Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 2 · Section 2 – Section 3
2. The parts, Method, and Argument.
THis Chapter hath two parts: 1. the Apostle conuinceth all to be sinners, and so to deserue condemnation, much lesse to be iustified by their workes: 2. he taketh away certaine pretexts and excuses which might be alleadged.
1. As in the former chapter he conuinced the Gentiles of sinne, and so to be subiect to Gods iust wrath, because both they committed euill things themselues, and fauoured those which did them: so now he vrgeth an other argument from their owne conscience: The reason standeth thus: whosoeuer condemneth himselfe, is inexcusable: this is prooued in the second verse, because the iudgement of God is according to truth, to iudge eueryevery man according to his owne conscience: but all men doe condemne themselues, because they iudge others for the same things which they doe themselues, v. 1. therefore they are inexcusable, v. 1.
2. The pretenses are 1. either generall, of all men, v. 3. to 11. or speciall, first of the Gentiles, v. 11. to 17. or of the Iewes, v. 17. to the ende.
1. The generall pretext or pretense, 1. is propounded, v. 3, 4. that God beeing mercifull and long-suffering, will not straightly punish and condemne eueryevery one that is euill. 2. the Apostles answer followeth, 1. from the ende and cause of Gods long-suffering, which is to call men to repentance, v. 4. in the latter part. 2. from the effect of impenitencie, which is the heaping vp of wrath: which is confirmed by the efficient cause, the iustice of God, v. 6. then by an anrithesis and opposition both of the rewards and punishments, v. 7, 8, 9, 10. which also is amplified and confirmed by the reason thereof, that God is no accepter of persons, v. 11.
2. The first speciall pretext is of the Gentiles, which may be collected thus: It is vniust for those which hauehave no law to be punished: the Gentiles hauehave no law, Ergo.
The Apostle answereth to the maior, or first part, by a distinction, that they which hauehave no law at all, neither naturall, nor written, are not to be punished, but if they hauehave either or both, if they sinne against the law of nature, or the written law, they shall be iudged accordingly, v. 12. the latter part of sinning against the written law, is further illustrated by preuenting an obiection: for the Iew might alleadge, that he had the law, and gaue eare vntounto it, therefore he should not be iudged thereby: the Apostle answereth, that not the hearers of the law, but the doers should be iustified, v. 13.
The second part of the argument, that the Gentiles had no lawe, the Apostle denieth, proouing, that although they had not the written lawe, yet they had the law of nature: which he sheweth by two arguments, taken from two effects, the one, because some of them by the light of nature, did some things agreeable to the written law, v. 14. and againe, they had the testimonie of their owne conscience, either accusing or excusing them, v. 15. which is set forth by the circumstance of the time, when this testimonie of their conscience shall most of all shew it selfe, namely at the day of iudgement, v. 16.
Then follow the particular pretexts and excuses of the Iewes. The first is, that the Iewes had the knowledge of the law, and therfore that they should not be damned together with the rest: this defense of the Iewes is first propounded in their person, in diuers particular points, wherein the Iewes boasted, as in the knowledge of the law, in the teaching, and instructing of others, v. 17. to 20. then the Apostle adioyneth his answer, denying the argument, because although they had the Law, yet they obserued it not: which he prooueth by experience of their euill life, v. 21, 22, 23. and by a testimonie of Scripture, v. 24.
The other pretext and defense of the Iewes was this; circumcision is not vnprofitable, the Iewes had circumcision, therefore it was auaileable vntounto them; to this the Apostle maketh this answer, to the proposition by this distinction: that circumcision profited if it kept the law, which is amplified by the contrarie, that if it kept not the law, it was no better then vncircumcision; nay vncircumcision keeping the law, should be preferred before circumcision, not keeping the law, v. 25, 26, 27. to the assumption he also answereth by a double distinction, of a Iew outward, and inward, and of circumcision in the flesh, and the spirit: that a Iew outward should gaine nothing before God by his circumcision onelyonly in the flesh, and not in the heart, v. 28, 29.