Rom_2:17 Meyer: “The latter signification [Ränkesucht, Parteitreiberei] must be retained in all passages of the New Testament; 2Co_12:20; Gal_5:20; Php_1:16; Php_2:3; Jam_3:14; Jam_3:16.” The succeeding words also establish this explanation. [The opposite of
ïἱ ἐî ἐñéèåßáò
is
ïἱ ἐî ἀãÜðçò
, Php_1:16-17. Ignatius, Ad Philad. 8, opposes
ἐñéèåßá
to
÷ñéóôïìÜèåéá
.—P. S.] Tholuck: The Apostle has here in view those Jews who surpassed the Gentiles in opposition to the gospel. He recalls to mind the intrigues of the “Zealots,” and supposes that the popular sense has extended to the meaning of contention, probably on the ground of the supposed derivation from
ἐñßæåéí
. Remember the contentious spirit of the Talmudist Jews. In point of fact, the party spirit is always united with the love of contention. But the
ἐñéèåßá
is a corruption, which exists in Gentiles and Jews alike. There are only two kinds of men: Men who are of the truth, whose ethical principle of life is the truth (the upright; Pro_2:7; Joh_3:21), and who, being such, do not lose themselves in grasping after temporal objects; and men whose ethical principle of life is a contentious spirit, that is, the spirit of any bad temporal object, and who for this very reason seditiously oppose the truth as partisans, and are subject to unrighteousness, as slaves to party. In this direction every temporal form of divine things can be converted into a party affair, and destroyed by party spirit; just as the Jews of that period made even an
ἐñéèåßá
out of the Old Testament religion. Nevertheless, the definite idea is obliterated, if
ἐñéèåßá
is made to mean, without qualification, ungodliness, or vileness (Köllner, Fritzsche).—Disobey the truth.
Ἀðåéèåῖí
; the truth has the right of a king, and Christ is King, as King of the truth. Therefore, to strive against the truth, involves not only religious opinion, but moral misconduct. Such revolters against what is high are necessarily slaves to what is low; they bow before unrighteousness (Rom_1:18).—Wrath and indignation. The nominative
ὀñãὴ êáὶ èõìüò
is supplied by
ἀðïäþóåôáé
, or
ἔóôáé
, as constructio variata.
Èõìüò
as excandescentia enhances the idea of
ὀñãÞ
. The historical form of the judgment pronounced on the self-seeking party spirit is therewith intimated;
ὀñãÞ
and
èõìüò
of the party spirit are judged by
ὀñãÞ
and
èõìüò
of an opposite kind; and therein the
ὀñãÞ
and
èõìüò
of the Lord are revealed. (See the history of the destruction of Jerusalem, Mat_18:33-34).—[The majority of philologists and commentators make
ὀñãÞ
express the permanent feeling and settled disposition (comp. Joh_3:36; the wrath of God abideth on him);
èõìüò
, the momentary impulse or actual outbreak of wrath on the day of judgment. Ammon.:
èõìüò ðñüóêáéñïò
,
ὀñãὴ ðïëõ÷ñüíéïò
.
èõìüò
(Gemüth) is the mind as the seat of the emotions, and hence denotes vehement affection, anger, fury. According to the correct reading, it fitly follows after
ὀñãÞ
, as its execution and outbreak; irœ excandescentia (Cicero, Tusc. iv. 9). “
ὀñãÞ
is the heat of the fire;
èõìüò
is the bursting forth of the flame.”—P. S.]
Rom_2:9. Tribulation and anguish (
èëῖøéò ÷áὶ óôåíï÷ùñßá
). Rom_2:9-10 repeat the same thought of retribution, but in greater precision and increased force: 1. The retribution of evil and good does not merely stand as the limit at the close, but it is ordained from the beginning, and follows man like a shadow; 2. it does not only overtake all in general, but will visit every individual; 3. it reaches to the soul; 4. it comes also as punitive retribution, first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. The same may be said also of the reward of the righteous. Punishment goes from without inwardly; the external tribulation, or oppression, becomes an internal anguish, or agony, from which the burdened soul knows no escape.—Every soul of man [
ëָּìÎðֶôֶùׁ àãָí
].
Øõ÷Þ
is not merely a circumlocution of
ἄíèñùðïò
(according to Grotius, Fritzsche). [It expresses the idea that the soul, and not the body, is to suffer the penalty, according to Rückert, Meyer, Fritzsche. But
øõ÷Þ
rather denotes the whole person, as in Rom_13:1.—P. S.]
That worketh out the evil. The
÷áôåñãáæïìÝíïõ
must be regarded as a strong form. It is the consistent consummation. [Alford: “
÷áôåñøÜæïìáé
, to commit, is more naturally used of evil, while
ἐñøÜæïìáé
, to work, is used indifferently of both good and evil.” But
÷áôåñãÜæåóèáé
is also used of the good; Rom_5:3; Rom_15:18; Php_2:12. As distinct from the simple
ἐñãÜæåóèáé
, it signifies, to work out, to bring to an end, to consummate. Comp. Meyer on Rom_1:27 (p. 77).—P. S.]
Rom_2:10. But glory and honor and peace. Instead of
ἀöèáñóßá
, we have here
åἰñÞíç
[“here in its highest and most glorious sense”] as the subjective enjoyment of
ἀöèáñóßá
, by which the expression
øõæ÷Þ
is supplied (Rom_2:9).—Of the Jew first, and also of the Greek.Greek represents the Gentile, as i. 16. As the Jew is first in privilege and opportunity, so he is first in responsibility and guilt. Comp. Luk_12:47-48, and Exeg. Notes on Rom_1:16. It becomes now evident that the second chapter refers especially to the Jews, as Rom_1:18-32 to the Gentiles.—P. S.]
Rom_2:11. For there is no respect of persons. This conclusion reproves especially the exclusive party spirit of the Jew—who thought himself under the particular favor of God—by reference to a parallel expression in the Old Testament, Deu_10:17; see Gal_2:6. The expression, to respect the person (to accept the face), is used in the Old Testament in a good as well as bad sense; but in the New Testament it occurs only in a bad sense, because it is here employed always in combating the conceit of Jewish bigotry, which changed God into a partisan.
Third Paragraph (Rom_2:12-16)
Rom_2:12. For as many as sinned without law. Tholuck: The Apostle here mentions the judgment only on its condemnatory side, because, according to his purpose in Rom_3:20, it was not necessary that he should take a broader view here. But he also wishes to prepare for the doctrine of justification by faith. Thus, Rom_2:12-13 establish Rom_2:9; and, on the other hand, Rom_2:14-16 establish Rom_2:10.—Without law,
ἀíüìùò
; that is, without the knowledge and norm of the Mosaic law (comp. Rom_5:13)—that is, without a definite consciousness of definite transgression (1Co_9:21). [
Íüìïò
and
ἀíüìùò
throughout here refer to the written or revealed law of Moses, as the expressed will of God concerning our moral conduct. The heathen are called
ἄíïìïé
, not absolutely—for they have the unwritten law of conscience—but as distinguished from the Jews, who were
ὑðὸíüìïí
.
ἀíὅìùò
therefore is equivalent to
÷ùñὶòíüìïõ
.—P. S.]—Shall also perish without law. Meyer: “
ἀðïëïῦòôáé
is the opposite of the
óùôçñßá
in Rom_1:16, of the
æÞóåôáé
in Rom_1:17, of the
æùὴáἰþíéïò
in Rom_2:7, of the
äüîá
, &c., in Rom_2:10. Comp. Joh_3:15; Rom_14:15; 1Co_1:18.” Since the
ἀðïëïῦíôáé
has its degrees (comp. Mat_11:22; Luk_12:48), Meyer should not deny that (as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius assert) there is something alleviating in the
ἀíüìùò
. The external consequences of sin could be similar, yet the internal consequences could be different, according to the different degrees of the knowledge of transgression; and
÷ñéèÞóïíôáé
is accordingly a stronger expression than
ἀðïëïῦíôáé
. We should all the more reject the barbarous view of Dodwell, Weisse, Billroth, and others, by which the
ἀðïëïῦíôáé
is made to express the aunihilation of those who do not possess the Christian principle (see Tholuck, p. 99). It is evident that also the
ἀíüìùò
must not be understood absolutely (see Rom_2:15). They only do not possess the law in the clearness and fulness of the Mosaic code. [The passage certainly teaches, 1. That the immoral heathen will not escape punishment, since they, too, are inexcusable, having the light of God’s general revelation in nature (Rom_1:20), and in their conscience (Rom_2:14-15); 2. that they will be judged
ἀíüìùò
—i.e., not with the rigor of the written law, as the disobedient Jews and unfaithful Christians, but impartially, and hence more mildly, according to the common law of reason and of conscience. The unfaithful Jews will fare worse than the Gentiles, and the unfaithful Christians worse than the Jews. The severity of punishment corresponds to the measure of guilt, and the measure of guilt depends on the amount of opportunity. The Bible plainly teaches different degrees of punishment; comp. Luk_12:47-48; Mat_11:21-24; Mat_12:41-42. In the interpretation of this passage, moreover, we should not overlook what Paul says immediately afterward of the better class of heathen, Rom_2:14-15; Rom_2:26-29; comp. the Notes below.—P. S.]
And as many as sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. They shall be condemned, according to the law.
Íüìïò
, even without the article, signifies here the Mosaic law. The
ἐííüìù
—De Wette: in the law; Tholuck, Meyer: in the possession of the law. The sense of the word seems to require a stronger expression. See Rom_7:8. [
ἐí
signifies the status, under the law.—P. S.] This sentence verifies Rom_2:9 : first upon the soul of the Jew, in contrast with the presumed righteousness of the Jew. Peter institutes a similar law for the Christian Church (1Pe_4:17).
Rom_2:13. For not the hearers of the law. Griesbach and Reiche parenthesize Rom_2:13-15; Koppe, Rom_2:13; Lachmann, Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Rom_2:14-15. All these parentheses disturb the connection. Rom_2:13 proves the damnableness of those who sinned against the law (see Rom_2:17, and Jam_1:22), and accordingly constitutes the transition to what follows.—Not the hearers. “Because the Mosaic law was known to the majority only by being read to them; Gal_4:21; Mat_5:21; Jam_1:22; Joh_12:34.” Josephus, Antiq., 5. P, &c., Meyer.—But the doers of the law shall be justified. Philippi: “
äé÷áéùèÞóïíôáé
corresponds to
äßêáéïé ðáñὰ ôῶ
̣
èåῶ
̣ of the first member of the sentence: They shall be just before the judgment-seat of God—pronounced just by God.
Äé÷áéïῦí
, like the Hebrew
äִöְãִּé÷
, as this passage already proves, is terminus forensis: to declare just, not to make just; for the doers of the law are already just, and need not be made just by God.
Äé÷áéïῦí
, from
äß÷áéïò
, according to the analogy of
ôõöëïῦí
(to make blind), and other verbs in
ὀù
derived from adjectives of the second declension, means properly, it is true, according to the etymology, = to make just. Yet, as the Septuagint and the New Testament usage shows, we must supply, by declara ion.” then
äé÷áéüù
is, originally, to make just, on the part of the
äß÷ç
[right, righteousness, also the goddess of righteousness], and according to its tribunal; that is, to acknowledge just, which has throughout a forensic, but never an abstractly forensic sense; as
äé÷áéüù
means also, in the classic sense, to think or esteem just, according to the tribunal of personal opinion. Therefore the innocent man also, when once he stands at the tribunal, must be declared just; and the guilty o
