Romans 2:11 - 2:29

Romans — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Romans 3.1 - 3:20

00:00

Romans 2:11 - 2:29

RomansSteve Gregg

This message centers on Paul's teachings in Romans 2, emphasizing God's impartiality and the need for obedience to His law, regardless of racial identity. The focus is on dispelling the idea of Jews being inherently superior to Gentiles and clarifying that circumcision is irrelevant to righteousness. Paul also addresses the issue of disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians, emphasizing the importance of aligning one's conscience with God's standards and living consistently with the teachings of Jesus. The true measure of righteousness is found in a person's heart and their love for God, rather than any outward sign or status.

Transcript

Last time we left off at Romans 2.10. And that's where Paul was saying that God is going to judge everybody by the same standard, whether they're Jew or Gentile, which seems like a no-brainer to us who are not Jews. And it might even seem like a no-brainer to a Christian Jew today. But back then, the attitude of the Jews was not entirely the same.

And part of the reason was because Gentiles, generally speaking, except for those few that had become Christians at that early stage, Gentiles were a very corrupt people. Very immoral, flagrantly immoral, idolatrous, so much flouting the laws of God, partly because they didn't know the laws of God, that the Jews just saw them as a despicable breed, almost subhuman, almost like human vermin. And the Jew was in a different class because they had the law.

The mark of having the law was that they had been circumcised. They were of the circumcised race that had been given the law of God. And having been given the law of God, they thought, put them automatically many notches above the Gentiles in God's estimation.

Now, what Paul is going to point out, as we saw in chapter 3, as we glanced ahead in an earlier lecture, he's going to say, you know, do we Jews have any advantage? Yes, we do. Are we better people than the Gentiles? No, we're not. Having advantages is not the same thing as being better.

And this chapter is pointing that out very clearly. Because there's no question that the Jews have had advantages greater than the Gentiles when it comes to revelation from God and opportunity to be spiritual and good. But Paul is pointing out, Jews are not necessarily better people.

And they can be every bit as bad as any Gentiles can be. They're just humans. Being circumcised doesn't change the fact that you are human and a sinner.

And this has been demonstrated in the history of the Jews, just as it has been demonstrated in the history of the Gentiles. That's what Paul has said. And he says, they should not think that if they are doing the same sins that the Gentiles are doing, that somehow they will escape the judgment of God, whereas the Gentiles, they expect, will be condemned.

He says that God is going to render to everyone according to their deeds, not according to their race, but according to their deeds. And he says that those who pursue the right pursuits, seeking glory and honor and immortality, meaning seeking the glory of God, I believe, and also the glory that God intends for His people, seeking God's goals rather than selfish goals. Those who are pursuing the right pursuits will be saved, whether Jew or Gentile.

Those who are not pursuing the right pursuits, but are self-seeking, as he called it, they'll be condemned to tribulation and anguish, he said. And that applies to Jews as well as Gentiles also. He concludes in verse 11, for there's no partiality with God.

And again, I mentioned that in verses 9 and 10, both verses end with him saying, the Jew first and also the Greek. But by his saying, there's no partiality with God, he is saying, by my demonstration that it's the Jew first and also the Greek, I'm pointing out there's no partiality. Now we, when we hear Jew first, Gentile next, or last, or second, or afterwards, it sounds like God's giving the Jews special status.

He's putting them first and us afterwards. Well, if he was, he wouldn't conclude by saying, for there is no partiality, because that would be an actual demonstration of partiality. He is not saying, the Jew first, meaning the Jew is God's favorite.

He's just saying, chronologically, the Jews have experienced these things before Gentiles had the opportunity. The opportunity was there with the Jews before it was with the Gentiles, but the emphasis of his statement is, but also the Gentiles. In other words, the statement, the Jew first and also the Gentiles, is essentially a way of saying, not only the Jews, they just happen to be there first, but they are not to be considered unique or alone in these blessings or in these judgments.

It's the Jew and the Gentile, pretty much going to all be judged on the same basis, because God doesn't show partiality. Now the word partiality, I think the King James might use the term, respective persons. It's a strange Greek word that is used there, that is translated partiality here.

It's prosopolepsia. And it comes from the word prosopon, which is face, in Greek. And prosopolepsia apparently means the lifting up of the face, which obviously doesn't sound anything like partiality.

And therefore, as is often the case, you can't really judge the meaning of a word by its etymology, because words come to mean things that aren't anything like their etymology. Like in our day, if we say, well, that's cool. Well, the word cool has an etymology that means not hot, but that's not what we mean.

Usage has given that word an entirely different meaning, not at all related to its etymology. That's just how languages develop. So you can't always look at the etymology and the history of the word and say, well, this literally means lifting up the face.

Well, it does literally mean that, but it doesn't mean that in usage. It had come to mean showing favoritism on the basis of outward circumstances or conditions. That is, if you favor one person or another because of some outward consideration, their race, for example, would be fitting here or because they are rich and not poor, you favor them.

That's how this word is used in James, where he says, do not have respective persons. Same word with don't don't have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respective persons. And then he goes on to say, because if a rich man comes in and you show him a good seat and you poor man comes in, you give him a, you know, sit under here, my footstool, you're showing partiality, same word, respective persons.

In that case, you're treating people differently and showing favoritism to one on no better basis than that one is rich and the other is poor. Or if you did it on a racial basis, racism or any other kind of prejudice is not part of God's way of judging things. He doesn't respect people from their natural or outward circumstances.

And that's what there is no partiality actually means no respect for the face of a person. Verse 12, for as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law. And as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.

And then we have verse 13 through 15 is a long parenthesis. Now the punctuation isn't in the Greek, so I don't know if all translators punctuate the same way, but they should. There's a parenthesis, an open parenthesis at the beginning of verse 13 and close parenthesis at the end of verse 15.

Which means the sentence would read as smoothly if you removed all the parenthetical material. The parenthetical material gives some other information on the side, but you don't need it for the main point of the sentence. And if we would read Paul's statement, jumping from verse 12 to verse 16, leaving out the parenthesis, we'd see how he completes his sentence.

In verse, if we read verse 12 and verse 16 says, for as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law. As many have sinned in the law will be judged by the law in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. So that's his complete sentence, but verses 13 through 15 then are information on the side.

Which is somehow related, but unnecessary to the main flow of the sentence. And we'll talk about that parenthesis, but let me just talk about the parts we read. When we see that he says those who are without law, which would be Gentiles generally, will perish without law.

And then that those who are in the law, that would be the Jews, will be judged by the law. It might make it sound as if Paul is trying to emphasize some different standards that different people will be judged by. When he has actually just said they'll all be judged by the same standards.

Because he makes a distinction between those who are without the law and those who are in the law. But I don't think Paul is trying to draw the distinction between these two. I think one follows naturally upon the other.

The idea is everybody knows, that is every Jew knows, and anyone who knows anything about God knows, that those who sin, Gentiles, will perish. The wages of sin is death. Whosoever believes in Christ shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

So we're talking about the fate of those who sin. And Gentiles who sin happen to do so without knowledge of the law. So of course they perish.

This is not a new bit of information. This is again one of the things that Paul thinks is a given. It's the second part that adds on to it.

It doesn't contrast with it, it adds to it. We all know that people who don't have the law are going to perish because of their sins. But what you may not have realized is that you Jews could perish because of your sins, despite the fact you have the law.

Those who have the law and sin, well they're going to be culpable too. In fact they'll be judged by the law. There is a sense in which there is a slight difference in the standard because they know more, and those who know more are more responsible.

They have a law. It's like when Jesus said that it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Capernaum. Why? Capernaum had benefited from the ministry of Jesus.

He had done miracles there, he preached there. Jesus even said if the miracles that were done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah, they would have repented. But Sodom and Gomorrah didn't get that advantage.

They didn't get to see miracles of Jesus. They didn't get to hear his preaching. They were sinners and they died in their ignorance.

But their judgment is actually more tolerable than that of someone like Capernaum who also died, you know, the people die and sin there, but having received much more opportunity to do right. So opportunity brings responsibility. And so while the Jews might think, well, we're better off than the Gentiles because those sinners, they're perishing out there without the law.

And Paul says, yeah, those who sin without the law do perish without the law. That's not controversial. But what you need to understand is you who sin with the law, that is, you're a Jew, you have the law.

Well, you don't get a free ride here. You're going to be judged by that law. And you'd better make sure you're living by that law or it won't go well with you.

Now, in the parenthesis, he clarifies and discusses a little more what he's trying to get across to them. Verse 13, for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. Now, this seems strange that he would say the doers of the law will be justified because later he's going to say by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified.

In chapter 3, now we'll get to that later on. The main thing I want to point out here is he is referring to the Jews as hearers of the law. Of course, they go to synagogue every Saturday to hear the law.

They think that's what makes them okay with God because they possess and hear the law. But he says it's not those who hear the law that get justified. It's not because you hear something or have something or are familiar with something or know something.

It's what are you doing about it. Those who do what the law says will be all right. Those who hear the law and don't do it, well, they're not all right.

The Jews had the advantage of hearing the law, but that's no advantage if you're not doing it also. If anything, it makes you more responsible for your sins for not having obeyed what you knew to do. He's not arguing for a doctrine of justification by works of the law.

What he's saying is if you want the law to justify you or if you as a Jew want to be justified on terms of the law, you're going to have to keep it. He's not saying anyone really does well enough to keep it, that they could be ultimately justified by the law alone. He's not arguing that that is really possible, but hypothetically, if you're looking to the law to be your Savior, you're going to have to keep it, not just know it.

Because then you'd be justified. If you didn't break any laws, you'd be acquitted, of course. Justified, legal term.

But just, you know, if you go to court as a lawbreaker, it's no defense you can raise saying, hey, but I knew the law from the time I was young. The judge would have to say, knowing the law is no excuse. We usually say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the Jew actually thought that knowing the law was his excuse.

And it's the opposite of an excuse if he breaks it. So Paul is amplifying the second part of verse 12, where he said, those who have sinned in the law will be judged by law, parenthetically, because the fact that you know the law isn't immunity against judgment. You'll be judged by law because you're expected to do it, and only if you've done it will you be justified.

And frankly, no one has. No one has really lived up to the righteous standards of the law all their life. Some may be doing so now, as Paul will point out in the next line, but they didn't do it all their life either.

Nobody has lived all their life without sin. But there are people who are now committed to living righteous lives, and some of them are Gentiles. He says in verse 14, when Gentiles, who do not have the law by nature, that is, they're not Jews.

The Jews by nature had the law. They were born with the law. That's why they had circumcision.

They were little babies when that happened. They were born under the law. By nature, they had the law.

The Gentiles didn't have the law by nature. But when Gentiles like that nonetheless do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show, that is, in their obedience to the law, they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. Now, what Paul has shown here is there are Jews who probably will not do well in the judgment because although they know the law, they aren't doing the law, and it's only those who do the law who will be justified.

On the other hand, there are Gentiles who actually do keep the law, and they will be, of course, in a better position because they do keep the law. Now, lots of people feel that Paul is not saying that Gentiles keep the law in a way that was pleasing to God, but that they just have a basic conscience of essential morality, that all Gentiles have a conscience that tells them that murder is wrong, that adultery is wrong, that stealing is wrong. It doesn't mean that by nature they live sinless lives or anything like that.

It just means that you do find, even among those who have never had the advantage of the Jewish law, you find that there is an awareness of morality that is not at odds with the law. As a matter of fact, it essentially has a great deal of overlap with the morality that the law dictates. And so some people believe, in fact, almost all people believe, that Paul is pointing to Gentiles out there, the pagans, who even their philosophers understand some moral issues similarly to the law, and you'll find that some Gentiles are not as bad as they can be.

Some Gentiles actually live decent lives, lives that would be not greatly condemned even if the law were to be applied to them, because they're kind of doing, just out of their conscience, things that the law would require. They're keeping the law. Now, I was once teaching Romans in the School of Biblical Studies in the big island of Hawaii, and this is the first time I taught Romans for them.

I've taught Romans before, but I always had, at this time, 1982 or 83, sometime way back then, I had always taught Romans the way the commentators did and the way the preachers did, and I'd always heard this particular passage cited to prove that all Gentiles have a sense of right and wrong that is put in them by God, a law written in their hearts, a conscience. I'd never heard any teacher say otherwise. As far as I knew, this is what Paul was saying and what everyone knew Paul was saying, and I will say this, I do believe it is true that all Gentiles have a conscience, but once again, that's the wrong question.

The question is not, do I believe all Gentiles have a conscience? The question is, is that what Paul is saying, or is he making a different point? I taught this at the School of Biblical Studies, and the leader of the school, Ron Smith, who happened to sit in the class, he talked to me out in the parking lot afterwards, and he says, he was going somewhere, he was in a hurry, we didn't have time to talk, we were just saying, hello, goodbye, I'll see you later, and he shouted across the parking lot, he says, when we get a chance, I'd like to talk to you about your doctrine that all Gentiles have a conscience for right and wrong. And he was talking about the comments I had made about Romans 2 in the class. And he said, I remember thinking, my doctrine? This is everybody's doctrine.

Is there any other way to see it? Has anyone ever questioned it? And he said, where in the Bible elsewhere does it ever say that non-Christians have the law written in their hearts? That's all he had to say. I never ended up having the conversation he hoped to have, we didn't have time, but that's all it took. It got me thinking.

I'm always willing to criticize what I believe, if someone gives me a good reason, and I began thinking about that, and I came to the conclusion, he's right. This is not speaking about non-Christian Gentiles. This is talking about Christian Gentiles.

Remember what Paul's trying to do is to increase the level of unity between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in the church. And the Jewish Christians were having trouble with the Gentile Christians, not because the Gentiles were behaving badly, because Gentile Christians don't behave badly. They have the law written in their hearts, like the New Covenant says.

That's the terms of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31. I'll make a new covenant, and I'll write my law in their hearts. This is repeated in 2 Corinthians 3, certainly Hebrews chapters 8 and 10, cite that verse, and it's made very clear.

Those of us who are Christians and are in the New Covenant, God has written his law on our hearts. And Ron Smith had asked me, where in the Bible does it say that any non-Christians have the law written in their hearts? And I had to admit, though not to him because he wasn't there when I thought about it, he's right. The Bible doesn't anywhere say that non-Christians have the law written in their hearts, unless it's this passage, but Paul doesn't say he's talking about non-Christians.

What he's addressing is the disunity between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. And the complaint the Jewish Christians had against the Gentile Christians was largely due to the fact that the Gentiles were not circumcised like they were. They simply weren't Jewish.

They weren't of the chosen people. They weren't the people who had the history. Going back with God, they were people who had been raised and who continued to be uncircumcised, which was a disgusting condition in the mind of a Jew, culturally.

Now these Jews had become Christians and they knew doctrinally these people are our brothers, but that doesn't change anything. If a person's a real racist, let's say they grew up in the South and they're a white person who hates black people, and they become a Christian, they know they're not supposed to hate black people. They know they're supposed to be loving to them, and they might even behave in a loving way, but in their heart of hearts, because they are prejudiced, and because becoming a Christian doesn't immediately make you saintly in all of your opinions and attitudes, they still have feelings because they were ingrained from their youth.

They're bad feelings, and they might even know they're wrong feelings, but they still have them, and they might even justify them in their own minds. And that's how the Jews felt toward Gentiles all their lives. They've been told those uncircumcised people are disgusting because they're uncircumcised and because they don't have the law like we do.

They're not of our solidarity, Israel. They are the Gentiles. Now, when these Gentiles became Christians, they had to acknowledge doctrinally, yeah, well, they're our brothers in Christ, but still, I think there was a tremendous tendency to judge the Gentiles for their not keeping kosher, for them not observing the Jewish holy days, and the Jewish Christians, I think, were still wanting to do those things.

So Paul is saying, okay, you think Jews as a class are better, and Gentiles as a class are worse, but wait. Some of you Jews don't keep the law as well as some Gentiles do. Which Gentiles? The Christian ones, for example.

They're as uncircumcised as any other Gentiles are. These are people who are of that class that you think is a lesser class, yet because the law is written in their hearts, they actually live by the law better than a non-Christian Jew does. I think what Paul is trying to point out is there are Gentiles who are living consistently according to the laws of God that are written in their hearts, and those can only be a reference to the Christians, and it would be suitable for him to mention them, because he is talking about how behavior is what God is going to judge, not race.

And a Gentile Christian is behaving right, but he's not of the right race as far as the Jew is concerned. But Paul is saying, hey, there are Gentiles in your neighborhood, in your church, who do by nature, by an inward impulse, the things written in the law. They have a conscience.

They approve and disapprove of certain things that are right and wrong, and they do so correctly because the law is written in their hearts. They excuse or accuse themselves, their conscience, according to righteous standards. When they do wrong, their conscience accuses them of wrong.

When they do right, their conscience excuses them, because that's what a conscience does. It discerns between right and wrong. And they've got it going on because the law is written in their hearts, even though they're not Jews.

So, in my opinion, Paul is not saying anything necessarily about the Gentiles. Now, I have to admit, my friend Ron Smith, who raised that question, is a Calvinist, and probably as a Calvinist felt that it compromises Calvinism to suggest that Gentiles who aren't saved might be somewhat righteous inside, because by Calvinist doctrine, they'd be totally depraved. You can't have them having the law of God written in their heart when they're not born again under Calvinism.

And that might have been where his sensitivity came from, but most Calvinist commentators still argue that this is talking about non-Christians, quite contrary to their own doctrine. It's probable that Ron Smith was just being more consistent with his own doctrines by raising the question, or maybe he's just a good Bible scholar, because I'm not a Calvinist, and I see it his way now too. I think that there's reason to doubt that Paul was saying anything about the pagans here.

Now, having just dismantled this verse as a proof text for a general conscience of humanity, I need to clarify that I still believe humanity does have a conscience. We don't need this verse to tell us so. It can be true whether Paul's talking about something else here or not.

I do believe that it is observable that human beings differ from other animals and plants, and that people do have a sense of right and wrong. Their sense of right and wrong, however, is often misinformed. If you read the book, what was it, Peace Child, by Don Richardson, a missionary to Irian Jaya, he talks about a tribe of people that he encountered who actually had strong conscience of right and wrong, but they just had it mixed up.

They thought treachery was the greatest virtue, and they thought humility, and the Romans even, the Romans believed that humility was a disgusting trait. In other words, they had an opinion about right and wrong. There's no human beings have no opinion about right and wrong except sociopaths.

Only a sociopath has no conscience, but that's not a natural condition. Every society knows there are things right and wrong, but without the word of God to inform their conscience, they sometimes think something like humility is a bad thing and pride is a good thing, or that treachery is a good thing, and when they heard the gospel, they thought Judas was the hero of the story, and Jesus was the schmuck. I mean, that's how the tribe in Irian Jaya thought, because they had their conscience all turned upside down, but it was a conscience nonetheless.

Anyone who believes there's right and wrong has a conscience. I'm on board with that, but I would not be on board with saying that all Gentiles have a conscience that is fairly similar to a Christian's conscience, because obviously Paul says in chapter 12 of Romans we need to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, and part of that is definitely the revamping of our value system, our moral attitudes, in other words, our conscience. Paul is not arguing that Gentiles have a reliable conscience.

It was Jiminy Cricket who said, always let your conscience be your guide, which is good advice if he's saying, if your conscience is bugging you about it, don't do it. But it's not always a good guide, because your conscience may be seared as with a hot iron, so that you're doing something that you don't think is wrong, but it is. Your conscience may be desensitized.

You can't always go just by your conscience, or else eventually you'll be doing things that God says are wrong, but you feel are okay. The conscience is a God-given gift to humanity, which it is never safe to ignore. That is, if it's telling you something's wrong, it's never safe to ignore it, even if maybe the thing isn't wrong.

The person says, I don't think I should eat meat sacrificed to idols. Well, I don't know, God doesn't say it's wrong, so I guess it's not wrong. But if it's wrong to you, it's wrong to you.

That's what Paul says. You don't ignore your conscience. If your conscience says it's wrong, then it is wrong to you.

You can never safely ignore it, but you can't entirely trust it, because your conscience might tell you something is okay, but it really isn't. But the point is, humans do have conscience, and in many respects, most societies have a conscience that on some points agrees with God's ideas of right and wrong. Murder, for example, is generally seen as a bad thing in almost all societies.

Adultery is always seen as a bad thing, at least by the cheated husband. Some societies allow adultery, but the husband never thinks it's right when he's cheated on. People often are inconsistent in their conscience, like the Jews that Paul's addressing.

It's wrong for Gentiles to do things, but we can do them. The conscience is not a reliable guide, and Paul is not making some kind of a point about Gentiles having this kind of a conscience. In fact, he amplifies this business about the conscience of the uncircumcised man in the remainder of this chapter.

And it's very clear that the uncircumcised man he has in mind is a Christian man. The Gentile Christian is who he has in mind. And so in verse 17, he's going to say, Indeed, you are called a Jew and rest on the law and make your boast in God and know his will and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, meaning to the Gentiles or other lesser intelligent people than themselves, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.

Now, because you have the law, you are smarter about the things of God than the Gentiles. And you're quite aware of it. In fact, you've taken on quite an attitude.

You're very condescending. We are teachers of babes. When you look at anyone who doesn't know as much as you as juvenile or infantile, there's something with the attitude that leaves much to be desired.

And it is true the Jews did know the law better than the Gentiles did. And they there was some reality there. They knew some stuff that God hadn't revealed to the Gentiles up to that point.

But the Jews had taken on an attitude about it that, well, because we know and because God gave it to us, it's clear we're God's favorite people. And if we're God's favorite people, then he'll certainly give us a pass where he won't give others a pass. We don't have to be quite so stringent in our judgment of ourselves, as we always got that circumcision thing going for us.

And that's how they felt. And so Paul says to them about that. Verse 21, You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say do not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, as it is written.

Now, verse 24, there is a quotation that Paul is giving from Isaiah, Isaiah 52, 5. Isaiah is actually making a slightly different point than Paul is from it, but it works. What Isaiah is saying is that because of Israel's sin, God is having to send them into captivity in Babylon. Unfortunately, the unbelievers, the Gentiles, will assume that this means that their gods were stronger than Israel's God.

Because that's how they interpret things. Under a henotheistic worldview, if there's a war between two nations and one nation worships one God, the other nation worships another God, the nation that wins is the one that has the better God. The stronger God will always give victory to his people.

Now, if the Babylonians come and they conquer Jerusalem, this would be interpreted meaning that the gods of Babylon are stronger and greater than the God of Israel, than Yahweh. Now, God knew that he was bringing this very reproach upon himself by allowing the Babylonians to conquer the Jews, but it had to be done. Their sins required it.

He had threatened it through Moses and through the prophets that they would have to go into captivity. If they didn't obey him, they were insisting upon it, on being disobedient, so he had no choice but to send them into captivity, although his doing so would bring reproach on himself in the eyes of the heathen because they would think that he didn't have the strength to defend them, when in fact he was the one delivering his people over. He would be misinterpreted, and therefore the Gentiles would mock him as a weak God and the Jews God as an inferior God, and God would then be blasphemed among the heathen in this way because of what the Jews had done, because they had brought him to the point where he had to do this to them by their misbehavior.

And that's what Isaiah is saying. Now, Paul is making a slightly different statement, but his statement is very applicable too, and that is that when you stand for God verbally and publicly, and then you are found to be not keeping the standards that you are championing, then your God looks bad as much as you do. Your religion looks fake.

I don't suppose there's ever been as much damage done to American evangelicalism as was done when Jimmy Swigert's sins were exposed because he had been denouncing very vociferously on his television program and radio show the very sins in others that he was committing. And then when it was found that he was guilty of it, it brought reproach not only on him and his name, although surprisingly there's a lot of people who still follow his ministry today, but nonetheless in the minds of some the name Jimmy Swigert will go down in infamy forever because of his manifest hypocrisy there. But worse than Jimmy Swigert besmirching his name, evangelicalism and the religion of Christians took a serious hit.

I believe that was a turning point in my lifetime, if there was one, one particular turning point, where Christianity ceased to be a respected religion in the eyes of many Americans and people in the world. Many Americans were not Christians but still thought Christianity was a good thing and that most Christians they knew were probably good people and that maybe they should be a Christian, they just didn't want to because they loved their lifestyle too much. I mean there are lots of people in America who were not Christians but thought reasonably well of Christianity.

But when this exposure came, I believe that the general mood of the non-Christian public turned and I don't think it's been recovered. It's only been confirmed again and again with Jimmy Baker and with that other guy whose name I wasn't familiar with before he was made notorious by his homosexual acts who was an outspoken critic of homosexuality. I mean there's just been one after another.

And so when people stand for God publicly and then fall to sin publicly, it's God, unfortunately, who takes the hit, his reputation. And Paul is saying, you who are so proud of yourselves for keeping the law of Moses, you break the law, you bring reproach upon the law and upon God. God is blasphemed among the heathen because of you, not because of anything he's done wrong but because of what his people do wrong and we know very well that most people who are upset with Christianity today are not as upset with anything God particularly did, certainly not anything Jesus did, but what Christians have done because we wear his name, if we take his name in vain by bearing his name and then not living accordingly, this brings reproach on the gospel and on God.

And so it was with the Jews in Paul's day. Actually, in Paul's day, the Christians were behaving pretty good. They weren't bringing a reproach on Christ.

That happened in later generations more. But the Jews who had for very many generations been publicly declaring themselves God's people were notorious for doing wrong things. Not all of them.

Like when he said, do you rob temples? Well, certainly it was not the regular practice of any Jew to go out and rob temples, certainly not pagan temples. They wouldn't even go into them. So why does Paul ask this rhetorical question as if it might bring some embarrassment to the Jew? Do you, you abhor idols? Do you rob temples? Certainly the average Jew could say, no, never did that.

Well, then what, where's the sting in that? Where's the sting in that question? Even when Paul said, you who say that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? Probably most Jews could say, not me, I never did. And they'd be right. Adultery isn't something that everybody does.

Or when he says, you who preach the man should not steal, do you steal? I'm sure there were many Jews who could read this and say, no, to tell the truth, I've never really done much stealing. It's not anything I do in my life. Now, how could these questions that he's asking then be intended to bring the conviction upon the Jews that he wants to bring? The reason is because he's not trying to prove, as some people think he is, that every individual is guilty.

But that the class of Jews is as guilty as the class of Gentiles. Now, among the class of Jews, some Jews steal. Maybe most don't, but some do.

Some Jews have committed adultery. It may be that many or most don't, but you'll still find Jews who do. That's just the point.

Not all Gentiles do either, but some do. The point is, when it comes to the class, Jew, Gentile, you will not find that one class doesn't steal, doesn't commit adultery, doesn't rob idols, doesn't rob temples, and the other class does. You'll find that kind of behavior is on both sides.

When Paul says, you who say you should not steal, do you steal, that you means any of you. Not you, the individual Jewish person who happens to be reading this, do you steal? I'm not asking if you personally do. I'm asking do your people ever steal? Do Jews ever steal? Yes, everyone knows some Jews do.

Some Jews commit adultery. Now, what about this robbing temples? Where'd that come from? Well, there was actually a notorious case in Rome a few years before this letter was written that really stung the reputation of the Jews in Rome because there were some Jewish men, a couple of them, who went about selling their services as teachers to proselytes. Now, a proselyte is a Gentile who's converted to Judaism.

And so, if a person was a Gentile, wanted to become a Jew, they might hire these guys to teach them the Jewish ways. And these men, who were, it turns out to be unscrupulous, were taking on proselytes as students to train them in Judaism. One of their students turned out to be, and this is why we know about them, the wife of one of the senators in Rome.

So, a woman who was, obviously, her husband was well-known. Well, these two Jewish men persuaded her to give a large donation to the temple in Jerusalem. Allegedly, they were going to take the donations and go and help with the temple in Jerusalem.

Now, this lady was a Roman, but she was a Jewish proselyte, converted to Judaism. She was concerned about the Jewish temple, therefore, so she made a contribution, a large contribution, to these men, and they absconded with the money. It never went to the temple.

And when Paul said to the Jews, only a few years later, do you Jews rob temples? Certainly, this case was as notorious in Rome as Jimmy Swigert was notorious in this country. They'd say, we can't really say we don't, because this case is very well-known. These two Jews did rob the temple.

They did steal money that was for the temple. And so, that's what Paul's alluding to here. But this is very important to note what he's doing.

His argument would have no teeth at all if he's trying to do what most people think Romans 1 through 3 is trying to do, namely, make everyone feel personally guilty about their own sin, trying to prove the universal sinfulness of all individuals. Therefore, you need Jesus, because you're a sinner. Well, you do need Jesus, because you're a sinner, but it's clear that this argument wouldn't work to make that particular point, because the majority of Jews who would read this would say, no, I don't.

Paul, if you're trying to nail me to the wall here, you've got the wrong guy. I'm not a thief. I give to the poor.

I earn my own living. I don't live on other people's wealth, stealing. And most Jews could say that quite honestly and be correct.

He says, you who say men should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? They could honestly say, no. Most Jews probably never did. Most people don't, although Gentiles probably did more frequently in those days.

In pre-Christian times in Rome. But still, most Jews probably avoided adultery. There would be exceptions, but most do not.

And certainly, he said, do you rob temples? 99.999% of Jews could say, no, we don't. It's that 0.0001% that is known to have done so that makes his argument strong. But it only makes it strong if what he's trying to show is being Jewish isn't a guarantee of being better.

Some Jews, no doubt, are better than some Gentiles. That's not his point. He's not talking about personal sin here.

He's talking about categorical sin. Are you better because you're a Jew? No, of course not. Because some people who are as Jewish as you are, are breaking the law in ways that you might not be.

But it means that if you're a better person than them, it's not because you're a Jew, because so are they. It's because you're not doing what they're doing. The point here is, he's a slap in the face to those who just believe being Jewish, that's a category that's all good.

Well, wait, aren't there some Jews who aren't all good? Don't some Jews rob temples, commit adultery, steal, and do other things like that? Well, we have to admit that's true. Every Jew had to admit that some Jews did that. He says, doesn't that prove my point that it's not being Jewish that makes you better, since these were Jewish people who weren't better? Paul's simply trying to point out that any ethnic smugness that comes from someone saying, I'm a Jew, the Gentiles are lesser beings without the law, I'm a Jew.

Well, being a Jew isn't what makes you better. If you are better, it's because you're behaving better. If you're not behaving better, then being a Jew doesn't make a difference at all.

And you can think of some Jews, in fact, who don't behave better. Which proves my point, he says. That's what he's saying.

Now, to the Jew who's ethnically proud and smug, it must have really stung when he said, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. Not you personally, the reader, but you Jews as a whole who preach something very adamantly, but don't live it necessarily with consistency. And so he says in verse 25, Now, this may seem so obvious to us, but it was not obvious to their mindset.

As a Jewish person, I may sometimes break some laws. I'm not perfect, after all. But I'm always circumcised.

That's a constant. And my identity is in that. My identity is I'm in the circumcised race, and it's the race that stands on good terms with God, and I'm in.

I can show you if you want to see it. I can prove that I'm in because I'm constantly, always, 24-7, I'm a circumcised man. Whatever I do day by day, that's incidental to the more important factor.

I'm a circumcised man. Paul says, well, if you're circumcised, that's great. As long as you're also keeping the whole law, but if you're breaking the law, being circumcised isn't any better than not being circumcised.

Now, Paul actually said something to get this point across in another place, in Galatians 5. In verse 3, Paul said, I testify again to every man of you who becomes circumcised that he's a debtor to keep the whole law. Now, he's talking to Gentiles, actually, who are trying to become proselyte to Judaism as Christians, and he says, do you realize what you're getting into here? It's like if we said to someone who said, hey, I want to be baptized, but you're not even sure they're converted. You have to say, well, wait, do you realize that being baptized means you're declaring that you're a follower of Christ? That means you're supposed to keep all his commands from this point on.

That's what baptism implies. Do you really want to do that? And that's what Paul is saying to these Gentiles. Do you realize if you get circumcised, that carries with it the obligation to keep the whole law.

It's not just one act of obedience, getting circumcised. It is the start of a life totally obligated to keep all the laws. And that's what he's saying to the Jew who thinks wrongly about his circumcision.

Yeah, you're circumcised. That means you're obligated to keep all the laws. And if you don't keep the laws, it's as good as if you weren't circumcised.

Your circumcision does not confer special brownie points with God if you're not doing what circumcision implies you're supposed to be doing. He says in verse 26, therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you, even who with your written code and uncircumcision are transgressors of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God.

He talks about the uncircumcised man in verse 26, and then again in verse 27, he who is physically uncircumcised. Who are these uncircumcised men who keep the law? They are Christian Gentiles, uncircumcised because they're Gentiles, keeping the law and fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law because they're Christians. In fact, there's two phrases here that make it very clear that that's what he means, because in verse 26, he talks about the uncircumcised man who keeps the righteous requirements of the law.

If you look over at Romans 8, Romans 8, verse 4, Paul said that the righteous requirements of the law, the same phrase, might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. That is the Christians who have the spirit of God walking in the spirit. We fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, that same phrase.

So in chapter 2, in verse 26, he says, the uncircumcised man, Gentile, who keeps the righteous requirements of the law, well, that's the man who's walking not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, according to Paul, in Romans 8, verse 4. A Christian Gentile. Okay? And it says at the end of verse 26, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? Circumcision. So if you are walking in the spirit, you will be fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law, and God will count you as circumcised.

You know, Paul said that to the Philippians, who are Gentiles mostly, in Philippians 3, 3. Speaking of himself as well as his Gentile conference, he says, we are the circumcision who rejoice in Christ Jesus, who worship God in the spirit, and who put no confidence in the flesh. So the true circumcision, Paul says, in Philippians 3, 3, are those who worship Jesus, worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ. They're Christians.

Now, Paul was a Jewish Christian. His readers were Gentile Christians. So it didn't matter if you're Jew or Gentile, if you are rejoicing in Christ Jesus, you are circumcised as far as God is concerned with the more important circumcision.

And that's what Paul's got behind, verse 26 of Romans 2. The uncircumcised man, the Gentile, who keeps the righteous requirements of the law, he's walking in the spirit, not the flesh, he's a Christian. His uncircumcised state will not be counted as an uncircumcision. He'll be counted as circumcised.

If circumcised means acceptable to God, well, then these Gentiles who are uncircumcised are really the circumcised ones, as he tells the Philippians. And in verse 27, he says, will not the physically uncircumcised... Now, notice he says physically... This is the first time he says physically uncircumcised. And that's because he has introduced the idea of somebody who is physically... who is uncircumcised, but he's counted as circumcised.

Now he has to... Since he's decided that the Gentile Christian is counted as circumcised, he has to describe his uncircumcision as physical merely. The man who's physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law. Now, how is the law fulfilled? If you look over at Romans 13, again, the same book later on, verse 8 and following says, Oh, no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.

The very phrase that Paul's talking about here. For the commandments, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not covet. And if there's any other commandment, they all are summed up in this saying, namely, you shall love your neighbors yourself.

Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law. And where does love come from? Love comes from the Holy Spirit. It's the fruit of the Spirit.

And Paul says that in Romans also, in Romans 5. 5. He says, Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. So, fulfilling the law is loving your neighbor. That's something that happens because the Holy Spirit has been given to us.

The man who walks in the Spirit, not in the flesh, fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. These are the terms that Paul deliberately uses of certain uncircumcised people in Romans 2, 26 and 27. He's talking about the Gentile Christian, just as I said he was back in the same chapter in verses 14 and 15, when he talks about Gentiles who do not have the law, because Gentile Christians are not put under the law, never have been under the law of Moses, when they do things contained in the law.

They show the law in their hearts. This is Christian Gentiles, not just Gentiles he's got in mind. He's contrasting the smug, elitist minded Jew with the Gentile who happens to be a Christian.

The smug Jew might be a Christian or not, because some Jews are and some aren't. But the Jewish Christians tended to think that Jewish non-Christians were still kind of okay because they're circumcised. But the Gentile Christians were not even okay because they weren't circumcised.

And Paul's making it very clear, no, there's a great number of Jews out there that steal and commit adultery and even rob temples, but you've got some Gentiles who actually fulfill the righteous requirements of the law and do by nature what is contained in the law, because they have the law written in their hearts. These are the Christians in the Roman Church that he's talking about, that these Jewish Christians need to note. You know, you look down on your Gentile brother because he's not circumcised, you should look down on your Jewish brother who may be circumcised, but he's breaking the law.

And look at your Gentile brother. He's actually doing what you guys are supposed to be doing. He's living for Jesus.

He's living a righteous life. He's loving his neighbor. He's fulfilling the law.

He's walking in the spirit. He's fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law. This is true circumcision.

He says, of course, in verse 28, for he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. So he just discounts any value in racial connection to Judah, Judaism. Being Jewish, ethnically Jewish, is being a Jew outwardly.

He says that's not being Jewish. If we're going to use the word Jewish to speak of God's chosen people, then being physically Jewish isn't what makes that what you are. You're only God's chosen people if God counts you to be Jewish, if God counts you to be circumcised, and if you're only outwardly circumcised in the flesh, only ethnically Jewish, then you're neither circumcised nor Jewish as far as God is concerned.

Those who are circumcised in their hearts, who have the law written in their hearts, those who obey the standards that God has given for his people, they are the true Jews. They're inward Jews, spiritual Jews, spiritual Israel. You know, Paul refers to the church in Galatians 6.16. He refers to the church as the Israel of God.

There's an Israel of the flesh, but there's also an Israel of God, the Israel that God acknowledges in Galatians 6.16. He also, in Galatians chapter 3, he points out in Galatians 3, verse 26 through 29, he says, for you are all sons of God. Most of the Galatians were Gentiles. Some were Jews, probably, but it was a Gentile congregation.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, which means you're in Christ, and he is, in fact, the seed of Abraham, according to verse 16 earlier in the chapter. Therefore, he says, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

There is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus, and if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. What heirs? What promise? The promise God made to Abraham. But isn't that for the Jews? Didn't God make promises to Abraham that's for the Jews? Paul says, well, they're for the real seed of Abraham, and if you belong to Christ, you are that seed.

But most of the readers are Gentiles. No difference. Doesn't make a difference.

There's no Jew or Gentile. You see, the promises to Abraham do not guarantee anything to somebody who's an ethnic Jew only. He is not a Jew who's an only outwardly.

Later on in Romans chapter 9 and verse 6, he's going to say, they are not all Israel, who are of Israel. Well, those who are of Israel would be the Jewish race, descended from Israel, Jacob. Not all of those people are really Israel.

So, Paul is using various terms that the Jews applied themselves. Israel, the circumcised, the Jew, the seed of Abraham, sons of God. These are all terms that the Jews thought belonged to them and all the places he mentions them.

He says, no, this is the Christians. A Jew can be a Christian. A Jew can be of the seed of Abraham, can be part of the Israel of God, can be a true Jew and truly circumcised, can be really Israel.

But being born Jewish is no guarantee of it. And being born Gentile is no guarantee of being excluded from it. Because the categories are not racial any longer.

The categories are spiritual. It's those who are circumcised in the heart, in the spirit, he says in verse 29 of Romans 2. Not in the letter. Now the last line about the true Jew being the one inwardly, the last line in verse 29 says, whose praise is not from men but from God.

And this is actually a play on words because he's just described what a true Jew is. A true Jew, as opposed to someone who doesn't deserve that name, is the one whose praise is not from men but from God. Why is that a play on words? Because the word Jew comes from the name Judah.

The reason Jews were called that is because they had been part of the nation of Judah and had gone into Babylon and had come back and Israel was mostly of the tribe of Judah after that. And so we call them Jews, which is short for Judah. The name Judah means praise.

So the word Jew essentially means praise. It's a short form of Judah, which means praise. So Paul says the true Jew is not the one who's seeking praise from his companions.

Not the one who glad hands his fellow Jews, says, yeah, you're circumcised too, so am I, we're good. That's not a true Jew. The true Jew is the one that God praises, not the one that man praises.

Paul makes this point pretty strongly also in 2 Corinthians. Chapter 10, verse 18. Paul says, for not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.

It doesn't matter who you commend or how another man commends or if you commend yourself, those are all irrelevant things. If God commands you, now that counts for something. Like Paul said in Galatians 1.10, he says, do I seek to please man or God? He said, if I was seeking to please man, I would not be the servant of Christ.

Galatians 1.10. Pleasing God, getting God's approval, getting God's commendation. That's the mindset of the person that God really does commend. Someone who doesn't care what men think about him, but does care what God thinks.

That's the true Jew. The true circumcision. Now, of course, at this point, Paul has basically eliminated, it would seem, any special status for someone who's merely a Jew outwardly and merely circumcised in the flesh.

So, chapter 3 begins with the question, well, what advantage then has the Jew? Well, if we're talking about the natural Jew, it almost sounds like Paul's just said, there is no advantage to them. But he actually surprised us and says, no, there is, they have had advantages. But advantage does not translate into merit.

Because you may be given many advantages and it may only make you the more guilty because you lack merit. And that's what we're going to find him saying in chapter 3, but we'll take our break now and come back to that. Thank you.