There Is No Respect of Persons With God; Doers of the Law Are Justified (Romans 2:11–15)

Rom. 2:11. There is no partiality with God.

How is there no partiality when the Jew is rewarded more? The Apostle means to say that the Jew is not rewarded insofar as he is a Jew, but insofar as he turns out to be faithful to the Law of commandments prescribed for him; likewise the Gentile is not condemned insofar as he is a Gentile, but insofar as he is unfaithful to the natural law of conscience. The Jew is judged, and then rewarded or punished as a Jew, according to his laws. The Gentile is judged and then rewarded or punished as a Gentile, according to his laws. In both cases the outcome is determined by faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the law which each of them considered binding for himself. Fulfillment of it will make him worthy of reward in the measure of fulfillment, and violation of it will make him worthy of punishment in the measure of violation. In this respect all are equal—both Jew and Greek. “There is no partiality with God”. Holy Chrysostom says: “When he said that both Jew and Gentile are punished for sins, this needed no proof. But when he wants to make understood that the Gentile too will be honored, proofs are now needed. For it seemed amazing and strange that one who had not heard the Law and the Prophets should be honored for good deeds. The Apostle makes understood to us that it is not God’s way to act otherwise, because that would be partiality, and there is no partiality in God. ‘There is no partiality with God’,—that is, God examines not the quality of persons, but the difference of deeds. — One receives honor while another receives shame not because that one is a Jew and this one a Gentile; on the contrary, each is repaid according to his deeds.”

One cannot fail to see that the Apostle—from verse 9 here and further on—has given his thought a special direction. Evidently he is imperceptibly approaching his main thought—the equality of Jew and Gentile before grace. Had he suddenly expressed this thought, he might have amazed and repelled the Jews. To dispose them from afar to receive it, he sets the Jew and Greek as equals before God’s judgment. In this judgment in favor of them stood the innate feeling of justice in all, shutting the mouths of the Jews and making them humbly agree to the decision pronounced by the Apostle of the eternal fate of each by God’s undeniable righteousness. Holy Chrysostom says: “So the Apostle from afar undermines the barrier between circumcision and uncircumcision, even from a distance prepares the destruction of this distinction, so as to accomplish it without raising any suspicion. If he had begun to prove this directly about the times of grace, his words would have aroused not a little suspicion. But when, reasoning about the prevailing wickedness and corruption in the world, in the course of discourse he reaches this subject; his teaching becomes quite unsuspicious. Pay attention! — The Apostle has brought his listener into fear, struck his ear with the reminder of the terrible day, said how evil a wicked life is, proved that everyone sins not from ignorance and therefore is not free from punishment, and if not yet punished, then surely faces punishment. Here he wishes to prove that the teaching of the Law is not something absolutely necessary, because both punishment and reward come for deeds, not for circumcision and uncircumcision. The Apostle, having said that the Gentile will be punished, from this position as incontrovertible drew the conclusion that the Gentile will also be rewarded, and thereby made manifest that the Law and circumcision are now superfluous. The Jews in their pride considered it base to place themselves on a level with Gentiles. Therefore the Apostle first accused the Gentiles, about whom he began to speak, so as not to arouse suspicion and to strike harder at the Jews; then he turns to reasoning about punishment and proves that the Law not only does not benefit the Jew but even burdens him. If the Gentile is without excuse for not becoming better under the guidance of nature and reason, then how much more without excuse is the Jew, who, besides such guidance, was also taught the Law. Thus the Apostle, having convinced the Jew to agree that the sins of the Gentiles are without excuse, compels him also to draw the same conclusion about his own sins.”

Rom. 2:12. 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

He explains and affirms God’s impartiality. Those, he says, “without law”,—that is, not having the written Law but guided only by the natural law of conscience, “have sinned”,—those “without law” will also perish, that is, will not be condemned by the written Law according to eternal torment, which is the ultimate destruction, but “by the one innate to their nature gift of discerning good and evil” (Blessed Theodoret),—will be condemned for not following this natural law, written in their hearts. And those who have the Law,—that is, having the written Law, “have sinned”,—those will be judged by this Law, and “will receive judgment”,—that is, will be condemned to the same eternal destruction. When on Mount Sinai they said: all that the Lord says we will do and obey,—they then took all the prescriptions of the Law into their conscience and made themselves answerable before them as before conscience. By this the scope of their liability was broadened. How gradually he is leading the Jews to the awareness of greater danger for them than for the Gentile! He does not say this openly; he only says that God is impartial and will judge each according to the law which he recognized as binding for himself. But since for the Jews both the prescriptions of the Law were broader, and their knowledge was clearer and fuller, then by that very fact he should have greater fear for his fate. Holy Chrysostom says: “Here the Apostle proves that not only are Jew and Gentile equal to each other, but a greater burden is laid upon the Jew by the gift to him of the Law. Though the Gentile is condemned without the Law, this condemnation without the Law does not mean greater strictness but greater clemency in judgment,—namely that the Gentile has no accuser in the Law. Judged without the Law, that is, not subject to condemnation by the Law, is judged by natural reason alone. But the Jew is judged by the Law, that is, besides nature he has the Law as his accuser. The more care was taken for him, the greater punishment he undergoes. Do you see how the Apostle has placed the Jews in a greater necessity to have recourse to grace? Since they said they do not need grace as justified by the Law alone, the Apostle proves that Jews, if they undergo greater punishment, have more need of grace than Gentiles.”

Rom. 2:13. For not the hearers of the Law are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified

It is clear that the Apostle, leaving behind the Gentiles, is bearing down more and more on the Jews. As they boasted of the Law and hid behind it as behind a rampart, so he turns the Law itself into their condemnation, and, undermining that rampart, brings down righteous judgment upon them with all its weight. Good, that you have the Law, clearly depicting what you ought to do and what not to do; good, that you clearly hear and hear about all this. This is no small advantage. But before God what is valued is not that you have Scripture depicting the Law, and that you hear it, but whether you fulfill it. If you fulfill it, the greater the honor for you; but if you do not fulfill it, what benefit is the Law? It will give you no weight at all. Only the doers of the Law will be justified.

Such is the universal law of divine justice, by which the judgment of the whole world will be accomplished. The creators of the Law will be justified: when? “On the day of judgment” (verse 16). Therefore verse 16 stands in direct connection with the present, the 13th, as its completion. In verses 14 and 15 the Apostle explains that the Gentiles have their own law. He has said more than once before that the Gentiles knew the Law and, despite that, sinned, and are therefore answerable; but he did not explain how they knew it – he does so now. For, having placed the Jew and the Gentile on the same line before judgment, making each answerable – each before his own law, he necessarily had to explain this as well. That the Jew had the Law before his eyes is not worth mentioning. But what law does the Gentile have? The Jew might say: why do you equate him with me? He has no law at all, and all his deeds are sinful and unclean before God. What justification and corresponding reward can he expect? The Gentile might think: if no law is given to me, why condemn me? Let the Jews alone go into eternal torment. – The Apostle explains how the law is written in the Gentile and how therefore reward is fitting for him, and punishment is not unjust.

Rom. 2:14. When the Gentiles, not having the Law, by nature do the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves.

He says: “the creators of the Law will be justified”; but where is the law among the Gentiles? Look! The Gentiles do something lawful – something in accord with the Law? They do. And yet they have no written law? They do not. How then do they do what is lawful? By nature; that is, without special direction from above, by their natural powers, guided by that one thing which God has placed in their nature. If in this way they by nature do what is lawful, without written law, then it is evident that they are a law to themselves – that is, they themselves bear the Law within them, they themselves read it in themselves, listen to it, and fulfill it. You, Jew, hear the written law, receive it upon your conscience, consider yourself obliged to fulfill it – and you fulfill it – you do what is lawful; but in the Gentile all this is accomplished within, in himself, in his nature: there he hears the law, there he attends to it, there he resolves to do it and does it.

How this happens the Apostle explains in the following verse; here he only brings an empirical indication that the Gentile does what is lawful, does it “by nature” – without special guidance from above – and is therefore a law to himself. It should be noted that when the Apostle says “by nature”, he does not mean with natural necessity, but only with the natural powers which exist by nature. By these powers they recognize what is lawful, decide upon it, and do it, preserving full freedom – to follow it or not to follow it. “By saying ‘by nature,’ he means: by natural reason” (St. Chrysostom). “Having conviction in their thoughts, having impressed not letters but works in their hearts, and using, instead of a law, conscience as a witness to the good, and natural thoughts” (Blessed Theophylact). Also, when the Apostle says “are a law to themselves,” he does not grant them the right to act as anyone wishes, but only teaches that the law did not come to them from without. By its nature, however, it is just as unchanging as the written law – it is one for all and equally binding for all: for nature is unchanging, it is one for all, and he who acts not according to nature destroys nature.

But how could the Apostle earlier have portrayed the Gentiles as so depraved that to say of them, “by nature do the things of the Law” would no longer be fitting? There he portrayed them as they became by their own will, having fallen into the lusts of the flesh; here he points to what they should be by nature, that is, to do what is lawful, written in their nature. There is presented the dominant character of paganism, to what moral degradation it had fallen, and here it is said that despite all that, there were such as did what is lawful. These latter serve as a reproof to those who knew, were able to do what is lawful, and did not do it. Were there not those doing what is lawful, the lawless could say: what can we do? we must be made this way. The Apostle here teaches that this is not how they are made, to be ungodly and corrupt, but rather to do what is lawful. – The Apostle needs in the present place not the assertion that the Gentiles – all of them and all their deeds – do what is lawful, but only that they do what is lawful, in order to draw from this: consequently, they have their own law, operating in them.

Rom. 2:15. Which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness together with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or also defending.

Someone might say: that the Gentiles sometimes do what is lawful is accidental; among a multitude of unlawful deeds, something lawful occasionally slips out. The Apostle prevents this thought, showing how naturally moral deeds are produced. The Gentiles “show the work of the Law”. What kind? Any that they show – which will mean the same as lawful deeds. Or “the work of the Law” – means: the work of the law, the work of morality, – moral legislation. One or the other they show “written in their hearts”. For the first inspiration toward good always issues from the heart. A suffering person is met – from the heart issues compassion, disposing one to ease his suffering. One sees an injured person – from the heart issues displeasure with the injurer, with impulse to defend the injured. One receives a benefit – the heart fills with gratitude to the benefactor. A thought of God comes – in the heart is felt reverent worship and devotion to Him, even if one does not have correct conceptions of the Godhead. – So every lawful deed shows itself written in the heart and in the Gentile. But in the heart whence does it come? Is the heart the producer of lawful inspiration or only the vehicle? Is it itself a lawful deed or does it only show, indicate a lawful deed, receiving inspirations from without and serving only as their interpreter? Deeper than the heart, in the spirit, lies conscience, quickened by the fear of God. It writes with its finger in the heart at every instance a lawful deed – what is to be done: sometimes – help, sometimes – defend, sometimes – do not touch, this is another’s – and the like. The lawful deed shows itself written in the heart and is witnessed by a feeling, indicating the manner of action.

But is this all? No. One must come to the fulfillment in deed of that which has been inspired through the heart. And this proceeds thus. The feeling of the heart is reflected in consciousness; the ray of consciousness again descends upon conscience and calls forth the obligation to act thus or otherwise. The heart only sympathizes with the lawful deed – as conscience inspired it; conscience, when consciousness has turned to it concerning the deed, now imposes upon it the moral necessity of acting thus and not otherwise. This is what is meant by: “their conscience bearing witness together with them. – Bearing witness together,” συμμαρτυρούσης, – testifying together, bearing witness with. To whom? To the feelings of the heart. Conscience speaks to consciousness or to the person: yes, yes; so you should act, as the heart inspires.

This inner legal enactment ends there each time. The lawful deed is indicated and known to be binding. But such a decision is made only in the innermost highest chamber, where nothing lawful meets obstacles. In order for this decision to pass into deed, it must pass through the lower chamber – the soul, with its needs, habits, and established external relationships. Every lawful deed comes here – and, as soon as it arrives, always meets a storm of contrary thoughts. – Conscience meanwhile defends its work. A struggle occurs within: “their thoughts among themselves accusing or also defending. – Defending,” απολογουμένων, – defending, fulfilling the role of advocate. On one side is heard accusation, on the other – defense and justification. Whichever side prevails, according to that the fulfillment follows – the lawful deed, legally enacted within, is either rejected or fulfilled in deed. Who is the judge? The free person doing the acting. And no one can decide why this person inclines to one side or the other, and his decisions cannot in any way be subsumed under any laws so as to foresee his decisions. For sometimes he makes one decision, and an hour later another, under completely equal circumstances.

Thus the whole production of a moral deed is seen. From it one sees that the moral law is written in the human heart and is supported by conscience. But from this it does not follow that it is always necessarily fulfilled: for it meets contrary thoughts, in struggle with which it does not always come out victorious. The author of its fulfillment or non-fulfillment is the free human being, who will give account of his deeds on the day when the Lord will judge “the secrets of men”: for human decisions about deeds are made in secret, and they, properly speaking, are subject to judgment and condemnation.

We consider verses 14 and 15 to be introductory explanatory statements. But it should be noted that our ancient interpreters did not think so, but see here a consecutive discourse. We are led to see here an insertion because otherwise the following, 16th text would stand without order: “on the day when God judges”. But they connect these words with the immediately preceding ones, and when they interpret, they write out the whole place thus: “and their thoughts among themselves accusing or also defending on the day when God judges” and so on. – The Apostle has shown above that at the judgment all will be judged by the law which lay upon each, and then explained that the Gentiles too had and have their own law, written in the heart and strengthened by conscience; now he says how the judgment itself will happen. Namely: there will be no need for witnesses; each by his thoughts will pronounce judgment or condemnation over himself: each will see his law and his deeds, will compare them, and decide: guilty or not guilty. Holy Chrysostom says: “the words: ‘accusing’ (and so on) – the Apostle applies to the whole human race. For on the day of judgment our very own thoughts will appear, now accusing, now justifying. And man at that court will not need another accuser.” So Theophylact and Ambrosiaster. Oecumenius brings, besides his own thoughts, also the interpretation of Blessed Photius. Theodoret explains, moreover, how the accusing thoughts will rise, by the following examples: “I do not consider it superfluous to clarify this word with some example. When the wonderful Joseph put into action the plot he had devised against Benjamin and attempted to take him as a slave, as if he had stolen the cup, and thus, as with fire, tested the disposition of his brothers; then the power of conscience’s testimony was plainly revealed. For then, just then, they were less occupied with the present sad event, but remembered the transgression committed twenty-two years earlier, and some said: the blood of our younger brother will be demanded of us – and Reuben recalled the exhortations he had made. Therefore one must imagine also the future judgment, and how the conscience of those who lived outside the law will now be justified, putting forward ignorance as an excuse, now accept accusation and proclaim the justice of the judgment pronounced.”

This interpretation does not contradict the previous one and does not repeal it, but only points to the second moment of one and the same judgment: one manifests itself in this life, the other will come in the next. But in essence, both are the same. And there conscience will likewise judge and condemn, as it does here. There only its voice will be stronger and more decisive; because it will not meet with contradiction, as it does here.