Down an Unfamiliar Road

Gladys B. Stern, born in London England in 1890, wrote her first novel at the age of 20 and continued to write prolifically through her life creating novels, short stories, plays, memoirs, biographies and literary criticism. In one of her many books, she wrote this line: “Silent gratitude isn’t much use to anyone.”

As we go through life, we pass from one episode to another so quickly that we sometimes forget to share our gratitude with others for all the help and guidance they give us along the way. While serving as a hospice chaplain, one of the phrases I heard most often was, “I wish I would have thanked him (or her) for all they did for me.” Such undelivered communication can become the source of anguish and grief for a long time after someone who was deeply cherished was taken away.

It doesn’t need to involve big things before we are motivated to show our gratitude. Even the smallest things sometimes can mean a lot. For instance, my beloved wife put drops in my eyes several times a day because of my chronic dry eyes. Each time she does I say, “Thank you, love, love.” One day she said to me, “You don’t have to thank me each time I do this.” My response was soft and simple. I said, “We thank God every day before we eat. He’s never said: You don’t need to thank me each time you eat.” So if we say it to God each day, why not say it to each other?”

Needless to say, I haven’t stopped showing her my gratitude for even the smallest things she does for me and she appreciates it each time I do. So the next time you are the recipient of someone’s good word or deed, remember what Gladys Stern said: “Silent gratitude isn’t much use to anyone.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT ALWAYS WHAT YOU GET

He didn’t look like much at first. He was too fat and his head was so big his mother feared it was misshapen or damaged. He didn’t speak until he was well past the age of 2, and even then with a strange echolalia¹ that reinforced his parents’ fears. He threw a small bowling ball at his little sister one time and chased his first violin teacher from the house by throwing a chair at her. There was little to go on in showing his progress, except his patience in building card houses 14 levels high. So no one expected this little child would grow up to be ‘the new Copernicus,’ proclaiming a new theory of nature, in which matter and energy swapped faces, light beams bent, the stars danced and space and time were as flexible and elastic as bubblegum. No clue was given to suggest that he would help send humanity stumbling down the road to the atomic age, with all its promise and dread, with the stroke of his pen on a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939. And there certainly was no reason to suspect that one day his image would be on T-shirts, coffee mugs, posters, and dolls, celebrating him as one of mankind’s greatest geniuses. His name? Albert Einstein!

1 Echolalia is the medical term for repetition of speech by a child learning to talk

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XVIII)

Paul had confidence that the Messianic Jews in Rome knew enough about ethics and virtues to live a good and descent life. But he wanted them to undergo what he prayed for the Philippians to experience: “That your love will grow more and more; that you will have knowledge and understanding with your love; that you will see the difference between what is important and what is not and choose what is important.”¹ It was the same thing Paul wrote to the Thessalonians but using different words: “Test everything. Keep what is good, and stay away from everything that is evil.”² Yet, for the Roman saints he wanted something positive because he had faith in their growing spiritually. Much like what the author of Hebrews wrote: “Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby and is not able to understand much about living right. But solid food is for people who have grown up. From their experience, they have learned to see the difference between good and evil.”³

What Paul did not want, was for them to be arrogant and egotistical in their approach to leadership. The Psalmist said: “The Lord’s teachings are perfect. They give strength to His people. The Lord’s rules can be trusted. They help even the foolish become wise. The Lord’s laws are right. They make people happy. The Lord’s commands are good. They show people the right way to live.”⁴ That is good instruction for both Jew and Christian. But the Psalmist added a qualifier: “Learning respect for the LORD is good. It will last forever.”⁵ Any teacher who has little respect for the one who taught them will have even less respect for those they teach. Solomon put it this way: “The Law is a lamp. The Torah is light. Both are proof that discipline is the way to a good living.”⁶ Paul added his own emphasis to this in his instructions to young Timothy: “All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.”⁷

At this point in his letter, Paul’s begins a series of questions on self-examination. Look at yourself, he was saying to the Messianic leaders of the congregation in Rome. What do you see? His thesis reminds me of what happens when a policeman is arrested for speeding or committing a robbery. We can hear his commander say: Look at yourself! You wear the uniform of an office of the law; you are under oath to enforce and defend the laws of the land; you have been trained to spot criminals and take action when you see a crime being committed. So, how does it feel to be guilty of the very crimes you are sworn to prevent? As early church scholar Pelagius puts it: “At this point, Paul turns to the Jews and says that a Jew should be a Jew in deed and not in name only.”⁸ Should we not ask Christians the same question?

Origen puts it in a different perspective: “The first thing to notice here is that Paul does not say that the person he is rhetorically addressing is a Jew; only that he calls himself one, which is not at all the same thing. For Paul goes on to teach that the true Jew is the one who is circumcised in secret, i.e., in the heart, who keeps the law in spirit and not according to the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God.⁹ But the man who is circumcised visibly in the flesh, observing the law in order to be seen by men, is not a real Jew [either]; such a man only appears to be one.”¹⁰ How true this is of Christians. They may go to church each Sunday, read their Bible each morning, say grace over their meals, and pray before they go to bed, but in their hearts, they have no room for Christ as Lord, and in their conscience, there is no evidence of the Holy Spirit being their guide.

Reformist John Calvin has some interesting points to make on this self-examination proposed by Paul. He writes: “He means not that they rested [were satisfied] in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the end for which the law had been given; for they had no interest for its observance, and were conceited on this account only, — because they were persuaded that the prophecies of God belonged to them. In the same way they gloried in God, not as the LORD commands by His Prophet, — to humble ourselves, and to seek our glory in Him alone,¹¹ — but being without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they made Him, of whom they were inwardly destitute, exclusively their own, and assumed to be His people, for the purpose of vain ostentation [display] before men. This, then, was not the glorying of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue.”¹² What Calvin is saying here is often illustrated by people today who, while wearing a cross around their neck, use language and perform acts that are typically attributed to sinners of the worst kind.

Calvin goes on to say: “He [Paul] now concedes to them the knowledge of the divine will and the approval of things useful; and this they had attained from the doctrine of the law. But there is a twofold approval, — one of choice when we embrace the good we approve; the other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from evil, but by no means strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so learned in the law that they could pass judgment on the conduct of others but were not careful to regulate their life according to that judgment. But as Paul reproves their hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that excellent things are then only rightly approved (provided our judgment proceeds from sincerity) when God is attended to; for His will, as it is revealed in the law, is here appointed as the guide and teacher of what is to be justly approved.”¹³ How true this is of believers today who know all that the Bible has to say about what not to do in order to judge other people’s conduct, but have very little if any understanding of what the Bible says to do in order for God to judge them as being worthy of His favor and faithfulness.

Bible scholar John Bengel points out some factors that give the rest of this chapter additional context to consider. He says: “The highest point of Jewish boasting (a further description of it being inserted in verses 17-20, and its refutation added, verses 21-24, is itself refuted in verse 25.”¹⁴ Moreover, Bengel says the description of Jewish boasting consists of ten clauses: of these the first five in verses 17-18 (in our translated text), are: trust, claim, know, approve, and learned. These are meant to show what the Jew claims for himself. Then in verse 19, they think they are a guide and a light. And in verse 20, they think they show and teach and know. Bengel then sees all of this refuted in verse 25 by the fact that although they claim all these things, they end up no better off than the heathen because they are unable to follow all that the Law commands.

Great Christian thinker Henry Alford suggests that the original Greek word translated as “trust” in verse 17, which means to “rest upon anything” and is used as a metaphor (See Thayer’s Lexicon), signifies “false trust.”¹⁵ This brings all ten of the things Bengel says the Jews were trusting in into question. In other words, if you begin with a false premise, your conclusion will be false as well. This is especially true of atheists. If they start with the assumption there is no God, then all of their suppositions will be in error. So when Paul goes on to say that based on what they hold to be true in verse 19 where they claim to be guides to the blind and light in the darkness, they can be seen as fooling themselves. This was certainly Jesus’ conclusion about the Pharisees.¹⁶

Methodist scholar Adam Clarke gives his insights here: “What the apostle had said in the preceding verses being sufficient to enforce conviction on the conscience of the Jew, he now throws off the cover, and openly argues with him in the most plain and nervous manner; asserting that his superior knowledge, privileges, and profession, served only to worsen his condemnation. And that, in fact, he who, under all his greater advantages, transgressed the law of God, stood condemned by the honest Gentile, who, to the best of his knowledge obeyed it.”¹⁷ In other words, Paul is pulling off the mask that the people were wearing. They were pretending to be an honest, law-abiding, trustworthy person, while simultaneously using their disguise to mislead, confuse, and take advantage of others who were more sincere.

Charles Hodges points out the fallacies he feels Paul is addressing: “To boast, or glory in any person or thing, is to rejoice in Him or it as a source of honor, happiness, or profit to ourselves. We are forbidden thus to glory in ourselves, or any creature, as the ground of our confidence and source of our blessedness. ‘Let no man glory in men; but he that glories, let him glory in the Lord.’¹⁸ This glorying in God may be right or wrong, according to the reasons of it. If it proceeds from a sense of our own emptiness, and from right apprehensions of the excellence of God, and from faith in His promises, then it is that glorying which is so often commanded. But if it arises from false notions of our relation to Him, as His peculiar favorites, then it is vain and wicked. The Jews regarded themselves in such a sense the people of God, as to be secure of His favor, let their personal character be what it might. They boasted that He was their God, that they monopolized His favor, all other nations being His enemies.”¹⁹

One French theologian makes a critical comment on why priests and ministers wear robes while officiating in church services: “It is natural that the man who officiates in the worship of the Church be clothed in a manner corresponding to the task assigned to him and expressing visibly what he does. Moreover, whoever leads in the act of worship does not perform as a private party but as a minister of the church; he is the representative of the community and the spokesman of the Lord. Hence, an especially prescribed robe, a sort of ecclesiastical “uniform,” is useful for reminding both the faithful and himself that in this act he is not Mr. So-and-so, but a minister of the church in the midst of a multitude of others.”²⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER TWO (Part XVII)

Adam Clarke gives his view on Paul’s teaching about Judgment Day: “This shall be further exemplified and proved in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ; which judgment shall be according to my Gospel – according to what I am now laying down before you, relative to the impartiality of God, and his righteous procedure in judging men, not according to their opinions or prejudices, not according to revelations which they never possessed, but according to the various advantages or disadvantages of their political, religious, or domestic situation in life.”¹ He goes on to note: “As to the phrase written in their hearts, it is here opposed to the Jewish laws, which were written on tables of stone. The Jews drew the maxims by which their conduct was regulated from a Divine revelation: the Gentiles received theirs from what God, in the course of his providence and gracious influence, had shown them to be right, useful, and necessary.”²

Charles Hodge gives us this summary of the coming judgment: “Such then are the principles on which Paul assures us that all men are to be judged. They commend themselves irresistibly to every man’s conscience as soon as they are announced, and yet every false hope of heaven is founded on their denial or neglect. It may be proper to repeat them, that it may be seen how obviously the hopes of the Jews, to which Paul, from verse 17 onward, applies them, are at variance with these moral axioms. 1) He who condemns in others what he does himself, ipso facto condemns himself. 2) God’s judgments are according to the real character of men. 3) The goodness of God, being designed to lead us to repentance, is no proof that he will not punish sin. The perversion of that goodness will increase our guilt and aggravate our condemnation. 4) God will judge every man according to his works, not according to his professions, his ecclesiastical connections or relations. 5) Men shall be judged by the knowledge of duty which they severally possess. God is therefore perfectly impartial. These are the principles on which men are to be tried, in the last day, by Jesus Christ; and those who expect to be dealt with on any other plan will be dreadfully disappointed.”³

Charles Spurgeon comments: “You and I and all the myriad of our race shall be gathered before the throne of the Son of God. Then, when all are gathered, the indictment will be read, and each one will be examined concerning things done in the body, according to that he hath done. Then the books shall be opened, and everything recorded there shall be read before the face of heaven. Every sinner shall then hear the story of his life published to his everlasting shame. The good shall ask no concealment, and the evil shall find none.”⁴

Jewish writer David Stern has this for us to ponder: “‘Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ (Genesis 18:25), even if these people have never heard of Yeshua? Yes, he will, although they will have no assurance of their salvation since they will not know that Yeshua has made a final atonement for their sins. I will not pursue the matter further, except for this one caution: no one reading the above can be in the condition of the person just described and therefore excused from trusting God and his Messiah Yeshua. For anyone reading the Jewish New Testament and this commentary is being presented with the Gospel, and he cannot evade responsibility for deciding what to do with it. If he rejects it, any reading of Mk 16:16 puts the blame for the eternal consequences on his shoulders alone.”⁵

Another Jewish writer offers his view: “There is an allusion here to Jeremiah 31:33 and the New Covenant, which is promised to Israel. Paul uses this language in the context of Gentile faithfulness, in that those who follow the One true God would share in the blessings, of the Millennium and World to Come, promised to Israel. Again, the theme of the Shema comes into play as there is One God (with His rewards) for faithful Jews and Gentiles. (That faithfulness being defined by His Torah.) Elsewhere, Paul speaks of the effect on the “conscience” of man when affected by self-righteousness and continued sin.”⁶

One modern commentator gives this summation: “Although Gentiles do not have the Old Testament law, they are still sinners and will still face condemnation from God. There are some who claim that God would give eternal life to someone who never hears about Jesus, as long as that person responds correctly to the light of God in creation, is sincere in his own religion, and is kind to other people. But Paul indicates otherwise. Such a Gentile is still a sinner, even on the basis of his own moral norms, and as a sinner will experience God’s judgment and wrath.”⁷

Verses 17-18: What about you? You say you are a Jew. You trust in the law and proudly claim to be close to God. You know what God’s will is. And you approve of what is important because you have learned the law.

Since verse 18 in chapter 1, Paul has spoken of the need of salvation for the non-Jews. Now here he begins to focus on the need of salvation for the Jews. If there was any question as to whom Paul targeted with his letter to the church in Rome, he eliminates any doubt here. Knowing this should help any scholar in deciphering Paul’s message up to this point. When speaking to Jewish Christians, Paul knew that they considered themselves as children of God before they were converted. Therefore, he need not spend time in describing God’s relationship with the Israelites nor defining the Laws of Moses by which they lived and worshiped. The Psalmist stated clearly: “Praise the LORD! The LORD chose Jacob to be His own. Yes, He chose Israel to be His own people.”⁸ As such, it was incumbent upon them to adhere to and follow such laws to please the One who chose them.⁹ So Paul wants to build on that knowledge and faith.

But this may prove no easier for Paul than it did for John the Baptizer. When many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to where he was ministering, John was not fooled nor intimidated. So he said to them: “I know what you are thinking. You want to say, ‘but Abraham is our father!’ That means nothing. I tell you, God could make children for Abraham from these rocks.”¹⁰ And Jesus had even harsher words for them: “Many people will come from the east and from the west. These people will sit and eat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in God’s kingdom. And those who should have the kingdom will be thrown out.”¹¹

Besides that, Paul has been on both sides of the fence. He once told the Corinthians: “But if anyone dares to boast, I will too. (I am talking like a fool.) Are those people Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they from Abraham’s family? So am I.”¹² To the Philippians, he made this point: “Even if I am able to trust in myself, still I don’t do it. If anyone else thinks they have a reason to trust in themselves, they should know that I have a greater reason for doing so. I was circumcised on the eighth day after my birth. I am from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin. I am a true Jew, and so were my parents. The law was very important to me. That is why I became a Pharisee.”¹³ So if anyone in Rome had any doubts about whether Paul could speak to Jews about the subject of the law, he had a quick and efficient retort.

Paul is appealing to their upbringing and acquaintance with the laws and traditions of Judaism to make an important point about their supposedly superior position as believers in Christ. In other words, just because they were Jews they were, therefore, better Christians. This is not too far removed from those today who grow up in Christian homes. They feel a certain sense of being more genuine as a believing and practicing Christian than those who came into the faith from homes where the Bible was never read, gospel songs were never sung, God was not worshiped, and Christ was not exalted as Lord and Savior. The prophet Jeremiah faced a similar situation where he speaks to the children of Israel about their haughtiness in believing they were somehow exempt from the same scrutiny by which the behavior of non-Jews is judged.¹⁴

This is illustrated in the encounter between Jesus and an expert in the law when the lawyer stood up and asked Jesus: “Rabbi, what must I do to get eternal life?”¹⁵ Jesus went on and told him to follow the law. The expert said he did, but he wanted a more practical explanation. It was at this point that Jesus related the story of the good Samaritan.¹⁶ It was at this juncture the law expert found out that it wasn’t enough to have kindness in your heart if it didn’t make it into your hands. In other words, they thought that by knowing the law it would save them, but Jesus pointed out that it was actually by doing the law that such a promise was possible.¹⁷ The apostle Paul did not want the Jewish members of the congregation in Rome to replace active faith with passive bragging.

Anyone who listened to Jewish Rabbis and Scribes would be impressed with their confidence and assurance in being God’s choice children. The prophet Nehemiah spoke passionately of God’s special relationship with Israel and why they should never be embarrassed to praise Him.¹⁸ Knowing, was not enough. Doing, was what made knowing so valuable. This is the message Jesus passed on to His disciples after He washed their feet: “If you know these things, great blessings will be yours if you do them.”¹⁹ The Apostle Paul echoed this sentiment when he wrote the Corinthian believers: “It is certainly true that ‘we all have knowledge,’ as you say. But this knowledge only fills people with pride. It is love that helps the church grow stronger.”²⁰ The Apostle James was more blunt: “All such boasting is wrong. If you fail to do what you know is right, you are sinning.”²¹

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