Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XVI)

Verse 16: All this will happen on the day when God will judge people’s secret thoughts through Jesus Christ. This is part of the Good News that I tell everyone.

The apostle Paul now draws a line in the future when all such excuses will be forever dismissed, much like a judge who overrules the defence lawyer’s objection to something being offered into evidence. Such judging was set up a long time ago. As the Psalmist said: “The Lord set up His throne to bring justice, and He will rule forever. He judges everyone on earth fairly. He judges all nations honestly.”¹ When it says He will judge fairly, that is an inference that God will give equal time to those who have His laws and those who don’t. The Psalmist Asaph made this clear in one of his Psalms: “God is the Judge, and the skies tell how fair He is. Selah.”² By using the skies as a witness, Asaph indicates that whether it rains or shines, it does so on both those who believe in Him and those who do not.³

Solomon was a very practical King, he always chose wisely. He said he had come to realize that there is a right time for everything.⁴ And as a result of this, he came to a conclusion: “I said to myself, ‘God has planned a time for everything, and He has planned a time to judge everything people do. He will judge good people and bad people.’”⁵ That’s why he sent this message to the youth in his kingdom: “Young people, enjoy yourselves while you are young. Be happy. Do whatever your heart leads you to do. Do whatever you want, but remember that God will judge you for everything you do.”⁶ This was another way of saying: Be yourself, follow your dreams, be all that you can be, but whatever you do, don’t be foolish or irresponsible. That’s why Solomon concludes his exhortation by saying; “The most important thing a person can do is to respect God and obey His commands, because He knows about everything people do – even the secret things. He knows about all the good and all the bad, and He will judge people for everything they do.”⁷

This is why the Apostle Paul warned the believers to be cautious when judging. He told the Corinthians: “Don’t judge anyone now. The time for judging will be when the Lord comes. He will shine light on everything that is now hidden in darkness. He will make known the secret purposes of our hearts. Then the praise each person should get will come from God.”⁸ And one reason why judgment is withheld until the appropriate time is because, as the apostle says: “Everyone must die once. Then they are judged.”⁹ But there is no reason to wait until death before you present yourself to God for judging so that when you die you know all is well with your soul. As King David wisely said: “Examine me, God, and know my heart; test me, and know my thoughts. See if there is in me any hurtful way, and lead me along the eternal way.”¹⁰

When the Apostle Peter was comparing the way believers and unbelievers lived, he felt led to tell his readers: “Your ‘friends’ think it is strange that you no longer join them in all the wild and wasteful things they do. And so they say bad things about you. But they will have to face God to explain what they have done. He is the one who will soon judge everyone – those who are still living and those who have died. Some were told the Good News before they died. They were criticized by others in their life here on earth. But it was God’s plan that they hear the Good News so that they could have a new life through the Spirit.”¹¹

That’s why Peter was able to then tell them this: “So you see that the Lord God knows how to save those who are devoted to Him. He will save them when troubles come. And the Lord will hold evil people to punish them on the day of judgment.”¹² Of course, this was all made possible because God sent His Son to earth ahead of Judgment Day. Jesus made this plain in His teaching when He said: “I assure you, anyone who hears what I say and believes in the One who sent me has eternal life. They will not be judged guilty. They have already left death and have entered into life.”¹³ That’s why the apostles were able to go out and preach: “Jesus told us to go and speak to the people. He told us to tell them that He is the one God chose to be the Judge of all who are living and all who have died. Everyone who believes in Jesus will have their sins forgiven through His name.”¹⁴

We know that the courts of law here on earth are designed to judge the known and visible evidence that exists in order the make a judgment as to innocence or guilt. But God’s way of judging involves even the secret things hidden in men’s hearts and minds. In Jewish writings, we find that when Solomon’s words, “For God will bring to judgment everything we do, including every secret, whether good or bad,”¹⁵ were being read, it says, “Rabbi Johanan, when he came to this verse, wept.”¹⁶ In the footnotes it explains that these hidden things consist of “unintended errors.”¹⁷ British scholar and theologian John Gill gives his take on this. He says: “Yes, for those things which are hidden from him, which he has committed through ignorance, will He bring him into judgment; everything, even the least thing in a literal sense, but not for such silly trifling things they mention in the same place; doubtless the Holy Ghost means the secrets of men’s hearts and actions, and the hidden things of darkness which are contrary to the holy law of God.”¹⁸

Paul explains that this is part of his Good News that he brought to people everywhere, which he will also bring to the believers in Rome. The question by some is what does Paul mean by “his Good News.” Church historian Eusebius gives one explanation. He says: “They say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, ‘according to my Gospel.’”¹⁹ In other words, since Luke was a companion of Paul, and since Luke composed his own version of the life and teachings of Christ, that Paul used Luke’s Gospel in his teachings. However, it is also possible that Paul was referencing the gospel preached by others, such as the Judaizers in Galatia, and how it differed from the one given to him by Christ during his time in the desert.²⁰

Several early church scholars have various points of view on this part of Paul’s writing. For instance, Ambrosiaster notes: “There are two thoughts inside a man which will accuse each other—the good and the evil. The good accuses the evil because it has denied the truth. The evil accuses the good because it has not done what it knows to be right… Other thoughts will excuse, insofar as one has done what is expedient to do. He will say inwardly: ‘In my mind I have always thought it expedient to do what I have done. This was my faith.’ He will have a better case, even though he will still have to be corrected, because his conscience will not accuse him on the day of judgment. This is how the secret things of men will be judged by Jesus Christ our Lord on the day of judgment.”²¹

Others, like Chrysostom, say: “Paul says the ‘secrets of men’ and not the sins of men, in order to add to their fear.… For men sit in judgment on overt acts alone. If a secret deed of any one of us were brought into the open right now, in the midst of the church, what would we do except pray for death and have the earth swallow us up, rather than have so many witnesses of wickedness?”²² Then, Bishop Theodore makes note: “Paul continually preached that there will be a day of judgment and that it will be necessary to have believed in Christ in order to escape punishment.”²³ And Pelagius adds: “Paul says that there is a mental debate when we decide after long deliberation what we should and should not do. On the day of the Lord we shall be judged by this. This proves that we were not ignorant of good and evil. Or perhaps it means that on the day of judgment our conscience and our thoughts will appear before our eyes like history lessons to be learned; they will either accuse us or excuse us.²⁴”²⁵

John Calvin comments: “Paul adds, according to my gospel, intimating, that he announced a doctrine, to which the judgments of men, naturally implanted in them, gave a response: and he calls it his gospel, on account of the ministry; for the authority for setting forth the gospel resides in the true God alone; and it was only the dispensing of it that was committed to the Apostles. It is indeed no matter of surprise, that the gospel is in part called the messenger and the announcer of future judgment: for if the fulfillment and completion of what it promises be deferred to the full revelation of the heavenly kingdom, it must necessarily be connected with the last judgment: and further, Christ cannot be preached without being a resurrection to some, and a destruction to others; and both these things have a reference to the day of judgment. The words, through Jesus Christ, I apply to the day of judgment, though they are regarded otherwise by some; and the meaning is, — that the Lord will execute judgment by Christ, for he is appointed by the Father to be the Judge of the living and of the dead, — which the Apostles always mention among the main articles of the gospel. Thus the sentence will be full and complete, which would otherwise be defective.”²⁶

Also speaking of the judgment, John Bengel says that on that day, that part of the Law written on men’s hearts will be revealed as having also united with it some defense of uprights acts. As such, the man may be found guilty of wrong doing, and of all things, with himself being the accuser. It also implies in this life (reasoning from greater to lesser), the exercise, through accusation or defence, either the future judgment itself is already represented in man or is a foretaste of it in the conscience without his even knowing about it.²⁷

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XV)

Verse 15: They show that what the Law wants them to do is written on their hearts. Their own hearts tell them if they are guilty.

Just like the Greek philosopher Plato, Paul elaborates on what he sees as the intrinsic ability that God placed in His creation of man that we know as man’s will being an arbiter between the mind and the conscience. Psychologist Sigmund Freud taught that man has both an ego and a super-ego. The ego (the mind) contains thoughts developed from learning by which we guide ourselves in selecting those things needed for sustenance, health, safety, and comfort. But the super-ego (the conscience), helps the mind determine which of those choices are the best, the most helpful, and the most timely. For instance, when the body (the Id), sends a signal that it needs food, a list immediately pops up in the mind (the Ego) from which to chose. So from the list, the mind suggest to the body that it reach for certain types of cuisine to satisfy that need. However, the conscience (Super-Ego) knows that this particular food contains fats and sugars that are detrimental to one’s health, so it overrides the mind’s choice and directs the mind to reach for something healthier.

Paul is saying that the same process is used when it comes to our choices based on ethics, morals, motivation, and intended outcome. Remember, Adam and Eve did not have any written laws. They went by what God had communicated to them. Yet, after they disobeyed and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their conscience immediately went into gear: “The Lord God called out to Adam and asked, ‘Where are you?’ Adam replied, ‘I heard You walking in the garden, and I was afraid. I was naked, so I hid.’ God said to Adam, ‘Who told you that you were naked?‘”¹

On another occasion, when Joseph’s brothers remembered what they did to him as they faced this high official in Egypt who was arbitrating their attempt to get some food for their families back home, they were discussing why things were not going well. We read: “They said to each other, ‘We are being punished for the bad thing we did to our younger brother Joseph. We saw the trouble he was in. He begged us to save him, but we refused to listen. So now we are in trouble.‘”² This also was before the law was given to Moses. Yet their conscience told them that what they were doing was the wrong thing to do.

But this influence of the conscience to keep us on the right side of ethics and morals does not stop once a person becomes a believer. The Apostle John wrote: “By this we will know [without any doubt] that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart and quiet our conscience before Him whenever our heart convicts us [in guilt]; for God is greater than our heart and He knows all things [nothing is hidden from Him because we are in His hands].”³ Paul knew that it was so convenient for people to say, “I didn’t know,” or “I wasn’t taught.” But this was just an alibi to cover a person’s lack of discipline.

This concept was not new to the Jewish people. In their writings, we read: “A man’s soul testifies against him, for it is said: Keep the doors of your mouth from her you hold in your arms.⁴ What is it a man holds in his arms? You must agree, it is the soul.”⁵ But they were not alone, ancient Greek writers also expressed such dependency on one’s conscience. Some of their sayings read: “Carefully distinguish between things, and examine all things well.” “Leaving yourself to always be guided and directed by the understanding that comes from above, allowing it to control your destiny.”⁶

In the early church writer Ambrosiaster’s work, we find this explanation: “The meaning here is that those who believe under the guidance of nature do the work of the law not through the letter but through their conscience. For the work of the law is faith, which, although it is fully revealed in the Word of God, also shows itself to be a law for the natural judgment. Faith goes beyond what the law commands. Faith trusts in Christ. These people believe because of the inner witness of their conscience because they know in their conscience that what they believe is right. It is not illogical for the creature to believe and worship his Creator, nor is it absurd for the servant to recognize his Lord.”⁷

John Calvin adds his thoughts here: “He could not have more forcibly urged them than by the testimony of their own conscience, which is equal to a thousand witnesses. Having done what’s good according to their conscience, men sustain and comfort themselves; those who are conscious of having done evil, are inwardly harassed and tormented. Hence came these sayings of the heathens — ‘A good conscience is the widest sphere; but a bad one is the cruelest executioner, and more fiercely torments the ungodly than any furies can do.’ There is then a certain knowledge of the law by nature, which says, ‘This is good and worthy of being desired; that ought to be abhorred.’”⁸

Calvin then goes on to say: “But observe how intelligently he defines conscience: he says, that reasons come to our minds, by which we defend what is done right, and that there are those which accuse and reprove us for our vices; and he refers this process of accusation and defense to the day of the Lord; not that it will then first commence, for it is now continually carried on, but that it will then also be in operation; and he says this, that no one should disregard this process, as though it were vain and evanescent. And he has put, in the day, instead of, at the day, — a similar instance to what we have already observed.”⁹

From John Bengel’s point of view, he feels that what Paul is dealing with here is the letter of the Law and the spirit of the Law. The Jews had the letter of the Law while the heathens had the spirit of the Law. The letter of the Law deals with “operation,” while the spirit of the Law encompasses “circumstance.” Says Bengel: “The writing precedes the doing of those things, which are in the law; but subsequently, when a man has done (or has not done) the things commanded, the revelation [or right and wrong] follows, and the permanent writing appears more understandable.”¹⁰ With the heathen, acting according to the conscience came before becoming aware of the writing of the Law.

Henry Alford asks the reader to notice the similarity of this strife of conscience, and its testimony to the higher and more detailed form of the same conflict that Paul describes in chapter 7:16.¹¹ Alford also suggests that what was already a thought process of lawfulness in man’s conscience, made the writing of the Law that much more necessary. Therefore, being aware of right and wrong already existed before the Law was written. This goes against the idea that until the Law was written, there was no compulsion to obey it.

Adam Clarke notes: “At this point, [knowing] they have a law and act according to it, is further proved from their conduct in civil affairs; and from that correct sense which they have of natural justice in their debates, either in their courts of law, or in their treatises on morality. All these are ample proofs that God has not left them without light; and that, seeing they have such correct notions of right and wrong, they are accountable to God for their conduct in reference to these notions and principles. These seem to be the true meaning of this difficult clause.”¹²

Charles Spurgeon offers this explanation: “Paul tells us that those who have sinned without law shall be punished without law; but the Jewish nation, having received the law, if they broke it, would become peculiarly liable to the curse which was threatened for such breach. Yet further, all nations that dwell upon the face of the earth are also subject to this curse, for this reason: that if the law was not given to all from Sinai; it has been written by the finger of God more or less legibly upon the conscience of all mankind. It needs no prophet to tell an Indian, a Laplander, a South Sea Islander, that he must not steal; his own judgment so instructs him. There is that within every man which ought to convince him that idolatry is folly, that adultery and unchastity are immoral, that theft, and murder, and covetousness, are all evil. Now, inasmuch as all men in some degree have the law within, to that degree they are under the law; the curse of the law for transgression comes upon them.”¹³

A modern commentator has this to say: “Gentiles indicate that they have their own moral code that overlaps with the law. God created humanity with a sense of right and wrong (cf. 1:32), and while Adam’s fall damaged that, it did not erase it altogether. One’s moral code may be as rudimentary as ‘treat everyone fairly’ or ‘be nice to everyone.’ That moral code is an imperfect reflection of the morality God instilled in humankind, seen most clearly in the law. The problem is that no one lives up to whatever moral code he or his culture approves.”¹⁴

Jewish writer David Stern gives us this to think about: “Just below the surface of these verses is the question of whether it is possible for a person to be saved without explicitly having put his faith in God through the Messiah Yeshua. For verses 14–15 speak of doing what the Torah requires and having the conduct the Torah dictates written in one’s heart; and it sounds very much as if such a person would, in fact, be trusting and loving God with all his heart and soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5, Mt 22:37). Skeptics sometimes ask, ‘How can God be so unfair as to condemn to hell some “primitive tribesman” who hasn’t even heard of the Bible?’ They often raise the issue not out of concern for the ‘pitiful lost heathen’ but as a dodge to justify their own unbelief; the very form of the question assumes that God is unjust and not worthy of their trust, that the ‘primitive tribesman’ is an innocent ‘noble savage’ and God the guilty party.”¹⁵

At this point salvation through the work of Christ comes into focus. Since all humanity will stand before the judgment seat of God to give an account of their actions, those whose punishment for sin has been eliminated by their faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior will only be judged on how they handled their freedom of grace in Christ. However, all those who have never heard of Jesus or never been given the opportunity to seek forgiveness will be sentenced based on their entire record and what their conscience has told them.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XIV)

From his point of view, early church scholar Origen puts into perspective the responsibility of doing what you know is right: “The Gentiles need not keep the sabbaths or the new moons or the sacrifices which are written down in the law.¹ For this law is not what is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. Rather it is that which can be discerned naturally, e.g., that they should not kill or commit adultery, that they should not steal nor bear false witness, that they should honor father and mother, etc.² It may well be that since God is the one Creator of all, these things are written on the hearts of the Gentiles.”³

Calvin then continues: “For the natural law may agree with the law of Moses in the spirit, if not in the letter. For how would anyone understand by nature that a child should be circumcised on the eighth day?⁴… But we who feel that such things must be understood in a spiritual sense believe that we are not merely hearers of the law but doers of it also, being justified not according to the letter of the law, which in any case is so difficult that nobody could ever do it correctly, but according to the Spirit, which is the only way the law can ever be kept. This then is the work of the law which the apostle says even the Gentiles can fulfill. So when they do what the law says, it seems that they have the law written on their hearts by God, “not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God.⁵”⁶

Later, John Calvin offers his thoughts: “He [Paul] indeed shows that it is in vain to pretend ignorance as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness: for there is no nation so lost to every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honoring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed so that they were a law to themselves.”⁷

Methodist Adam Clarke explains his understanding: “It does not follow that the Gentiles who have not had a Divine revelation, shall either perish because they had it not; or their unrighteous conduct goes unpunished, because not having this revelation could be considered as an excuse for their sins. Do by nature the things contained in the law – Do, without this Divine revelation, through that light which God imparts to every man, the things contained in the law – act according to justice, mercy, temperance, and truth, the practice of which the revealed law so powerfully commands; these are a law unto themselves – they are not accountable to any other law, and are not to be judged by any dispensation different from that under which they live. Rabbi Tanchum⁸ quotes the Supreme Being as saying: ‘When I decreed anything against the Gentiles, to whom I have not given laws and statues, and they know what I have decreed; immediately they repent; but the Israelites do not so.’⁹”¹⁰

John Bengel has an interesting thought here concerning the grammatical construction of verses 14 and 15. He says that the first part of verse 14 is explained by the last part of verse 15, and the second part of verse 14 is explained by the first part of verse 15. So let’s put them in that order to see what he implies: The people who are not Jews do not have the Law…Their own hearts tell them if they are guilty. When they do what the Law tells them to do, even if they do not have the Law, it shows they know what they should do… They show that what the Law wants them to do is written in their hearts. In many ways, this makes sense. Bengel goes on to say that Paul did this in order to show that God does have reason to judge the Gentiles based on what their conscience tells them. He does this to point out that because the Jews have the Law written on tablets of stone and have been taught from their youth what it means, they will be dealt with more strictly.

Bengel then summarizes: “The Gentiles are by nature (that is, of themselves, as born, not as men, but as nations), destitute of the (written Law; the Jews are by nature Jewish, Galatians 2:15, and, therefore, by nature have the (written) law, Romans 11:24. There is no danger of losing the force of the intention, which most adopt, [they] do by nature those things which the law [demands]; for what the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do, they surely do by nature.”¹¹ The whole point of Bengel’s narrative is designed to point out that both Jews and Gentiles will have their moral character judged by the law. In the Gentiles case, it will be the law that by nature is written in their conscience. In the Jews case, it will be the law of Moses that by nature of being Jewish is part of their upbringing and ethics. But, when it comes their being judged by their acceptance or dismissal of Jesus as the Messiah and Savior of sinners, both will be judged by whether or not they have heard the Gospel of Christ. Thus, in all cases there will be no excuse, only pardon.

Henry Alford also points to the phrase “by nature.” This he equates to the promptings of their own minds as to what is right and wrong. He makes it clear that Paul had no intention of suggesting that when it came to the Law of Moses that Gentiles would be required to fulfill those laws just like the Jews. Rather, God has given them a law of their own and that is their conscience. He then points out: “A law may be just or unjust, God’s law or man’s law: there is but one law of God, partly written in men’s conscience, more plainly manifest in the law of Moses and fully revealed in Jesus Christ.”¹²

H. A. Ironside calls what Paul is talking about here “a ministry of condemnation.” He teaches: “Gentile sinners who never heard of the Sinaitic code have a sense of condemnation resting upon them when they live in violation of the dictates of their divinely-implanted conscience which testifies either for or against them – ‘accusing or else excusing one another.’ This is experimental proof that they are on the ground of responsibility and that God will be righteous in judging them in that solemn day when the Man Christ Jesus will sit upon the august tribunal of the ages and manifest the secret motives and springs of conduct.”¹³ Too often, today’s Christians believe that all mankind from Adam to the Day of Judgment will be judged by the same law and protocol as they. But from what we read, God – who is a just and fair Judge – will judge based on the evidence of what they knew about what He revealed to them during their time.

Charles Hodge concludes: “The Gentiles, then, are a law unto themselves; they have in their own nature a rule of duty; a knowledge of what is right, and a sense of obligation. As the absence of all moral acts among the lower animals shows that they have no sense of right and wrong, that they are not under a moral law, so the performance of such acts by the Gentiles, shows that they have a law written on their hearts.”¹⁴

F. F. Bruce thinks this: “The word order strongly suggests that ‘by nature’ (physei) is to be construed with ‘do’ (as in the RSV); since, however, it comes between the two clauses in the Greek text it could just be taken with what precedes. Gentiles, that is to say, are born with no knowledge of the law, but when they come to faith in Christ they do, not ‘by nature’ but by the Spirit (cf. 8:4), what the law requires (see Cranfield,¹⁵ ad loc.). But this construction is less probable. Despite the dark picture drawn above (1:18–32), Paul and his readers knew pagans who led upright lives in accordance with the dictates of conscience (although this was not their ground of justification before God).”¹⁶

A more modern commentator states: “This signals that Paul gives the basis for maintaining that a Gentile without the law of Moses will perish in God’s judgment. Based upon the natural circumstances of their birth, Gentiles do not have the law, but sometimes do instinctively the things of the Law, probably a reference to its moral requirements (e.g., loving one’s neighbor; not bearing false witness) rather than the ceremonial aspects (sacrificing a red heifer). When those who do not have the law sometimes do some of the things prescribed by the law of Moses.”¹⁷

Jewish scholar David Stern says: “To stress the priority of deeds over head-knowledge of the Torah or status as a Jew, Paul pointedly speaks of Gentiles, who by definition don’t have Torah but nevertheless do naturally what the Torah requires, as being for themselves already Torah because their lives show that the conduct the Torah dictates is ‘written in their hearts.’ The quotation from Jeremiah 31:32( 33) speaks of the ‘new covenant’ which Adonai is to make with Israel, when he says, ‘I will put my Torah in their inward parts and write it in their hearts.’ (see Hebrews 8:8–12).”¹⁸ Another Jewish writer notes: “Like any good teacher, Paul knows repetition is important. Again, he stresses that God will judge Gentiles based on what they should know. This raises the discussion of those who never hear the word of God but know to repent when they sin. Will God ‘save them’ without their knowing who the Messiah is? (Genesis 18:25b).”¹⁹

Stern then goes on to say: “That non-Jews have knowledge of the eternal moral law of God set forth in the Torah is further proved when they come to explicit and conscious faith in God — on a day when God passes judgment on people’s inmost secrets, which, according to the Good News as Paul proclaims it and as Yeshua himself proclaimed it (Jn 5:22–29), he does… through the Messiah Yeshua. On the day people come to faith they, at last, admit that God was right and they were wrong. Some of their behavior may prove not blameworthy so that their consciences… sometimes defend them, but some of their behavior they will then perceive is falling short of God’s standard, and their consciences will accuse them.”²⁰

ARE YOU SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW

You may have often seen this quote attributed to Plato’s Socrates: “True knowledge is knowing you know nothing.” Although no such quote can be found in any of Plato’s works, there is enough to conclude that it is a paraphrase of what may have been said by Socrates at his trial concerning his accuser: “He knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know.”¹

In today’s vernacular, we might, with Plato’s permission, paraphrase it this way: True knowledge is knowing that you don’t know everything about anything. But to hear some people talk, either about religion, the Bible, politics, the economy, legal matters, social issues, etc., etc., at home, in the office, on the street, on TV or radio, you get the impression that they know all there is to know and the reason they are telling you what they know is because they don’t think you know enough.

While there is little chance you can change them, you can certainly keep from becoming one of them. I once heard someone say, in response to an issue that everyone was talking about, “Here’s all I know about it.” It might have been their way of saying: My mind is open to learning more because I’m eager to increase my knowledge on the subject. Then again, it may have been his method of informing others that he was satisfied with his level of understanding on the subject and was not interested in knowing more about something that didn’t interest him.

In any case, whenever we are in a position to express an opinion on any subject, it might be advisable to take Socrates’ position and proceed with caution, knowing that we don’t know everything about it, and what we do know is always subject to correction. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WHAT ANIMALS CAN TEACH US

In 2003, police in Warwickshire, England, opened a garden shed and found a whimpering, cowering dog. It had been locked in the shed and abandoned. It was dirty and malnourished and had clearly been abused. In an act of kindness, the police took the dog, which was a greyhound female, to the nearby Nuneaton and Warwickshire Wildlife Sanctuary that had a reputation for being a willing haven for animals abandoned, orphaned or otherwise in need.

Shelter staff member, Jeff, and the other sanctuary staff went to work with two aims: to restore the dog to full health, and to win her trust. It took several weeks, but eventually, both goals were achieved. They named her Jasmine, and they started thinking of ways to find her an adoptive home. But Jasmine had other ideas. No one remembers now how it all began, but Jasmine started welcoming all animal arriving at the sanctuary. It wouldn’t matter if it was a puppy, a fox cub, a rabbit or, probably, a rhinoceros, Jasmine would peer into the box or cage and, where possible, deliver a welcoming lick.

Jeff relates one of the early incidents. “We had two puppies that had been abandoned at a nearby railway line. One was a Lakeland Terrier cross and another was a Jack Russell Doberman cross. They were tiny when they arrived at the center and Jasmine approached them and grabbed one by the scruff of the neck in her mouth and put him on the sofa. Then she fetched the other one and lay down with them, cuddling them.”

“But she is like that with all of our animals, even the rabbits,” said Jeff. “She takes all the stress out of them and it helps them to not only feel close to her but to settle into their new surroundings. She has done the same with a little fox and badger cubs, she licks the rabbits and guinea pigs and even lets the birds perch on the bridge of her nose.”

Jasmine, the timid, abused, deserted orphaned dog, became the animal sanctuary’s resident surrogate mother, a role for which she might have been born. The list of orphaned and abandoned youngsters she cared for comprised five fox cubs, four badger cubs, 15 chicks, eight guinea pigs, two stray puppies and 15 rabbits.

And one roe deer fawn. Tiny Bramble, 11 weeks old, was found semi-conscious in a field. Upon arrival at the sanctuary, Jasmine cuddled up to her to keep her warm and then went into the full foster mom role. Jasmine the greyhound showered Bramble the roe deer with affection and made sure nothing was matted in her fur. “They are inseparable,” says Jeff. “Bramble walks between her legs and they keep kissing each other. They walk together round the sanctuary. It’s a real treat to see them.”

Jasmine will continue to care for Bramble until she is old enough to be returned to woodland life. When that happens, Jasmine will not be lonely. She will be too busy showering love and affection on the next orphan or victim of abuse. Jasmine was doing what she did best, being a foster care mother.

If an animal that was abused and abandoned by so-called intelligent humans can show such love and affection for species other than her own, what does that tell us who are supposed to be so much more sophisticated? Since they too were created by God, is it any wonder that we can see His kind and loving nature in them? If so, why can’t it be seen in us who call ourselves His children?

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XIII)

The Apostle Paul was not the only one who understood this principle of practice what you preach. The Apostle James made it quite clear how he felt about it: “My dear brothers and sisters, always be more willing to listen than to speak… Do what God’s teaching says; don’t just listen and do nothing. When you only sit and listen, you are fooling yourselves. Hearing God’s teaching and doing nothing is like looking at your face in the mirror and doing nothing about what you saw. You go away and immediately forget how bad you looked.” James had a valid suggestion for them: “When you look into God’s perfect law that sets people free, pay attention to it. If you do what it says, you will have God’s blessing. Never just listen to His teaching and forget what you heard.”¹

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster has this to say: “Paul says this because those who hear the law are not justified unless they believe in Christ, whom the law itself has promised. This is what it means to keep the law. For how does someone who does not believe the law keep it, when he does not receive the One to whom the law bears witness? But the one who appears not to be under the law because he is uncircumcised in his flesh, if he believes in Christ, may be said to have kept the law. And he who says he is in the law, i.e., the Jew, because what is said in the law does not penetrate to his mind, is not a doer of the law but a hearer only, for he does not believe in the Christ who is written about in the law, as Philip said to Nathaniel: ‘We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote.‘²”³

Chrysostom makes this point: “Well does Paul say ‘before God,’ because if they may appear before men to be dignified and to boast of great things, before God it is quite different: only the doers of the law are justified before him.… But how is it possible for someone who has not heard to be a doer of the law? Paul insists not only that it is possible but that those who have heard it might not be doers of it.”⁴ To this we can add the words of Theodoret: “The law was given not to tickle our ears but to lead us to good works.”⁵

Reformer John Calvin shares this insight: “This anticipates an objection which the Jews might have concluded. As they had heard that the law was the rule of righteousness,⁶ they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, ‘He who will do these shall live in them.’ The importance then of this verse is the following, — ‘If righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.’ They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a false belief: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.”⁷

John Bengel believes that this principle applied not only to Jews but also to Gentiles. But especially to the Jews because it would be mandatory to perform every requirement of the whole Law.⁸ This obligation was clearly understood by the Apostle James as incumbent upon Christians when it came to the Word of God.⁹ Henry Alford believes this comment was meant to explain to the Jews the fact, that not their mere hearing of the law read in the synagogue, (which was possible because their being born a Jew gave them this privilege,) will justify them before God, as long as they still keep to general principles, while not addressing the impossibility of being justified, instead of doing all that the law requests.¹⁰ We can also say that this is good information for Christians. Some think that just by going to church it will meet all the requirements for justification, forgetting that just hearing the Word is not enough, the principles of what God says must also be put into practice..

Wesleyan scholar Adam Clarke gives his interpretation: “It does not follow, because one people are favored with a Divine revelation, that therefore they shall be saved; while the others who have not had that revelation, shall finally perish: this is not God‘s procedure; where He has given a law – a Divine revelation, He requires obedience to that law; and only those who have been doers of that law – who have lived according to the light and privileges granted in that revelation, shall be justified – shall be finally acknowledged to be such as are fit for the kingdom of God.”¹¹

H. A. Ironside offers this: “The parenthetical verses of Romans 2:13-15 emphasize the plain principle already laid down so forcibly. Judgment is according to deeds. To know the law and fail to obey it only increases the condemnation. Doers of the law will be justified, if there are any. But elsewhere we learn that from this standpoint all would be lost, for ‘by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.’ The Jew prided himself upon being in possession of the divine oracles and thought this made him superior to the Gentile nations round about. But God has not left Himself without witness; to these nations He has given both the light of conscience and the light of nature. They show ‘the work of the law written in their hearts.’ Observe, it is not that the law is written in their hearts. That is new birth, and is the distinctive blessing of the New Covenant. If the law were written there they would fulfil its righteousness. But the work of the law is quite another thing.”¹²

Charles Hodge also makes several points here: “Those are just in the sight of God, or are justified, who have done what the law requires, and are regarded and treated accordingly; that is, are declared to be free from condemnation, and entitled to the favor of God. In obvious allusion to the opinion, that being a Jew was enough to secure admission to heaven, the apostle says, It is not the hearers but the doers of the laws that are justified. He is not speaking of the method of justification available for sinners, as revealed in the gospel, but of the principles of justice which will be applied to all who look to the law for justification. If men rely on works, they must have works; they must be doers of the law; they must satisfy its demands, if they are to be justified by it. For God is just and impartial; he will, as a judge administering the law, judge every man, not according to his privileges, but according to his works and the knowledge of duty which he has possessed. On these principles, it is his very design to show that no flesh living can be justified.”¹³

F. F. Bruce makes this note: “Paul may have in mind Leviticus 18:5, ‘You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live’—a scripture which he quotes later in 10:5. The course of his argument goes on to indicate that, while one who was a ‘doer’ of the law would be justified, yet, since no-one does it perfectly, there is no justification that way. The antithesis between merely hearing the law and actually doing it is elaborated in James 1:22–25. The expression ‘the doers of the law’ is found in Qumran literature.”¹⁴

Messianic Jewish scholar David Stern points out that the reason why Paul speaks of “hearing of the Word” is because back in those days scrolls were rare and there were few who knew how to read such documents. So, says Stern: “Torah knowledge came from hearing them read aloud [in the synagogue] and memorizing them, but if they don’t do what it says they are sinners who will die.”¹⁵ Another Jewish writer adds: “Once again, Paul makes clear that Torah-based works are part of faith. This is not to say we earn our salvation. Rather, thankful obedience is both commanded, and a sign of [having] a right relationship with God. Paul is also sending a message to any Jews who may have regarded their privileged status as not requiring observance to the Torah.”¹⁶ This also works for Christians who think that just by going to church is enough. They don’t understand that hearing the Word of God preached is part of going to church, and obeying God’s Word they heard is the purpose of having gone to church.

Verse 14: The people who are not Jews do not have the Law. When they do what the Law tells them to do, even if they do not have the Law, it shows they know what they should do.

Paul is continuing his argument, that people born into cultures that are not as advanced as the Jews’ in knowing about God and His laws,¹⁷ have nonetheless developed rules for living based on their intuitive understanding of what is right and wrong. The apostle Paul explained to the people in Lystra and Derbe how God provides the impetus for such laws through nature. He wrote: “In the past God let all the nations do what they wanted. But God was always there doing the good things that prove He is real. He gives you rain from heaven and good harvests at the right times.”¹⁸

As we know, Paul was a student of Greek literature. The Greek philosopher speaks about how common sense and nature teach us ethics. In one book on the lives of the great philosophers we read: “Plato distinguishes the law ‘into written and unwritten:’ The written law, is that which was used in commonwealths; and the unwritten law is that which was according to custom or nature, such as not going to market naked, nor [for men] to be clothed with women’s clothes; which things were not forbidden by any written law, but these were not done because they were forbidden by the unwritten law; which he calls ‘unwritten,’ because not written on tablets, or with ink; otherwise it was written in their minds, and which by nature and use they were accustomed to.”¹⁹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XII)

Early church scholar Origen questions which Law Paul is talking about here. He writes: “When the apostle says that those who are without the law will perish without the law, the question arises as to whether this should be understood only of the law of Moses or whether it should be extended to cover the law of Christ or even some other law under which mortal men may live. Will such a person be judged according to the law under which he has sinned, or will he perish as if he were outside the law because he is outside the law of Moses, even if he lives under some other law?”¹

Then, Chrysostom has several things to say. First, “Paul says that the Jews have a much greater need of grace than the Gentiles. Because the Jews said that they were justified by the law and therefore did not need grace, Paul shows that they need it even more than the Gentiles, given that they are liable to be punished more severely.”² And second, “Those who lived before the giving of the law will not receive the same sentence as those after the law. Those sinning after the giving of the law will undergo heavier penalties.”³ In either case, both are God’s laws. Whether they be those of nature or those in the hands of Moses.

Also, early church scholar Pelagius writes: “‘Will perish’ means the same thing as ‘will be judged,’ for the man who perishes, perishes by God’s judgment, and the man who is judged a sinner perishes.⁴ Paul puts Jews and Gentiles on the same level when he says that doers rather than hearers of the law are righteous and then adds that the Gentiles will be judged on the day of the Lord. For does anyone doubt that those under the law will perish just as those who lived without the law, unless they have believed in Christ?”⁵

John Calvin offers the following explanation of what Paul means here: “In the former part of this section Paul assails the Gentiles; though no Moses was given them to publish and to ratify a law from the Lord, he yet denies this omission to be a reason why they deserved not the just sentence of death for their sins; as though he had said — that the knowledge of a written law was not necessary for the just condemnation of a sinner… As the Gentiles, being led by the errors of their own reason, go headlong into ruin, so the Jews possess a law by which they are condemned; for this sentence has been long ago pronounced, condemned; for this sentence has been long ago pronounced, ‘Cursed are all they who continue not in all its precepts.’⁶ A worse condition, then, awaits the Jewish sinners since their condemnation is already pronounced in their own law.”⁷

Henry Alford sees a dichotomy between the Jews and Gentiles being judged as those having sinned against the Law of Moses and those who sinned against the Law of Conscience. Of those who did not have the Law of Moses, Alford says: “Whether that will ameliorate [make it more tolerable] their case, is not even hinted, – but only the fact, as consonant [in harmony] with God’s justice, stated. That this is the meaning of without law is clear from 1 Corinthians 9:21.” Alford goes on to say: “The Apostle constructs his argument, asserting it with regard to the Mosaic law in the case of the Jews, and proving that the Gentiles have had a law given to them in the testimony of their consciences… It may safely be assumed that whenever the word law is used, without any further definition, in this Epistle, the law of Moses is intended by it. These last [listed in this verse] shall be judged by the law: for that will furnish the measure and rule by which judgment will proceed.”⁸

Adam Clarke gives his view: “For as many as have sinned without law, etc. – They, viz. the Gentiles, who shall be found to have transgressed against the mere light of nature, or rather, that true light that lights every man that comes into the world,⁹ will not come under the same rule with those, the Jews, who have in addition to this enjoyed an extraordinary revelation; but they shall be dealt with according to the inferior dispensation, under which they lived: while those, the Jews, who have sinned against the law – the positive Divine revelation granted to them, shall be judged by that law, and punished proportionally to the abuse of such an extraordinary advantage.”¹⁰

H. A. Ironside states: “‘As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.’ No principle could be sounder. Men are held responsible for what they know, or might know if they would. They are not condemned for ignorance unless that ignorance be the result of the willful rejection of light. ‘Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.‘¹¹”¹²

Then Charles Hodge adds his understanding: “In the preceding verse it was stated that God is just and impartial in all His judgments. This is confirmed not only by the previous assertion, that He will judge every man according to his works, but also by the exhibition of that important principle contained in this verse. Men are to be judged by the light they have independently enjoyed. The ground of judgment is their works; the rule of judgment is their knowledge. For as many as sinned without law. That is, God is impartial, for He will judge men according to the light which they have enjoyed. Our Lord teaches the same doctrine when He says, ‘Now the servant who knew what his master wanted but didn’t prepare or act according to his will, will be whipped with many lashes; however, the one who did what deserves a beating, but didn’t know, will receive few lashes.’¹³”¹⁴

Charles Spurgeon then comments: “Mark you, Moses does not tone down the law to suit our fallen state, or talk of our doing our best and God’s being satisfied with our imperfect obedience. No, he says only, ‘He that does those things will live by them.’ He demands perfect and entire obedience, if life is to come of it. He does not say that if you have broken the law you may still live by some other means. No, if the law is once broken it is all over with you as to salvation thereby: one single fault takes away the possibility of your ever being justified by the law. ‘He that does those things,’ that is, always, without exception, with all his heart and soul and strength— ‘he will live by them;’ but nobody else. Be he Jew or be he Gentile, his only righteousness by law must come through the doing of the law.”¹⁵ This is a reiteration of Chapter 1 where Paul said that Gentiles have no excuse even without the written Torah.¹⁶

Verse 13: Hearing what the law says does not make people right with God. They will only be right before Him if they do everything the law says.

To comprehend this portion of Paul’s writing, we must understand that he is trying to help the Jewish converts realize the price of continuing to live by and judge others by, the Law given to Moses. But even more, he is also attempting to help them see the hypocrisy of this approach, especially when trying to judge without meeting the demands of the Law themselves. So it is also with believers and the Word of God. Hearing the Word, and using what we hear to judge others, is totally invalid if we are not in compliance with God’s Word ourselves. Therefore, if we think that because we condemn the sinner that they will also be held accountable before God, we are wrong. Paul is telling us that the one who will be held responsible is the one who judges others without first judging themselves.

For the apostle Paul, even among those who did recognize the Law, there was a difference between those who knew what the law said, and those did what the law said. Moses laid down this principle early on in Israel’s history. He told them: “Now, Israel, listen to the laws and to the commands that I teach you. Obey them and you will live.”¹⁷ Today we would say it this way: Don’t just hear what is said when the law is read, but listen to what the law is saying. That’s why Moses had to call the people together again and tell them: “Israelites, listen to the laws and rules that I tell you today. Learn these laws and be sure to obey them.”¹⁸ Was that enough? No! Moses had to call them together again and tell them: “Israelites, listen carefully and obey these laws. Then everything will be fine with you.”¹⁹

Years and years later, some elders came to the prophet Ezekiel seeking advice from the LORD. So when Ezekiel sought the LORD for an answer, God said: Why should I listen to what they have to say when they did not listen to what I have to say. The Almighty continued to point out that He had gone to great length to get the message to them of what He desired from them. But unfortunately, they turned against Him and did not follow the rules He gave them.²⁰ God finally told Ezekiel: “And now about you, son of man. Your people lean against the walls and stand in their doorways talking about you. They tell each other, ‘Come on, let’s go hear what the Lord says.’ So they come to you as if they were my people. They sit in front of you as if they were my people. They hear your words, but they will not do the things you say. They only want to do what feels good.”²¹

Jesus ran into the same situation. So He made it clear that no matter what people thought about their chances under the old agreement, under the new agreement they would be held to an even higher standard: “Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter God’s kingdom. The only people who will enter are those who do what my Father in heaven wants. On that last Day, many will call me Lord. They will say, ‘Lord, Lord, by the power of your name we spoke for God. And by your name we forced out demons and did many miracles.’ Then I will tell those people clearly, ‘Get away from me, you people who do wrong. I never knew you.’”²² Oddly enough, when Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him, He told those who informed Him they were there: “My mother and my brothers are those who listen to God’s teaching and obey it.”²³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XI)

Reformer John Calvin says that he sees a division of the whole human race into two classes. God had separated the Jews from everyone else, but the condition of all Gentiles races was universal. Yet, Calvin says this makes no difference in determining that both groups are equally guilty of sin. He writes: “The word person is taken in Scripture for all outward things, which are customarily regarded as possessing any value or esteem. When, therefore, you read that God is no respecter of persons, understand that what He regards is purity of heart or inward integrity; and that He has no respect for those things which are traditionally highly valued by men, such as kindred, country, dignity, wealth, and similar things.”

Understanding this, respect of persons is to be taken here for the distinction or the difference between one nation and another. All this leads Calvin to say: “There is a twofold acceptation of men before God; the first, when He chooses and calls us from nothing through unmerited goodness, as there is nothing in our nature which can be approved by Him; the second, when after having regenerated us, He confers on us His gifts, and shows favor to the image of His Son which He recognizes in us.”¹

John Bengel proposes, that by using the word but at the beginning of this sentence, Paul is comparing wrath with glory; indignation with honor; tribulation and anguish with peace mentioned in the previous three verses. Says Bengel, when it comes to things which bring joy, they should be viewed as proceeding from God, while those that bring sorrow are felt by man. He goes on to say: “In this passage, we must carefully attend to the word peace, which is here opposed to sorrow, that is, to tribulation and anxiety. But in Isaiah 65:13, joy [rejoice] (and honor) is opposed to shame [ashamed] (and grief), and each part of the sentence being concisely expressed, is to be supplied from its opposite. Besides, in the class of blessings, honor is greatest, and in the class of penalties, sorrow [is the greatest].”²

Henry Alford corroborates that what Paul says here, serves as a transition to what follows in the next verses, as well as, confirms what went before in the previous verses. As to what preceded this verse, Alford points out that although Jews had a significant advantage, they will be rightly judged for their use of them and not treated as a favorite of heaven. As to what follows, it introduces a comparison between Jews and Gentiles to show how justly God will judge.³

Wesleyan scholar Adam Clarke makes these points: “For there is no respect of persons with God – The righteous Judge will not act according to any principle of partiality; the character and conduct, alone of the persons shall weigh with Him. He will take no wicked man to glory, let his nation or advantages be what they may; and He will send no righteous man to perdition, though brought up in the very bosom of Gentilism. And as He will judge on that day according to character and conduct, so His judgment will proceed on the ground of the graces, privileges, and blessings which they had received, improved or abused.

Clarke goes on: “And as there is no respect of persons with God in judgment, so there can be none in the previous administration of His saving blessings. He that will be condemned for his unrighteousness, will be condemned on the ground that he had sufficient grace afforded him for the salvation of his soul; and his condemnation will rest on the simple principle, that he abused the grace which was sufficient to save him, by acting in opposition to its dictates and influence. No man, in that great day, shall be brought to heaven through any partiality of the Judge; and no man sent to hell because God did not afford him sufficient grace, or because he had made a decree which rendered even his use of it ineffectual to his salvation. In reference to the great design of God, in the salvation of man, it shall be said, – in time, at the day of judgment, and throughout eternity, – There Is No Respect of Persons with God.”⁴

Respected Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge offers these insights: “This completes the statement of the principle of law announced in verse 6. The law, while it threatens death to the transgressor, promises life to the obedient; and it matters not in either case, whether it is a Jew or Gentile who receives its award. Glory, honor, and peace are descriptive terms for eternal life. It is a life glorious in itself; an object of reverence or regard to others, and a source of unspeakable blessedness or peace… God is righteous and impartial, looking not at the person, but the conduct of those whom He judges. This is the ground of the assurance that He will judge Jews and Gentiles according to their works.”⁵

Charles Spurgeon made this clear in his preaching: “The great Judge Himself shall give the decision: He shall pronounce sentence upon the wicked, and execute their punishment. No partiality shall there be seen; there shall be no private conferences to secure immunity for nobles, no hushing up of matters, that great men may escape contempt for their crimes. All men shall stand before the one great judgment-bar; evidence shall be given concerning them all, and a righteous sentence shall go forth from his mouth who knows not how to flatter the great.”⁶

F. F. Bruce also points to the fact, that God shows no partiality. He writes: “Cf. Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19; Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17. Our Lord stated the same truth graphically when he described how the Father in heaven ‘makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust’ (Matt. 5:45).”⁷

And Jewish scholar David Stern notes: “Paul starts in vv. 9–10 by relating the summary in the preceding two verses to the Jew first, then to the Gentile — to the Jew first and foremost because his Torah knowledge ought to make him more aware of how God functions; also see 1:16. On ‘shalom’ see Mt 10:12. Since God is impartial (v. 11), the criterion He uses in judgment is not whether an individual’s life situation places him within the framework of Torah as a Jew, but whether or not he has sinned (v. 12).”⁸ Another Jewish writer adds this: “Paul shows that ‘all have sinned’ applies to Jews as well. (Again the Shema⁹ is at the heart of this teaching.) As the gospel and its blessings are to the Jew first, judgment is as well, as the Jews have the Torah.”¹⁰

Verse 12: Sinners who don’t have the law are already lost because they have no law, while those who do have the law will be judged by the law as sinners under the law.

The Apostle Paul calls those who accept the Law of God, and those who are not aware of such a Law, common sinners. He indicates that when they stand trial, in the end, only those who live by the law will be judged by the Law. Jesus drew the same line between those cities in which He performed miracles,¹¹ who claimed to know God, and those pagan cities where no miracles were performed. He said: “I tell you, it will be better for Tyre and Sidon on the day men stand before God and are told they are guilty than for you.”¹² Our Lord reiterates this same principle when He talks about the harsher punishment of servants who know what their master wants but don’t do anything, and a lesser punishment for those who don’t do anything because they are not aware of what their master wants.¹³

The Apostle Paul echoes this same tenet when speaking to the Greeks on Mars’ Hill in Athens about those who ignorantly worship God through idols and those who make idols through which to worship Him through ignorance. Paul told them: “God overlooked and disregarded the former ages of ignorance; but now He commands all people everywhere to repent [that is, to change their old way of thinking, to regret their past sins, and to seek God’s purpose for their lives].”¹⁴ Let’s put it another way. A policeman at an intersection blows his whistle and tells people who are waiting to cross to stay where they are until he gives the signal. But to his surprise, two men start crossing in spite of his order. Both are arrested. One man is fined because he disobeyed the command, and the other is only given a warning. Why? Because the man fined was able to hear the policeman’s order, while the other man was found to be deaf.

We find this principle all the way back to the days of Moses. The people were asked by the Levites to take an oath of allegiance to the Law. As each law was read, the people were to say, “Amen.” We read where the Levites said: “‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them [keeping them, taking them to heart as the rule of his life].’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”¹⁵ However, the apostle Paul brings it up to date. He wrote the Corinthians: “The old agreement that judged people guilty of sin had glory. So surely, the new agreement that makes people right with God has much greater glory. That old agreement had glory. But it really loses its glory when it is compared to the much greater glory of the new agreement. If the agreement that was brought to an end came with glory, then the agreement that never ends has much greater glory.”¹⁶

Paul recognized that many Jews who converted to Christianity were still trying to dodge the accusations of fellow Jews because they no longer accepted the Torah as their guideline. So when he wrote the Galatians, he told them this: “We Jews came to Christ to be made right with God, so it is clear that we were sinners too. Does this mean that Christ makes us sinners? Of course not. But I would be wrong to begin teaching again those things that I gave up. It was the law itself that caused me to end my life under the law. I died to the law so that I could live for God. I have been nailed to the cross with Christ.”¹⁷ Paul’s emphasis of codependency on the law, within the Roman community of believers, must have been severe enough that he felt the need to confront it directly.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part X)

Adam Clarke sees tribulation and anguish in a similar vein: “Misery of all descriptions, without the possibility of escape, will this righteous Judge inflict upon every impenitent sinner. The Jew first, as possessing greater privileges, and having abused greater mercies; and also on the Gentile, who, though he had not the same advantages, had what God saw was sufficient for his state; and, having sinned against them, shall have punishment proportioned to his demerit.”¹ We do not know the full range of revelation that Paul received from God on this subject concerning the final judgment. But suffice it to say, that the fire of punishment will not burn any hotter for the unrepentant Jew than the unremorseful Gentile, nor will the length and glory of everlasting life be longer or brighter for one than the other.

John Bengel looks at retribution for evil deeds from a different angle. First, he says that tribulation is for the present, and anguish is for the future; tribulation weighs the individual down, and anguish is what follows. Says Bengel: “In these words, we have a proof of the avenging justice of God.” It is important that we understand what Bengel means by “avenging justice.” He explains: “For God’s wrath causes sinful man, experiencing wrath and all adversity, to hate himself, because he has opposed God; and as long as man shrinks from this most righteous hatred of self, he is under punishment.”² In other words, the longer and more often the sinner tries to hide in the darkness of his wicked ways from the glaring light of God’s Word, the more he ensures himself of a terrible outcome. It’s another way of saying that when all is said and done, justice wins.

Henry Alford gives us this perspective: Tribulation signifies more the outward weight of objective infliction, while anguish is the subjective feeling of the pressure. In other words, when a person recognizes the reality of the way things really are, the more pressure they will feel to either ignore it, run from it, or acquiesce to it. Says Alford, the objective weight of infliction and the subjective weight of anguish coexist as burdens on every soul. But in this case, Paul says that because Jews had such an advantage over Gentiles, that battle began with them. After all, they knew about God’s divine will and had His commandments and laws.³ When we extrapolate this same principle to Christianity today, believers are the first to feel the burden of sin through conviction. Therefore, they should be the first to recognize they cannot go on until forgiveness is sought and is mercy given. That’s what the Apostle John points out.⁴

H. A. Ironside has this to say: “It is not that God will deal, therefore, in indiscriminate judgment with all men, but [the] light given will be the standard by which they are judged. None can complain, for if one but ‘follow the gleam’ he will find light enough to guide his steps and ensure his salvation. If by the light of nature, men realize their responsibility to their Creator, He will make Himself responsible to give them further light unto the salvation of their souls… No principle could be sounder. Men are held responsible for what they know or might know if they would. They are not condemned for ignorance unless that ignorance is the result of the willful rejection of light.”⁵

Verses 10-11: But let glory, honor, and peace be to everyone who does good – to the Jews first and also to those who are not Jews. God judges everyone the same. It doesn’t matter who they are.

As opposed to the punishment meted out on those who reject the Word of God as they seek to find their own way through a life filled with risks and pitfalls, Paul counters with words of encouragement for those who remain steadfast and uncompromising in their faith and fully committed to God and His Word. He prays that all those who are faithful will be blessed with glory, honor, and peace. This is similar wording to what Paul says in verse seven as the goal of all those who live their lives for God’s benefit.

The apostle Peter makes the same claim, only he says glory, honor, and praise. This was a common phrase used in Bible days as a form of doxology. Let’s look at three interesting words Paul uses here. The first, “glory,” in the Greek is “doxa.” It basically means the opinion or assessment one person has for another. Today we might say that such a person has a “glowing reputation.” Paul will use this same word again when writing to the Corinthians: “But we speak God’s secret wisdom that has been hidden from everyone until now. God planned this wisdom for our glory. He planned it before the world began.”⁶ And in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says this: “We all show the Lord’s glory, and we are being changed to be like Him. This change in us brings more and more glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”⁷ So, putting all of this in context, Paul is saying that those who remain unmovable in their faith in God, for God, and from God, will be held in high esteem by others who look to them as examples of good Christian living.

The next word is “honor.” The Greek word is “timē,” and in this context, it means “to have respect and reverence for.” The psalmist said that people who respect and revere the LORD are like a light shining in the darkness. He then gives them this glowing eulogy: “Such good people will never fall. They will always be remembered. They will not be afraid of bad news. They are confident because they trust in the Lord, They remain confident and without fear, so they defeat their enemies. They freely give to the poor. Their goodness will continue forever. They will be honored with victory.”⁸

And Solomon says of Wisdom: “With her right hand, Wisdom offers long life – with the other hand, riches and honor. Wisdom will lead you to a life of joy and peace.”⁹ He also says: “Love wisdom, and she will make you great. Hold on to wisdom, and she will bring you honor. Wisdom will reward you with a crown of honor and glory.”¹⁰

We see this clearly illustrated when Jesus visited His hometown of Nazareth. It was there He made the statement that a prophet is honored everywhere except in his own country.¹¹ But later, when speaking to His disciples, Jesus make this claim: “Whoever serves me must follow me. My servants must be with me everywhere I am. My Father will give honor to anyone who serves me.”¹² So, not only is it an honor to serve our God, but by serving Him with honor, He will see to it that we are honored for being trustworthy and dependable agents of truth, kindness, and love.

The last word used here by Paul is “peace.” This is translated from the Greek word “eirēnē,” which, according to Thayer’s Lexicon, in this context, it means: “the blessed state of devout and upright men after death.” If taken that way, Paul would be saying more or less that those who stand for what is right against all odds and remain faithful to the end will be able to depart this life in peace.¹³ Paul uses this word the same way when he says: “If your thinking is controlled by your sinful self, there is spiritual death. But if your thinking is controlled by the Spirit, there is life and peace.”¹⁴

Again, the apostle Paul puts the Jews first in line for these blessings followed by the non-Jews. We need not think of this as God’s formula for blessing, but rather that Paul was connecting this to how the Gospel was being spread in those days. Every time Paul went into a new city, first, he would head for the Jewish synagogue. Only when he was not welcomed did he then go among the non-Jews in that same city. In fact, many of the non-Jews he met were already proselytes to Judaism. But he did not favor one over the other. When Paul wrote to the Galatians, he told them, “When someone belongs to Christ Jesus, it is not important if they are circumcised [Jews] or not. The important thing is faith—the kind of faith that works through love.”¹⁵ And that is the same thought he expresses here.

Early church scholars have various opinions on what Jesus is saying here. Apollinaris of Laodicea says: “Paul is right to put the Jew first here and then the Greek. For those who are closer to the Lord and to His rebukes are honored above others, and they enjoy their rewards more than others.”¹⁶ Then in the writings of Ambrosiaster, we read: “Just as Paul mentioned three woes for unbelievers, so now he mentions three benefits for believers: genuine honor as sons of God, unchanging glory, and peace.”¹⁷ And the great preacher Chrysostom questions: “Which Jews and Greeks are Paul talking about here? Those before Christ’s coming! For he has not yet gotten to the time of grace in the development of his argument but is still dwelling on earlier times.… For if there was no difference before, … how can there be any now? This is why he puts so much emphasis on this point.”¹⁸

We also have commentary from Pelagius who writes: “Glory is opposed to wrath and honor to displeasure. What Paul called ‘immortality’ above he calls ‘peace’ here. The word first is emphatic and means ‘indeed,’ because God does not play favorites.”¹⁹ And then, Theodoret of Cyr says: “God did not promise eternal life to those who worshiped idols but to those who even apart from the law led a Mosaic life, embraced godliness and the worship of God, and were concerned about righteousness.”²⁰ And finally, St. Jerome makes this comment: “We are all born equal, emperors and paupers, and we die as equals. Our humanity is of one quality.”²¹ To this I add, that there is another place, between birth and death, where all mankind regardless of race, color, ethnicity, education, wealth, position, or power are made equal, and that is at the foot of the cross of Christ Jesus.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part IX)

Early church scholars give their views on what Paul is saying here about a final judgment. In Ambrosiaster we read: “Those who doubt that there will be a future judgment of God through Christ, and who for that reason despise His patience, do all they can to discredit it as being real and certain. For they believe in wickedness. It is wickedness to deny what God has foretold. Paul mentions three things which are fitting punishments for unbelief – wrath, fury, and tribulation. The focus of wrath is not in the one who judges but in the one who is judged. God is said to get angry and to take vengeance, but in reality, the nature of God transcends such passions. But this is said so that we should believe that God judges sin and that He will finally get even.”¹

Then, the great preacher Chrysostom makes this point: “Paul deprives those who live in wickedness of any excuse and shows that it is from divisiveness and carelessness that they fall into unrighteousness.… Their fall is voluntary; their crime is not of necessity.”² And Pelagius offers this: “Those who are frequently overcome by hatred and fall into quarreling should be careful and afraid of persisting in so harmful a habit, in case the punishments mentioned are visited upon them. It has already been pointed out that a man is divisive when he tries to defend something against his conscience. Such people do not believe the truth of the gospel and approve of wickedness. They have abandoned the Creator and diligently serve the creature instead.”³ Pelagius points out that Paul says God’s response to this will be one of “indignation” and “retribution.” These are the words that Paul chose to explain the severity of God’s judgment, but we must keep in mind this is already established law, not something God will decide on as punishment when the time comes.

John Calvin gives his explanation of what Paul is saying here: “Contention is mentioned here for rebellion and stubbornness; for Paul was contending with hypocrites who, by their gross and unresistant self-indulgence, played [around] with God. By the word truth, is simply meant the revealed will of God, which alone is the light of truth: for it is what belongs to all the ungodly, that they always prefer to be in bondage to iniquity, rather than to receive the yoke of God; and whatever obedience they may pretend, yet they never cease perversely to clamor and struggle against God’s word. For as they who are openly wicked scoff at the truth, so hypocrites fear not to set up in opposition to it their artificial modes of worship. The Apostle further adds, that such disobedient persons obey or serve iniquity; for there is no middle course, which those who are unwilling to be in subjection to the law of the Lord can take, so as to be kept from falling immediately into the service of sin. And it is the just reward of outrageous licentiousness, that [it is] those become the slaves of sin who cannot endure the service of God.”⁴ It should be noted here that Calvin was not talking about the world, but about the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages.

John Bengel says that Paul shrunk directly from saying that God would render to those who are contentious, death or eternal damnation. In Bengel’s words: “He, therefore, leaves it to the conscience of the sinner.”⁵ In other words, a case of “cause and effect.” Let’s say it another way from everyday life. If a person is warned over and over not to put a metal object into a wall socket, but they continue to do so, they will receive the shock of their lives. Perhaps, a shock that will end their lives. It’s not the power plant’s fault, even though they generate the electricity that flows through the wires into that socket. So it is with God. He has warned over and over that the wages of sin is death, so when someone finally earns that salary, it is not God who caused it, it is disobedience receiving its due payment.

Henry Alford focuses on the character of those who participate in such folly. He writes: “(Literally) those who are self-seeking; those who live in, act from, are situated in, and do their deeds from a spirit of ambitious seeking of their own interests, – for such is the meaning of the original word… [They hinder] the truth which they possess from doing its work, by self-abandonment to iniquity.”⁶ It cannot be more clearly said that all the heartache, suffering, pain and punishment that falls on a sinner is earned by them for being disobedient and insistent on doing things their way instead of God’s way. And as Jesus told Nicodemus, the only way for a sinner to turn this around is first to be born again.

Verse 9: There will be tribulation and anguish to everyone who does evil—to the Jews first and also to those who are not Jews.

The apostle Paul’s effort here is proactive in nature. He wanted the believers in Rome to know the danger before they might decide to wander away from the truth, not after the fact. Solomon tells us what Wisdom wanted everyone to know: “I tried to help, but you refused to listen. I offered my hand, but you turned away from me. You ignored my advice and refused to be corrected.”⁷ Perhaps this is why we feel pity instead of sympathy for someone who gets into trouble after being told ahead of time that it was a dangerous thing to do.

Paul does not go into detail to explain what he meant by Jews first and then Gentiles. But there are several possibilities. It may be to illustrate that Jesus came first with God’s message of salvation through grace to His own people, the Jews, then to the non-Jews. It may also signify that because of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah, the Jews would experience God’s wrath before the day when it would be levied against non-Jews. In any case, it’s best to let Paul speak for himself on this subject.

Jesus gives us an example of this when He warned various cities where His miracles were performed, but they refused to recognize Him as God’s Son. John tells us: “Jesus criticized the cities where He did most of His miracles. He criticized these cities because the people there did not change their lives and stop sinning. Jesus said, ‘It will be bad for you Chorazin! It will be bad for you Bethsaida! I did many miracles in you. If these same miracles had happened in Tyre and Sidon, the people there would have changed their lives a long time ago. They would have worn sackcloth and put ashes on themselves to show that they were sorry for their sins. But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be worse for you than for Tyre and Sidon’.”⁸

Jesus reveals another facet of the idea that those who know more will be judged with greater harshness than those who know less. Our Lord uses a parable about some servants who were told to work hard while their master was away so that when he returned they could show him what they had accomplished for his estate. Jesus speaks about the servant who did not take this advice: “That servant knew what his master wanted him to do. But he did not make himself ready or try to do what his master wanted. So that servant will be punished very severely! But what about the servant who does not know what his master wants? He also does things that deserve punishment. But he will get less punishment than the servant who knew what he should do. Whoever has been given much will be responsible for much. Much more will be expected from the one who has been given more.”⁹

We see this same concept when Luke tells us about Peter’s message in the Temple area after the lame man was healed. Peter said: “God has sent His special servant Jesus. He sent Him to you first.”¹⁰ And the apostle Paul saw this same distinction when he traveled with Barnabas to Antioch in Pisidia and told the people there: “We had to tell God’s message to you Jews first, but you refuse to listen. You have made it clear that you are not worthy of having eternal life. So we will now go to those who are not Jews.”¹¹ Later, when Paul went to Corinth, he tried his best to convince the Jews in the synagogue about Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah. But Luke tells us: “But they disagreed with what Paul was teaching and started insulting him. So Paul shook the dust from his clothes. He said to them, ‘If you are not saved, it will be your own fault! I have done all I can do. After this, I will go only to the non-Jewish people’.”¹²

Several early church scholars offer their comments. Ambrosiaster says, that “tribulation” refers to the punishment which the condemned sinner will suffer. Evil is not just a matter of deeds but of unbelief as well.… Paul always puts the Jew first, whether he is to be praised or blamed, because of his privileged ancestry. If he believes he will be all the more honored because of Abraham, but if he doubts he will be treated all the worse, because he has rejected the gift promised to his forefathers.¹³

Then Chrysostom shares this: “Having shown the extreme seriousness of the disease … Paul goes on to give the Jew the greater burden in the tribulation. For the Jew has enjoyed a larger share of instruction and so also deserves to suffer a larger share of the punishment if he does wrong. The wiser or mightier we are, the more we will be punished if we sin.”¹⁴ And Pelagius adds: “The apostle threatens the soul with punishment because of heretics who say that only the flesh does wrong and that the soul cannot sin. Or perhaps “soul” refers to the whole man.¹⁵”¹⁶

John Calvin makes this observation: “I have no doubt Paul simply places the Jew in opposition to the Gentile; for those whom he calls Greeks he will presently call Gentiles. But the Jews take the precedence in this case, for they had, in preference to others, both the promises and the threatenings of the law; as though he had said, ‘This is the universal rule of the divine judgment; it shall begin with the Jews, and it shall include the whole world’.”¹⁷ In other words, Paul is not placing the Jews first out of bias or as the worst offenders. Rather, the apostle John offers the best explanation: He came as the Messiah to His own people first, but His own people rejected Him.¹⁸ However, Charles Hodge makes this note on what Calvin had to say about the judgment beginning with the Jews, and extending to the Gentiles. “The Jew shall not only be punished as certainly as others but more severely, because he has been more highly favored. ‘The Jew first,’ is equivalent then to the Jew especially. The same remark applies to the following verse. If the Jew is faithful, he shall be specially rewarded. What is true of all men, is especially true of those to whom God has revealed himself in a peculiar manner.”¹⁹