Pulpit Commentary - Romans 2:1

Pulpit Commentary - Romans 2:1 - 2:29

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Pulpit Commentary - Romans 2:1 - 2:29

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

2:1 - 2:29

EXPOSITION

Rom_2:1-29

(b) Those who judge others, not excepting the Jews. Here a new stage of the argument, in proof of the position propounded in Rom_1:18, begins, and is continued to the end of the chapter. The position to be proved is that all mankind is guilty before God (see note on Rom_1:18). So far this has been shown with regard to the mass of the heathen world; its general moral corruption, prevalent and condoned, having been pointed out finally as a glaring proof; the main point of the argument having been to trace this state of things to man's own fault, in that he had refused to retain and act on a knowledge of God originally imparted to him through nature and through conscience. From such refusal had ensued idolatry; thence, as a judicial consequence, profligacy; thence a general prevalence of abominable practices; and at last (in many at least) the "reprobate mind," lost to moral restraint, and approving of vice as well as practising it. Thus it is sufficiently proved that the heathen world, regarded as a whole, is under sin, and liable to the wrath of God.

But the required proof that the whole of mankind is guilty is not yet complete. It might be said that there are many still who disapprove of all this wickedness, and sit in judgment on it, and who are, therefore, not themselves implicated in the guilt. To such persons the apostle now turns, his purpose being to show that their judging others does not exempt themselves, unless they can show that they are themselves sinless. All, he argues, are tainted with sin, and therefore implicated in the guilt of the human race, while the very fact of their judging others condemns them all the more.

It is usually said by commentators that, the sin of the heathen world having been established in the first chapter, the second has reference exclusively to the Jews. But this is surely not so. The expressions, ἄνθρωπε and πᾶς ὁ κρίνων (Rom_1:1, Rom_1:3), seem evidently to include all who judge others; and it is not till Rom_1:9 that any distinction between Jew and Gentile comes in. Nor would the argument have been complete without refutation of Gentile as well as Jewish judgers of others. For the philosophical schools especially claimed superiority to the mass of mankind, and would be likely to resent their own inclusion in the general condemnation. Notably the Stoics, whose philosophy was at that time, as well as that of the Epicureans, extensively professed by educated Romans. Seneca was a contemporary of St. Paul. The Stoics might be suitably designated as οἱ κρίνοντες : for they affected to look down from a position of calm philosophical superiority on those who followed their mere natural impulses, professing to be themselves guided by right reason, and superior to the passions of ordinary humanity. It was a home-thrust at them to ask—Are you, who thus judge others, as exempt as you profess to be from the vices you condemn? If the accounts that have come down to us of Seneca's own life be true, he certainly was not a paragon of virtue. Now, be it observed that the sort of people now addressed are not concluded to be sunk into all the depths of sin spoken of above; their very affecting to judge others implies, at any rate, theoretic approval of the right. Nor does St. Paul anywhere suggest that there is no difference between man and man with regard to moral worth before God; nay, in this very chapter he forcibly declares the moral excellence of some, without the Law as well as with the Law, and eternal life as its reward (verses 7, 10, 14, 15). All he implies of necessity is that none whatever are so exempt from sin as to be in a position to judge others; and it is the judgment of others that he here especially attacks, as increasing, rather than exempting from, condemnation. For it involves in itself the sin of presumption, unless those that judge are sinless. But it may be said that the universal sinfulness of mankind is still not proved. For

(1) it is not actually demonstrated that all of those who judge "do the same things." The answer to this objection is, that this does not admit of rigid proof, and that therefore the apostle deems it enough to appeal to the consciences of the judgers themselves as to how the matter stands with them. But it may be said

(2) that the sinfulness of such persons as are spoken of in verses 7, 10, 14, 15, 29-such, namely, as sincerely strive after good without setting themselves up as judges—is still unproved. So it is in this chapter; and, for logical completeness, the proof must be taken as implied. It was, we may suppose in the writer's mind, and afterwards, in Rom_7:1-25., where the inner consciousness of even the best is analyzed, the missing link of the argument is supplied.

Rom_2:1, Rom_2:2

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest (rather, dost practise; the word is πράσσεις , see Rom_1:32) the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit (or, practise, as before) such things. As has been observed above, the fact that πᾶς ὁ κρίνων "does the same things," is not proved; it is incapable of patent proof, and so the argument takes the form of an appeal to the consciences of such persons. "Porro quia ipsos interioris impuritatis insimulat, quae ut humanos oculos latet, redargui convincique nequeat humanis testimoniis, ad Dei judicium provocat, cui nec tenebrae ipsae sunt absconditae, et cujus sensu tangi peceatoribus, velint nolint, necesse est" (Calvin). On κατὰ ἀλήθειαν , in Rom_2:2, Calvin also remarks, "Veritas porro haec judicii in duobus consistit: quod sine personarum respectu delictum puniet, in quocunque deprehenderit homine; deinde quod externam speciem non moratur, nec opere ipso contentus est nisi a vera sinceri-tate animi prodeat."

Rom_2:3, Rom_2:4

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which practise such things, and doest the same, that thou ( σὺ , emphatic) shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? Two possible mental attitudes of ὁ κρίνων are supposed—that of really calculating ( λογίζῃ ) on escaping the judgment, or that of obduration, consequent on God's long forbearance towards him, in that "sentence is not executed speedily." (For a similar view of God's merciful purpose in delaying the final judgment, and of man's abuse of his forbearance, cf. 2Pe_3:9.)

Rom_2:5

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. The "day of wrath" is the day of judgment, the final display of eternal righteousness, when the "forbearance" will be over; ever represented, notwithstanding the world's redemption, under a terrible aspect for the persistently impenitent (cf. 2Th_1:9). It may be here observed again that it is ὁ κρίνων against whom these indignant denunciations are hurled, and this on the very ground of his thus setting himself up to judge while being himself guilty. Of him it is implied, not only that he shares the guilt of mankind, but also that he especially will not escape the final judgment. Of others who, conscious of their own failings, seek sincerely alter good, this is not said, however liable to condemnation on their own mere merits they may be. Indeed, the contrary is emphatically asserted in the verses that follow; nay, even eternal life is assured to such, whoever they may be, and under whatever dispensation, though it does not fall within the scope of the argument to explain in this place why or how. It is important for us to see this clearly for an understanding of the drift of the chapter, and of St. Paul's whole doctrine with respect to human sin and its consequences.

Rom_2:6

Who will render to every man according to his works. This assertion is no contradiction of the main portion of the Epistle as it proceeds, as to justification being not of works; the phrase here being, not on account of his works, but according to them. "Nequaquam tamen quid valeant, sed quid illis debeatur pretii pronunciat" (Calvin). The ground of justification is not here involved. All that is asserted is what is essential to any true conception of God's justice, viz. that he has regard to what men are in assigning reward or punishment; it is what is given in Heb_11:6 as a first principle of faith about God, "that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him." It is further evident from ἑκάστῳ , and still more from all that follows, that all such will be so rewarded, whether before Christ or after his coming, whether knowing him or not knowing him. Nor is the inclusion of the latter inconsistent with the doctrine that salvation is through Christ alone. For the effect of his atonement is represented as retrospective as well as prospective, and as availing virtually for all mankind (cf. Rom_3:25; Rom_5:15, Rom_5:18, Rom_5:20). Hence the narrow doctrine of some divines, who would confine the possibility of salvation to those who have had in some way during life a conscious faith in the atonement, is evidently not the doctrine of St. Paul.

Rom_2:7-9

To them who by patient continuance in well-doing (literally, good work, ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ , with reference to ἔργα preceding) seek for glory and honour and immortality (literally, incorruption, ἀφθαρσίαν ), eternal life. But unto them which are contentious (so Authorized Version; in Revised Version, factious. As to true meaning, see below), and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth (rather, worketh, ἐργαζομένῳ , with reference again to ἔργα in Rom_2:6) evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile (literally, Greek). The expression, τοῖς ἐξ ἐριθείας , is rendered in the Authorized Version "them which are contentious," ἐριθεία being translated "contention" also in 2Co_12:20; Gal_5:20; Php_1:16; Php_2:3; Jas_3:14, Jas_3:16. So, too, the Vulgate, qui sunt ex contentione; and similarly Origen, Chrysostom, OEcumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, etc. This, however, is not the classical sense of the word, which is not connected with ἕρις ("strife"), but with ἔριθος , which means originally a day labourer, or a worker for hire, being so used in Homer. Hence ἐριθεία meant

(1) labour for wages, and came to mean

(2) canvassing or intriguing for office, and

(3) faction, or party-spirit (cf. Arist., 'Pol.,' 5. 2, 6; 3, 9).

Notwithstanding the weight of ancient authority for its bearing the sense of "contention" in the New Testament, that of "faction" seems more likely and suitable in the passages where it occurs; and certainly so here, the idea seeming to be that the persons spoken of factiously renounced their allegiance to "the truth," obeying ἀδικία instead. We observe how expressions are here heaped up, significant of the Divine indignation against high-handed sin, unrepented and unatoned for, of which the apostle, in very virtue of his view of the eternal δικαιοσύνη , had an awful sense (see above on Rom_1:18; and of. 1Th_1:8, etc.; and also Heb_10:27; Heb_12:29). Still, neither this verse nor Jas_3:5 is of necessity inconsistent with other well-known passages, where St. Paul seems to contemplate God's reconciliation in the end of all things to himself in Christ (see Rom_5:15, et seq.; 1Co_15:24-29; Eph_1:9, Eph_1:10, Eph_1:22, Eph_1:23; Col_1:20). The "indignation and wrath" spoken of in the passages before us (being, as was said under Rom_1:18, inseparable from a full conception of the eternal righteousness) may still be conceived as having a corrective as well as a punitive purpose. Nor is the doctrine which has been called that of "eternal hope" of necessity precluded by statements which imply no more than that sin, unrepented and unatoned for, must inevitably undergo its doom in the unknown regions of eternity. The thought, at the end of Jas_3:9, for the first time passes distinctly to the Jew's assumed exemption from the condemnation of the rest of mankind; and to this exclusively the remainder of the chapter is devoted. The "indignation," etc., it is said, will be upon the Jew first (cf. Jas_1:16), which may mean either in the first instance, or principally. His priority in Divine favor involves priority in retribution, while his pre-eminence in privilege carries with it corresponding responsibility (cf. Luk_12:47, Luk_12:48; also Psa_1:3 -8 and 1Pe_4:17). Then in Jas_3:10 a like priority is assigned to the Jew with respect to reward, the general assertion of Jas_3:7 being repeated (with some differ-once of expression) in order to complete the view of his prior position in both respects. For the covenant was with the Jews; the promises were to them: the Gentiles were as the wild olive tree, grafted in, and made partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree (Rom_11:17). "Judaei particeps Graecus" (Bengel).

Rom_2:10, Rom_2:11

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile (literally, Greek, as before): for there is no respect of persons with God (cf. Act_10:34). This, with what follows, is important, as bringing out in a striking way the clear doctrine of the New Testament that the Jews had no monopoly of Divine favour with respect to final salvation. Whatever advantages certain races of mankind seem undoubtedly to have above others in this world (and that this has been, and is so, with other races as well as the Jews is obvious), all men are described as standing on an exactly equal footing at the bar of eternal equity.

Rom_2:12

For as many as have sinned without Law ( ἀνόμως ) shall also perish without Law ( ἀνόμως ). Their perdition, if it ensues, will not be due to transgression of a code they had not, but to sin against such light as they had; if without knowledge of Law they sinned, without reference to Law their doom will he, And as many as have sinned in Law (or, under Law. Ἐν νόμῳ denotes the condition in which they were; cf. ἐν περιτομῇ and ἐν ὀκροβυστίᾳ , Rom_4:10) shall be judged by Law. The requirements of the Law which they knew they will be held accountable for transgressing— κριθήσονται here, instead of ἀπολοῦνται , because a definite standard of judgment is supposed (cf. Psa_1:1-6.).

Rom_2:13

For not the hearers of Law are just before God, but the doers of Law shall be justified; In this verse, as in the previous one, νόμου is anarthrous according to the best-supported readings, though the Textus Receptus has τοῦ before it. It has, therefore, been rendered above simply as Law, not as either the law, or a law, as the same word will be below, whenever it stands by itself without either the article or any modifying genitive. Much has been written by commentators on the senses in which this word νόμος is to be understood, as used by St. Paul with or without the article. In an Appendix to the Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans in the 'Speaker's Commentary' will be found a summary of the views taken by critics of repute, with exhaustive references to the usage of the word in the Septuagint, in the New Testament generally, and in the writings of St. Paul. It has not been thought necessary in this Commentary to discuss further what has been so amply discussed already. It may suffice to state certain principles for the reader's guidance, which appear plainly to commend themselves to acceptance.

(1) Ὁ νόμος , with the article prefixed, always means the Mosaic Law.

(2) Νόμος , without the article, may have, and often has, specific reference to the Mosaic Law; but, if so, the emission of the article is not arbitrary, but involves a difference of meaning.

The article in Greek is prefixed to a word when the latter is intended to convey some definite idea already familiarized to the mind, and "the natural effect of its presence is to divert the thoughts from dwelling on the peculiar import of the word, and is adverse to its inherent notion standing out as a prominent point in the sense of the passage". Hence the omission of the article, where it might have been used, before a word has often the effect of emphasizing and drawing attention to the inherent notion of the word. We may take as an instance verse 17 in this chapter, where the Textus Receptus has ἐπαναπαύῃ τῷ νόμῳ but where the preferable reading omits the article. In either case the Mosaic Law is referred to; but the omission of the article brings into prominence the principle of justification on which the Jew rested—viz. Law, which exacts entire obedience. In the following verse (the eighteenth), in the phrase, κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου the article is inserted, the intention being simply to say that the Jew was instructed in the well-known Law of Moses. The same difference of meaning is intimated by the omission or insertion of the article in verse 23 and elsewhere in other parts of the chapter and of the whole Epistle (see especially Rom_7:1-25.). The apostle, who, however spontaneous and unstudied might be his style of writing, by no means used phrases at random, would not surely have thus varied his expressions so often in one and the same sentence without intended significance.

(3) Νόμος without the article seems evidently in many passages to be used by St. Paul to denote law in the abstract, without any exclusive reference to the Mosaic Law at all, or to any particular code of law. Doubtless the Mosaic Law, in which he had been educated, and which he had painfully proved the impossibility of keeping perfectly, had been to him the grand embodiment and representative of law; but he had hence been led to an abstract conception, ever before his mind, of law as representing the principle of exaction of full obedience to requirements; and when he says, as he so often does, that by law no man can be justified, he means that none can be so on the principle of complete conformity being required to the behests of Divine righteousness, whether as revealed from Mount Sinai or through the human conscience, or in any other way; for by law is the knowledge of sin and consequent guilt, but not the power of avoiding sin. Those who ignore the distinction as above explained, saying, as some do, that νόμος , whether with or without the article, always means simply the Law of Moses, fail to enter into the depth and generality of the apostle's argument. The distinction will be observed in this translation throughout the Epistle ( ὁ νόμος being translated "the Law," and νόμος "law"), and it will be found always to have a meaning. (For one instance in which it is hardly possible to suppose St. Paul to have omitted and inserted the article in the same sentence without a meaning, cf. Gal_4:21.)

Rom_2:14, Rom_2:15

For when Gentiles, which have not law, do by nature (or, having not law by nature, do; cf. Rom_2:27, ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία ) the things of the Law (i.e. the Mosaic Law), these, not having law, are law unto themselves; which ( οἵτινες , with its usual significance of quippequi) show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness (or, bearing witness therewith), and their thoughts betwixt each other accusing or else excusing (not, as in the Authorized Version, meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another, μεταξὺ being used as a preposition, governing ἀλλήλων ). The "for" at the beginning of Rom_2:14 connects it with the preceding one thus: "Not hearers but doers of law will be justified." The Jew, therefore, has no advantage in the way of justification over the Gentile from being in a peculiar sense a hearer. For Gentiles also may be doers, though not of a positive revealed law, yet of the law of conscience. It is not, of course, implied that on the ground of any such doing they "shall be justified;" only that, so far as they do, they will, equally with the Jews, be rewarded. Nor is it said that any, in fact, do all that law enjoins. We observe the hypothetical form of expression, ὅταν ποιῇ , and also, τὰ τοῦ νόμου , i.e. any of the Law's requirements. The Law, for instance, says, "Thou shalt not steal;" and if a Gentile, though knowing nothing of the ten commandments, on principle refrains from stealing, his conscientious honesty will have its own reward as much as that of the Jew who refrains in obedience to the revealed commandment. A few of the expressions in these verses call for consideration.

(1) What is meant by τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου , said to be "written in their hearts"? Τὸ ἔργον cannot be pleonastic, as supposed by Tholuck. One view is that it is equivalent to τὰ ἔργα τοῦ νόμου , which is an expression frequently used elsewhere (Rom_3:27, Rom_3:28; Rom_9:32; Gal_2:16; Gal_3:2, Gal_3:5, Gal_3:10); and the singular number has been explained as collective, as in 1Co_3:13; Gal_6:4, and Gal_6:7 above (so Meyer), or as "applying to each of the particular cases supposed in the ὅταν ... ποιῶσιν " (so Alford). The objection to this view is that it is not the works of the Law that can be said to be written, but rather the Law itself from which the works proceed. Seeing that γραπτὸν implies evident reference to the tables of the Law, it seems best to take ἔργον as denoting the efficacy of the Law, as opposed to the letter, which alone was written on the tables. So in effect Bengel: "Legem ipsam cum sua activitate. Opponitur literae, quae est accidens."

(2) How do they show ( ἐνδείκνυνται ) this ἔργον νόμου ? Evidently, from the context of Gal_6:14, by doing τὰ τοῦ νὸμου ; i.e. doing them (as is, of course, implied) as being the right things to do, and approving them. The very possibility of their doing this is evidence of an innate moral sense in the human heart, which, however it may often be obscured or perverted, remains as a characteristic of humanity, and is more or less operative in all communities. "Nulls enim gens unquam sic ab humanitate abhorruit ut non se intra leges aliquas contineret. Constat absque dubio quasdam justitiae et rectitudinis conceptiones, quas Graeci προλήψεις recant, hominum animis esse naturaliter ingenitas" (Calvin).

(3) What is exactly meant by the conscience witnessing, and the thoughts accusing or else excusing? Συνειδήσις is not the Law in the heart, but rather our consciousness, whereby wittingly, in accordance with that Law, we approve or condemn. The compound verb συμμαρτυρούσης seems to denote a joint witness of conscience. In Rom_8:16 and Rom_9:1, where alone the word occurs elsewhere, it is followed by a dative, and means certainly concurrent witness. But, if so here, with what? Probably with the ἔνδειξις already spoken of. Right conduct on principle, and conscience approving, witness together to the inward law; or, conduct and conscience together witness to a man's merits or demerits in accordance with that law. Then, what is added about the λογισμοὶ shows how conscience operates. Reason comes into play, evoked by conscience, to reflect on its witness, and definitely condemn or approve what has been done. A kind of court of judicature is supposed. Man calls himself to the bar of his own moral judgment; his conscience adduces witness to the character of his deeds, or rather, with his deeds bears witness for or against himself; his thoughts are as advocates on both sides, arguing for condemnation or acquittal. "Observa quam erudite describat conscientiam, quum dicit nobis venire in mentem rationes, quibus quod recte factum est defendimus; rursum quae nos flagitiorum accusent et redarguant" (Calvin).

Rom_2:16

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ. About this verse the main question is, what previous assertion the "when" refers to. The time denoted by "when" (whether we suppose κρίνει or κρινεῖ —i.e. the present or future tense—to have been intended by the writer) is certainly the ἡμέρα of 1Co_3:13, and ether passages—the day of doom, when "every man's work shall be made manifest." Hence immediate connection of this verse with the preceding one, which would otherwise have been the natural one, seems to be precluded; for in 1Co_3:15 the present operation of conscience, during this present life, was described. One way of making the connection obvious is by understanding 1Co_3:15 as itself denoting the manifestation reserved for the day of judgment, when all will stand self-convicted. But not only the verb ἐκδείκνυντααι in the present tense, but also the fact of the whole verse being so obvious a description of present human consciousness, seems to preclude this view. Some would connect 1Co_3:16 with 1Co_3:12, of which it is in itself a natural sequence; and this connection is intimated in the Authorized Version, which includes the three verses that come between in a parenthesis. The objection to it is the length of the parenthesis. Probably the apostle, in his characteristic way, paid little regard to precise logical sequence; he only desired to express, in this concluding verse, that in the great day full justice would be done, and all that he had been speaking of would be made plain. My gospel means "the gospel committed unto me to preach" (cf. Rom_16:25; 2Co_4:3; 2Th_2:14; 2Ti_2:8). The idea that it means "the Gospel according to St. Luke," said to have been written under St. Paul's superintendence, is too improbable to call for serious notice.

Rom_2:17

But if (the true reading being certainly εἰ δὲ , not ἰδὲ , as in the Textus Receptus) thou ( σὺ , emphatic) art named a Jew. The Israelites who had remained in Palestine, or who returned to it after the Captivity, seem thenceforth to have been designated Jews ( Ἰουδαῖοι , though they included some of other tribes than that of Judah, notably that of Benjamin, of which St. Paul himself was, and of course of Levi. They are so called, whether resident in Palestine or elsewhere, throughout the New Testament, as well as by Roman writers. the term Ἑβραῖοι being applied in the New Testament (usually at least) to distinguish those Jews who adhered to the Hebrew language in public worship, and to national customs and traditions, from those who Hellenized ( Ἑλληυισταί ). It was the name on which the people prided themselves at that time, as expressing their peculiar privileges. The apostle, having at the beginning of this chapter addressed himself generally to "whosoever thou art that judgest," now summons the Jew exclusively to the bar of judgment, whose claims to exemption from the general condemnation have come to the front in the preceding verses. By the emphatic σὺ , he calls on him now to give an account of himself, and justify his pretensions if he can. The point of the argument is that the Jews were notoriously at that time no better than other nations in moral conduct—nay, their national character was such as to bring their very religion into disrepute among the heathen—and therefore doing, and not either privilege, knowledge, or profession, being according to the very Law on which they rested the test required, their whole ground for national exemption was taken away. And retest on law ( νόμῳ , here without the article, so as to emphasize the principle on which the Jew professed to rest for acceptance), and makest thy boast of God. The Jew gloried, as against the heathen, in his knowledge and worship of the one true God.

Rom_2:18

And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed ( κατηχούμενος , which implies regular training, whether catechetically in youth, or through rabbinical and synagogic teaching) out of the Law. So far the Jew's own claims on the ground of his own position have been touched on; what follows expresses his attitude with regard to others. We may observe throughout a vein of irony.

Rom_2:19, Rom_2:20

And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law. Here the form ( μόρφωσις ) does not mean the mere outward show, but the real representation in concrete form of knowledge and truth. The Jew had that; and the Law itself is by no means disparaged because the Jew presumed on it without keeping it (cf. Rom_7:12).

Rom_2:21

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? The οὗν here does not involve an anacoluthon after the reading εἴ δὲ in Rom_2:17, though St. Paul would not have much cared if it had been so. It serves only to sum up the lengthened protasis, and introduce the apodosis: "If … dost thou then," etc.? In what follows it is not, of course, implied that all Jews who relied on the Law were, in fact, thieves, adulterers, etc., but only that the Jews as a nation were no more exempt from such sins than others; and it may be that those specified were not selected by the apostle at random, but as being such as the Jews had a peculiar evil notoriety for at that time. Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

Rom_2:22

Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? The word ( ἱεροσυλεῖς ) thus rendered in the Authorized Version means literally "robbest temples," though it may bear also the general meaning of "sacrilege." Commentators differ as to what is meant. Some, considering that the word would not have been used except to denote something really sacrilegious—some offence against true sanctity—refer it to the withholding of gifts and offerings from the temple at Jerusalem, or of tithes from the priests, or embezzlement of the temple revenues. Mal_3:8, etc., is adduced in illustration, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings,'' etc. (cf. also Mal_1:7-14). A passage also is quoted from Josephus, 'Archaeol.,' B. 18, c. 5, where certain Jews are said to have appropriated to their own use purple and gold which had been given to them for the temple at Jerusalem by one Fulvia, a proselyte of theirs at Rome, in consequence of which the Emperor Tiberius, having been informed of the transaction by the lady's husband, had banished all the Jews from Rome. Others take the word in a general sense to denote any profanation of sanctity. So Luther, Calvin ("profanatio divinae majestatis"), and Bengel ("sacrilegium committi's, quia Deo non das gloriam, quae proprie Dei est"). Inasmuch, however, as definite malpractices of the Jews at that time, on account of which the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles (verse 24), seem to be here alluded to, the word may, perhaps more probably, be understood in its proper sense of plundering temples, meaning heathen temples—a practice which Jewish zealots, in their professed abhorrence of idolatry, might be addicted to when they had opportunity. A writer, though himself attaching no idea of sanctity to such temples, might still use the current term ἱεροσυλεῖν . SO, among the ancients, Chrysostom and Theophylact understand it; the latter, however, limiting it to taking away the ἀναθήματα . He says, "For if they did abhor the idols, yet nevertheless, dominated by covetousness, they touched the idol-offerings for filthy lucre's sake." In doing this, he seems to imply, they broke the very Law which had enjoined their ancestors to "destroy the altars, and break down the images" of idolaters (Deu_7:5); for the sauna Law had forbidden them to "desire the silver and gold that is on them," or "take it unto thee, for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God" (Deu_7:25). A strong confirmation of the view that plundering of heathen temples is denoted by ἱεροσυλεῖς is found in Act_19:37, when the town-clerk of Ephesus defended the Christians against the popular fury by declaring that they were not ἱεροσύλοι , that is (as he might mean) not temple-plunderers, such as ordinary Jews had the reputation of being. It has been objected against this view that there is a lack of recorded instances of such temple-plundering on the part of Jews, and that they could not have had much chance, as things then were, of thus displaying their zeal. But there may have been instances, notorious at the time, though not recorded; and, if so, the drift may be, "Thou displayest thy abhorrence of idolatry, enjoined by the Law, by acts of violence and greed, such as the very Law forbids."

Rom_2:23, Rom_2:24

Thou that makest thy boast in law, through thy transgression of the Law dishonourest thou God? (or, thou dishonourest God). For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, as it is written. The reference is to Isa_52:5, where the LXX. has Δἰ ὑμᾶς διαπαντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι . The passage is not quoted as a prophecy now fulfilled, or as in its original reference exactly applicable, but only as serving to express well how the character of the Jews had brought their very religion into disrepute (el. Tacitus, 'Hist..' Isa_5:4, etc.). The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a clear and final exposition of the principle, involved throughout all the previous verses, that Jewish privileges were of no profit in themselves, or without their meaning and purpose being understood and acted on. The thought now passes exclusively to circumcision, as being the original token of the covenant, and the Jew's rite of initiation into his whole privileged position (Gen_17:1-27.). When Jew had come to be the peculiar designation of the children of the covenant, persons were said to become Jews by circumcision. Thus Est_8:17, "And many of the people of the land became Jews," where the LXX. has, Καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν περιετέμνοντο καὶ Ἰουδάιζον . It may be here observed that the known fact of other races as well as the Jews having practised, and still practising, circumcision is not subversive of the scriptural view of its being a peculiarly Jewish rite. For to the Jew alone it had a peculiar significance.

Rom_2:25, Rom_2:26

For circumcision verily profiteth (not justifieth, but only profiteth: it is of advantage, and no unmeaning rite, if thou understandest and carriest out its meaning; it introduces thee into a state of knowledge and opportunity, and certainty of Divine favour), if thou keep the Law: but if thou be a transgressor of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision he counted for circumcision? Here, again, as in Rom_2:10, Rom_2:11, Rom_2:14, Rom_2:15, the impartiality of God's dealings with all men alike is distinctly declared.

Rom_2:27-29

And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature (i.e. men in a state of nature, Without any distinct revelation, or sign of a peculiar covenant) judge thee (thou presumest, in virtue of thy position, to judge them; nay, rather, they shall judge thee), who by (rather, with, i.e. though in possession of) the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter (or, in spirit, not in letter. Both the nouns, πνεύματι , and γράμματι , here are without the article, so as to bring out their inherent significance. See above as to ὁ νόμος and νόμος ). Whose praise is not of men, but of God. In these two concluding verses we observe the double sense in which the term Ἰουδαῖος may be used. It denotes here one possessed of the true spirit of Judaism; in which sense the Gentile might be the better Jew. In a like double sense we may use the word "Christian'' (cf. Joh_1:47, ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλίτης ; Joh_8:39, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham;" also Joh_4:1-54. and Gal_3:7). So, too, περιτομή for spiritual circumcision ( περιτομὴ ἀχειροτοίητος Col_2:11), in the sense of inward dedication to God's service, and "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" (Col_2:11; see also Php_3:2, Php_3:3). Such ethical significance of the rite appears even in the Old Testament. We read there of "uncircumcised lips" (Exo_6:12, Exo_6:30), or "ears" (Jer_6:10), or "hearts" (Le 26:41); and in Deu_30:6 we find the significant words." The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;" and in Jer_4:4, "Circumcise yourselves to the Loan, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Cf. Isa_3:1, "Put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.")

HOMILETICS

Rom_2:1-3

Judgment, human and Divine.

This sudden and impassioned appeal was made, in reality though not expressly, to the Jew. St. Paul imagined himself in the presence of a Hebrew fellow-countryman, whom he supposed to be listening to his burning denunciation of the vices and. crimes of heathen society. Now, the distinctive characteristic of Christianity as a moral system was its insistence upon righteousness, purity, and charity of heart, and not merely of conduct; and no one more thoroughly entered into this characteristic than did the apostle himself. With quick perception, St. Paul discerned, in the mind of the Jewish hearer or reader of his first chapter, indignation and disgust springing up at the picture of moral corruption which fairly represented the state of Gentile society. But the apostle wished to prove all men under condemnation—Jew and Gentile alike; and upon the Christian principle that morality is of the heart, he was able to do this, and was justified in doing it. Hence the language of indignation with which he turns upon the Pharisee, who recoils from Gentile iniquity, who pronounces upon those guilty of it the sentence of condemnation. "Thou art inexcusable; thou that judgest doest the same things!" The appeal is instructive, as to judgment passed upon man's conduct by his fellow-men and by his God.

I. THE JUDGMENT OF MAN BY MAN,

1. It is always fallible. For who has knowledge sufficient to enable him to sit in judgment upon his fellow-sinners?

2. As a matter of fact, it is often unjust. For who is so perfectly upright and impartial as to be entrusted, not with judicial authority over men as agents, but with moral authority over them as accountable beings?

3. He who judges his fellow-man is liable to have his attention withdrawn from his own sins, errors, and ill deserts. He is troubled by the mote in his brother's eye, and forgets the beam which is in his own eye.

4. In the case of fallible and sinful men, the 'condemnation of others is always condemnation of self. "Thou art the man!" is the response which is suggested The form of wrong-doing denounced may not be the identical form by which the denouncer is chiefly tempted; but the principle of sin is one, though the forms assumed be many.

II. THE JUDGMENT OF MAN BY GOD.

1. This is always and exactly just; for justice is a Divine attribute; and it would be absurd to attribute to the infinitely perfect Being, the Governor of the universe, either imperfection of knowledge or partiality and respect of persons.

2. It is not to be impugned. "The judgment of God is according to truth;" it needs no court of revision, no court of appeal; its decisions are final and unquestionable.

3. It is inevitable. Foolish and ignorant must be the man into whose mind the thought can enter that the Divine judgment can be escaped.

APPLICATION. Let a man judge, not his fellow-men, but himself, lest he incur the righteous judgment of God.

Rom_2:4-6

Long-suffering.

It is certain that we live under a moral government administered by a holy and righteous Ruler, of infinite knowledge and irresistible power. Yet there are sinful men who, while admitting this to be the case, live as if they believed that government and retribution had no reference to themselves. The apostle, in this passage, appeals to such persons, expostulates with them, and shows them the guilt and folly of disregarding the Divine Law and authority, and of presuming too far upon the Divine forbearance.

I. THE FACT OF GOD'S LONG-SUFFERING. This may be traced:

1. In human history, which abounds with examples of Divine patience with the sins of nations.

2. In the Christian dispensation, which is certainly the crowning proof of the long-suffering of the Eternal.

3. In individual experience; for no man who will be candid with himself will question that such forbearance has been exercised towards him.

II. THE ABUSE OF GOD'S LONG-SUFFERING. There are many who, instead of gratefully acknowledging Divine forbearance, and using aright the opportunity of repentance and reformation which they owe to it, despise the riches of God's long-suffering and mercy.

1. The facts upon which this abuse is founded are these: God in his nature is kind and gracious, delighting in the exercise of clemency and compassion. God in his retributive action is slow and patient, often withholding the condemnation and penalty threatened and deserved.

2. The false inferences drawn from these facts may be thus stated: Either, God will not fulfil the threats which he has made, will not enforce by the awful sanctions of his justice the laws which he has promulgated; or, we are for some reason exempt from the operations of God's judicial authority. This last seems to have been the belief of many of the Jews, who, because theirs was the chosen and favoured nation, believed themselves secure from the penalties which would befall the unbelieving and impenitent sinners of the Gentiles.

III. THE EXHAUSTION OF GOD'S LONG-SUFFERING.

1. It must not be forgotten that what the apostle calls "wrath," and righteous retribution, are facts in the government of the Eternal. They do not cease to be facts, because God is forbearing and kind. He can have no compromise with sin. He cannot overlook the distinction between the rebel and the loyal subject. He cannot admit to his favour and fellowship those who detest his laws and defy his authority.

2. And it is equally important to remember that the government of God is universal and impartial. It extends to all mankind. There is not one code for the Jew and another for the Gentile; one for the privileged and another for the unprivileged. "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." But in this case it is vain for them to hope that they shall escape God's just censure—and condemnation. All alike are guilty; and all alike, if saved, must be saved upon the same terms—terms honourable to God, and beneficial to human nature and human society.

IV. THE PURPOSE AND USE OF GOD'S LONG-SUFFERING. After all that has been said, it must yet be insisted upon that the attribute of Deity here referred to by the apostle is a glorious and blessed attribute, and that we cannot be sufficiently grateful to God for its exercise towards us, who stand so sorely in need of it. How shall we so use it that it may be for our truest and eternal advantage?

1. Believe it, as a truth harmonizing with Divine righteousness.

2. Submit to it, as an influence inducing to repentance.

3. Act upon it, as affording opportunity for practical reformation.

Rom_2:11

Divine impartiality.

The apostle's immediate intention in thus stating the perfect equity of the Divine government, and the utter absence of partiality from his nature and from his administration, was to remove from the mind of any Jewish hearer or reader the belief that his descent from Abraham could be of any avail in God's sight if moral and spiritual qualifications were lacking. But, as is so often the case, especially in St. Paul's writings, local and temporary references gave occasion for the utterance of broad, general, and eternal principles. The simplicity and grandeur of this assertion must appeal to the moral nature of every reader of the Epistle.

I. DIVINE IMPARTIALITY CONTRASTS WITH HUMAN PARTIALITY. However it may be with God and his government, certain it is that, both in private and in public life, men's treatment of their fellow-men has usually been marked by personal favouritism. No one can read those passages in the Old Testament referring to "gifts," i.e. bribes, and to "regarding the face "or the person of suitors, without perceiving how general was judicial corruption in the Oriental world. And there are allusions in the New Testament which prove to us that even the great Roman officials were not free from this taint. The prevalence of the practice of bribery, corruption, and favouritism must have suggested to the minds of ordinary men the possibility that the Judge of all regarded men's persons.

II. DIVINE IMPARTIALITY IS SUPPORTED BY CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

1. There is the testimony of the unsophisticated conscience of man. Crime, no doubt, exists and flourishes in society; and men's interests induce them to connive at its presence. But, explain it how we may, the fact is undeniable that the inner voice of reason and conscience bears witness to the justice and impartiality of God. Idolatry is indeed associated with beliefs and expedients based upon the unfairness and corruptibility of the deities held in honour or in dread. But let the idea of one supreme God take possession of men's souls, and the moral nature with which they are endowed refuses to be satisfied except by a conviction that this Being is far above what are felt to be human infirmities and faults. If there be a God, that God is just.

2. Revelation supports this conviction. There are passages of Scripture which may seem to conflict with it, but these have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, or they would have been seen to be in consistency with what is the general tenor and the express teaching of the Word of God. How many are the passages in which the offerings of the insincere are indignantly rejected, in which we are taught that external circumstances and hypocritical pretences are valueless in the sight of him who "searcheth the heart, and trieth the reins of the children of men"!

3. The ministry of Christ is especially emphatic upon this point. It is sufficient to refer to our Lord's rebuke of those who boasted that they were Abraham's seed; he bade them reflect upon God's ability to raise up even from the very stones of the fields children unto Abraham. And he constrained the acknowledgment from his enemies that "he regarded not the person of man."

III. DIVINE IMPARTIALITY IS EXHIBITED IN CERTAIN STRIKING PARTICULARS.

1. In judgment God is just to all. There is one law by which all are judged. In the application of that standard a righteous regard is had to the opportunities of knowledge and enlightenment afforded by circumstances; but no other consideration is allowed to enter.

2. The salvation which is by Christ Jesus is provided for all alike. God is the "Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe" Christ died, not for any class, but for the ungodly, i.e. for all mankind, who alike needed redemption and salvation. And the heralds of the cross preached the Saviour to Jew and Gentile alike.

IV. DIVINE IMPARTIALITY AFFORDS MOST IMPORTANT LESSONS TO ALL TO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD IS PREACHED. 1. Here is a rebuke addressed to the proud, the self-righteous, the self-confident, to all who deem themselves the favourites of Heaven, and who indulge the persuasion that they are in possession of some special recommendation to the consideration of the Lord and Judge of all. 2. Here is encouragement for the timid and the lowly, They have good reason to believe that, if they are viewed with disfavour by men, on account of some supposed disadvantage or deficiency, they will not on this account be rejected by him who raiseth up those that he bowed down.

Rom_2:13

Hearers and doers.

It is impossible to overlook the resemblance which this passage bears to words of the great Teacher uttered towards the close of the sermon on the mount. In this, as in so many places, the apostle is evidently indebted for his thoughts, and almost his very words, to the Divine Fountain of all the streams of spiritual wisdom and life.

I. A PRINCIPLE OF CONDEMNATION.

1. It is possible to hear the Law, and yet not to obey it.

2. In the case of the disobedient, the continued hearing of the Law may be the occasion of continued and even increased insensibility, indifference, and hostility.

3. Thus the very hearing and the familiarity resulting from it may become the ground of condemnation, because an aggravation of the offen