ALL ARE GUILTY CHAPTERS 1:18-3:20
Verses 21-22. The man that teachest another: a short summary of the sentence begun in Romans 2:17; completed now by the question dost thou
not teach thyself? “If thou hast this knowledge and art a teacher of others, is it true that thou leavest thyself untaught?”
Preachest: proclaimest as a ‘herald’, a state officer of importance and honor. He made announcements in the name of the Government, in peace or war, to enemies, allies, or subjects: so Daniel 3:4. The Jews looked upon themselves as heralds of God. The man before us does that which, as herald, he forbids others to do. He acts as Nebuchadnezzar’s herald would have done had he refused himself to bow to the image of gold.
Abhorrest the idols. In order to separate Israel as completely as possible from idolatry, God commanded them (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:25f) to look upon everything belonging in any way to idols as utterly hateful and disgusting. They were not to bring into their houses anything pertaining to false gods; else the curse of the idol would rest upon them. This divine detestation of idols, the man before us shares. Yet he robs-temples: a recognised crime (Acts 19:37) in the days of Paul, and looked upon as specially atrocious. It was prompted by the treasures often deposited in temples. Josephus says that Moses specially forbad to ‘rob temples:
Antiq’. bk. iv. 8. 10. Here is a man to whom an idol is an object of abhorrence, to whom the touch of everything belonging to it is pollution.
Yet he violently breaks into the very sanctuary of a false God and with his own hands brings into his own house the gold and silver which, because consecrated to an idol, God has pronounced accursed. Paul cannot
possibly refer to the plunder, direct or indirect, of the temple at Jerusalem.
For this was not inconsistent with abhorrence of idols: whereas the previous questions, of which this is the climax, show that Paul has in his mind a case of gross inconsistency.
The prohibition of the three sins here mentioned is a pattern of the teaching which this man, like many Jews of that day, thrusts upon others but refuses himself to practice. All these sins belong to ‘the secret things of men’, in Romans 2:16 for the man who commits them may still have an outward appearance of morality. Notice a gradation of guilt. This man
takes the property of another, invades the sanctity of his home, and hides in his own house things specially accursed by God.
Ver. 23. Solemn assertion, following indignant questions, as Romans 2:5 follows Romans 2:3, 4. Paul tells the man the practical result of the conduct just described.
Exult in law: combining “rest in law and exult in God” in Romans 2:17. He exults in the thought that to his nation God has given an authoritative standard of right and wrong; yet he tramples that standard under foot, and by so doing leads us to think slightly of the God who gave it.
Transgression: as in Romans 4:15; 5:14.
Ver. 24. Proof of the foregoing. ‘Blaspheme’: to speak so as to injure, whether against God, as here, or against men, as in Romans 3:8; 14:16;
Matthew 27:39: an English form of the Greek word here used. Even the heathen saw the absurd contradiction of this man’s words and works. Yet from his bold profession they suppose him to enjoy the favor of the God of the Jews: and they spoke with contempt of a deity who, as they thought, smiled on such a worshipper.
Because of his profession and conduct, the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles.
According as it is written: same words in Romans 1:17, followed by a quotation. Here they follow a quotation nearly word for word from Isaiah 3:5, LXX. In each case they call attention, as in Romans 3:4, 10; 4:17, etc., to a harmony of Paul’s teaching with the Old Testament. The words
‘because of you’ and ‘among the Gentiles’ are not in the Hebrew, and were doubtless not in the original prophecy: but they are clearly implied there.
Through the captivity (Isaiah 52:2) of His people, the name of God was constantly reviled. His power seemed to have been broken. Men said that the gods of Babylon had triumphed over Him who divided the Red Sea.
These words were evidently spoken ‘among the Gentiles’ and ‘because of’
what had happened to the Jews. Hence the added words correctly
reproduce the prophet’s meaning: and Paul does not hesitate to quote the current translation, though in an unimportant detail it was not verbally correct. The prophet’s words teach the great principle that the character and honor of God are at stake in His people. Men judge Him by what they
see in them. If we admit this principle-as we are compelled to do both by the prophet’s words and by daily observation-we cannot be surprised that the Gentiles speak with contempt of Him whose worshippers teach others morality and themselves live in sin.
Here as in Romans 1:17 Paul appeals to the Scriptures not so much for a proof as to point out a harmony; a harmony greater than at first sight appears. In each case, God surrendered to their enemies (cp. Romans 1:24) those who, while professing to be His servants, actually turned away from Him: and, in each case, the degradation brought dishonor to Him whose name the degraded ones bore.
Review of Romans 2:17-24. In the light of the day which will reveal all secrets, Paul turns suddenly round upon a man who calls himself a Jew. In that name he glories. He rests secure because he belongs to the nation to whom the Law was given. He remembers that his fathers were chosen by God to be His own peculiar people; and the thought fills him with
exultation. By study of the Law he knows the will of God, and is thus able to form a correct judgment on moral conduct and to approve the right. His possession of the Law and his knowledge of its contents give him
confidence. Others are blind: he will be their guide. Himself full of light, he will fill them with light, and will lead in the right path men who have no wisdom to find it for themselves, and teach those who compared with himself are babes. All this he can do because he has the Law, in which the eternal realities, the highest object of human knowledge, are presented in intelligible form. But Paul asks with astonishment, Is it true that you who teach others are yourself untaught? He explains the meaning of this question. You proclaim as herald of the king the law against theft: do you break as well as proclaim that law? You speak against adultery: is it true that in secret you are guilty of it? You profess abhorrence of idols: to you the touch of them and of all that belongs to them is defilement. Is it true that you, regardless alike of the true God and the false gods, enter the inmost chamber of idolatry and steal from the temple and hide in your own house the treasures sacred to the heathen and accursed by God? The man is silent: the absurdity of his position is evident to all. With solemn earnestness Paul paints a still darker picture, the direct result of this gross inconsistency. By trampling under foot the Law given to guide your own conduct, you bring contempt on Him who gave it. By choosing your
nation to be His people, God made you the guardians of His name and honor. That glorious and fearful Name, which to know and to honor is life eternal, you have moved the heathen to mention with derision. They have seen and ridiculed the contrast of the words and works of their own teachers: see Lucian, ‘Works’ lxix. 19. They see the same contrast in you.
From your bold profession they suppose that you possess the favor of the God of Israel: and they treat with contempt a deity who, as they think, smiles on you. By your deep depravity, as your fathers by their far-off bondage, you have led the Gentiles to blaspheme.
Notice the double absurdity of the man’s position. His own conduct proves the worthlessness to himself of the teaching in which he boasts. If it is good for anything, it is to make men honest and chaste and separate from idols. This man trusts for salvation to that which his own conduct proves to be, so far as he is concerned, worthless. Again, his possession of the Law brings actual dishonor to God: and this is its only practical result.
Men around think less of God because this man lives among them, and calls himself a disciple of God. It were more for His glory, and therefore for the good of those who know this man, if he were a professed heathen.
Now we know that God is specially jealous for His own honor. Yet this man expects to escape the impartial judgment of God because of his possession of the Law, of which the only result is dishonor to God. That he knows the Law, is his greatest condemnation.
The above argument strikes with equal force against all conduct, of Jews or Christians, which is inconsistent with profession, and which thus brings dishonor to God.
The great principle that God’s judgment will be without respect of persons, stated at the end of 5 as the foundation of its argument, has now been defended from an objection based on the fact that God has Himself made a distinction between man and man by giving the Mosaic Law to Israel only; and has been confirmed by proof that it applies equally to the two great divisions into which the giving of the Law has divided mankind.
We found in Romans 2:12 a sort of summary of the section; and in Romans 2:13 a great principle underlying the very idea of law, a
reassertion of the principle asserted in Romans 2:11. In Romans 2:14, 15 we saw that the principle of Romans 2:13 can be applied to Gentiles. And
in the light of the great day (Romans 2:16) we saw in Romans 2:17-24 how absurd it is to deny its application to the Jews: for everyone who does so takes up the ridiculous position there described. Thus the hope which found expression in Romans 2:3, 4 has been traced to, and dried up at, its chief source.
DESTRUCTION. The words ‘perish, destroyed, lost’, represent, and collectively reproduce the sense of, one Greek word denoting utter ‘ruin’, i.e. the end of the normal and beneficial state of that which is ‘lost’, the utter failure of the maker’s or owner’s purpose regarding it. In this sense of ‘ruin’ material or moral, the word is very frequent in the Greek drama. It is contrasted in 1 Corinthians 1:18 with “saved,” and in Luke 15:4, 6, 8, 9, 32 with “found.” But it does not imply or suggest that the ruined object has ceased, or will ever cease, to exist; although it by no means excludes this idea. Certainly the lost coin in Luke 15:8, 9 still existed uninjured: for it was afterwards found. But, by separation from its owner, it became to her practically non-existent; her purposes about it were utterly frustrated.
The broken wine-skins in Matthew 9:17 ‘perished’ when they were so damaged as to be useless. But, though torn, they still existed.
A very common use of the word is to denote natural death, looked upon as utter ruin of human life on earth. But this by no means implies their
annihilation: for most of the Greeks looked upon the dead as still conscious; and Christ says in Luke 11:51 that “Zachariah ‘perished’
between the altar and the house,” just as we speak of good men as ‘lost’ at sea.
With these associations of thought, the word is used in Romans 2:12; 9:22;
14:15 and throughout the N.T. to describe the future punishment of sin.
As so used, it denotes loss of the “eternal life” promised (e.g. Romans 2:7;
6:23) to the righteous, the normal and blessed state of the children of God and the realisation of their original destiny, a life beginning in embryo now and to be fully developed at the great day. The loss of this glorious life is the utter ruin of the lost ones, the complete failure of the purpose of their being, and the loss of whatever gives worth to existence. All this, and no more, the word implies. It does not imply or suggest whether the ruined object continues to exist as a ruin, or has ceased to exist. Nor does the word itself exclude the possibility that the lost may be afterwards found.
In Romans 2:12, the word ‘will-perish’ asserts that the punishment
described in Romans 2:8, 9 involves utter ruin; as does the word “death” in Romans 6:16, 21, 23, and “the second death” in Revelation 2:11; 20:4. But these terms do not define exactly the ultimate fate of the lost.
The meaning of the word ‘destruction’ and its bearing on the Eternal Punishment of Sin are discussed fully in my volume on ‘The Last Things’.
SECTION 7
CIRCUMCISION WILL NOT SAVE FROM GOD’S IMPARTIAL JUDGMENT
CHAPTER 2:25-29
For circumcision profits, if thou practice law; but if thou be a transgressor of law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. If then the uncircumcision keep the decrees of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? And the
uncircumcision from nature, accomplishing the Law, shall judge thee who with letter and circumcision art a transgressor of law.
For not he that is so in that which is manifest as a Jew; nor is that which is manifest, in flesh, circumcision. But he that is so in secret is a Jew; and circumcision of the heart is in Spirit, not letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Circumcision, which meets us for the first time at the beginning of 7, is as conspicuous a feature of it as was the Law in 6. The mention of
‘circumcision’ uncovers another secret ground on which the objector of Romans 2:3, 4 builds a hope of exceptional kindness on the day of
judgment. In 6 he hoped to escape then because God had specially favored his nation by the gift to them only of the Mosaic Law. But the Law, to which the impenitent man ran for refuge, gave him up to the impartial justice of a dishonored God. Only one ground of hope remains. He bears in his body the sign and seal of the Covenant of God: by the express
command of God he was circumcised. But, just as in 6 Paul showed that the Law, so now he will show that Circumcision, will not save an impenitent sinner from God’s impartial judgment.
Ver. 25. This verse confirms the condemnation implied in Romans 2:23, 24, by proving that circumcision will not save a man from it; and thus still further supports the truth of God’s impartial judgment, the great matter of this chapter.
Circumcision profits: it is better to be a circumcised Jew than an
uncircumcised heathen. But the abiding advantage is only for those Jews who practice what the Law bids. What the advantage is, Paul will, in Romans 3:1, inquire. The inquiry is needless here, because, whatever the benefits be, this man is shut out from them by the condition on which only they can be obtained. Circumcision was the sign of a covenant in which blessing was conditioned by obedience to the Law. Therefore, as a visible pledge that God will bestow the promised blessings, it was a benefit; but only for those who ‘practice law’.
But if... transgressor of law: a complementary truth implied in this
limitation, viz. that they who break this law are practically uncircumcised.
Circumcision was originally a token of God’s covenant with Abraham:
Genesis 17:11. The blessings therein promised were a numerous posterity, a special relation to God as His people, the land of Canaan, and that from them should go forth a blessing to all mankind. As first given in Genesis 15:18, the covenant was not limited by any condition whatever. It assumed the form, not of a law, but of a promise; an absolute promise independent of man’s conduct. See Romans 4:13. Afterwards, circumcision was added as a condition of a personal share in the promised blessings:
Genesis 17:10-14. Later still God made another covenant at Sinai, which He confirmed and enlarged in the plains of Moab: Exodus 24:7;
Deuteronomy 29:1. This covenant promised the favor of God and abundant temporal blessing on condition of obedience to the Law, and threatened His fearful displeasure in case of disobedience: Leviticus 26;
Deuteronomy 23. Circumcision was enjoined (Leviticus 12:3) in the Law, and was thus a condition of blessing. It was therefore to the Jews of Paul’s day a visible pledge that from Abraham’s seed should go forth a blessing for the whole world, and that God would fulfil the covenant which promised personal blessings to those who obey the Law. Consequently, circumcision and the Law always stood together: John 7:23; Acts 15:1. To undergo circumcision was to accept the Old Covenant as the basis of man’s dealings with God: Acts 15:5; Galatians 5:3; 6:13. Consequently, to
‘a transgressor of law’
circumcision was practically void: it had become uncircumcision. See further under Galatians 5:2.
Ver. 26. An inference from Romans 2:25, of the fairness of which Paul asks his readers to judge.
Uncircumcision: an abstract term used for a concrete embodiment of its idea, as in all languages and ages: so Romans 3:30. Paul dismisses for a moment all thought about the man except that he is uncircumcised.
Keep: view with jealous care, as when one guards a treasure: Galatians 6:13; 1 Timothy 5:21; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14. To disobey the decrees of the Law, is to cast them away as worthless.
Reckoned: in the calculation of the great Judge. In Romans 2:3, Paul questioned the man as to his own reckoning about himself: he now compels him to answer a question about God’s reckoning. “Since the blessings of which circumcision is a pledge are given only on condition of obedience to the Law, will not the heathen who fulfils this condition obtain the blessings? will he not on the great day stand, in the Judge’s reckoning, in the position of a circumcised man?” This question implies that outward ordinances are of value, not in themselves, but only as means to moral ends; and that the end is sometimes otherwise gained.
Ver. 27. A solemn affirmation, following, as in Romans 2:5, 23, an unanswered question.
Uncircumcision from nature: absence of circumcision, resulting from the circumstances in which the man was born. See under Romans 2:14.
Accomplishing the Law: attaining the ‘end’ for which it was given, realising in action what the Law sets forth in words. Compare the word
‘keep’ in Romans 2:26. Because the Gentile observes with jealous care the decrees of the Law, God will treat him in the judgment as circumcised: and because in him the purpose of the Law has been achieved, his presence in the judgment will pronounce sentence on thousands of Jews in whom that purpose has been utterly defeated.
Shall judge: proclaim punishment awaiting him.
Thee who, etc.: vivid description of the unfaithful Jew. He has the letter of the Law before his eyes: in his body he bears the sign of the covenant: but he is none the less a transgressor of law. By his side in the judgment stands a man like Cornelius, in whom the moral purposes of the Law have been to