Romans 3:7

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"

(v7, NIV)

But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

(v7, ESV)

Here we get to see Paul's second point about what these objectors have to say. Paul is continuing to point out the contradiction in their objection against Paul. They call Paul out on a contradiction because judgment of the unrighteous leads to the glorification of God and therefore you can't judge the unrighteous. Paul's first point in revealing a contradiction in their argument is that if God can't judge the unrighteous, then he can't judge the world. His objectors probably would've been glad and waiting for God to judge the world, so there is their first contradiction in their objection. The second point Paul makes is about himself. They are arguing with Paul and they probably didn't really like Paul. In addition to finding pleasure in God judging the world, they probably would've also found pleasure in God judging Paul. However, if they think Paul is unrighteous and wrong, then God can't judge Paul either because Paul becomes the instrument of God glorification. Now, the NIV and the ESV are both up there because the NIV begins with "someone might argue". The translators of NIV seem to attribute this argument to a hypothetical person. If that is the case, then it seems to simply flow and tie into the next verse that Paul says. Either way, it continues to show that these objectors have involved themselves in a contradiction.

Romans 3:6

Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?

(v6, NIV)

Paul's plan is to show that his objectors have involved themselves in a contradiction. They are saying that you can't judge them because if God's judgment on them glorifies God, they become instruments leading to God's glorification. As a result, they are calling out Paul on a contradiction from what he has said. This may seem a bit confusing to follow the train of thought, but try to follow along. The objectors involve themselves in a contradiction. They say that you can't judge the unrighteous since they eventually lead to the glorification of God. However, if you can't judge the unrighteous, then how will God judge the world? These hypothetical objectors are probably the Jewish legalist hypocrites in chapter two. These would've wanted and very much desired for the judgment of the world. However, if they're calling out Paul on a contradiction, their objection is a contradiction because it wouldn't allow God to judge the world.

Romans 3:5

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)

(v5, NIV)

After hearing what Paul has just said, the objectors make another objection. The objection calls Paul out on another contradiction. If God is just when he judges, then that means unrighteousness of men in some way leads to the glorification of God. Therefore, if Paul is calling out these Jews on unrighteousness and that they will be judged, they are also that which leads to the glorification of God. Therefore, the contradiction is that unrighteous people become that which glorifies God and you can't judge God glorifiers.

Here in this verse, Paul is simply stating this contradiction that he is being called out on. He ends this verse by saying that he is using a human argument, or speaking in a human way. He wants to make it clear that this kind of argument is the kind of argument that does not come from God. He wants it to be clear that this is not from God and it is not from him. This is something that he is using and he is simply re-stating this objection that he is hearing from his objectors. Just as a spoiler alert, Paul is about to defend himself again by finding flaws in their accusation. Paul isn't just going to sit there and take this. He won't stand for it and he brings about his counter-point in the next few verses.

Romans 3:4b

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:

"So that you may be proved right when you speak

and prevail when you judge."

(v4, NIV)

Here, Paul is defending his argument by deflecting an objection about the faithfulness of God. What Paul had said previously seems to bring about the conclusion that God is no longer faithful according to these objectors. However, God does not cease to be faithful if he judges the Jews. God is true even if every man is a liar. In order to back up his point, Paul quotes Psalms 51:4.

Against you, you only, have I sinned

and done what is evil in your sight,

so that you are proved right when you speak

and justified when you judge.

(Psalms 51:4, NIV)

In this Psalm, David is crying out to God about his transgression with Bathsheba. David himself lines up with what Paul is saying. God is justified when he judges, even if he is to judge David and even if he is to judge the Jews. We sin and God is still faithful and just. He judges us and is proved right when he speaks and justified when he judges.

Romans 3:4

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:

"So that you may be proved right when you speak

and prevail when you judge."

(v4, NIV)

Paul presents the objection that his listeners may have. He was recently downplaying any advantage Jews may have in the last chapter. However, in the beginning of the chapter he addresses their first objection. This first objection has to do with the fact that what Paul has been saying seems to nullify the whole Old Testament. In order to deal with this Paul mentions the first advantage that Jews have, which is that they have been entrusted with the words of God. This next objection is about Paul's answer. Paul seems to have entered a contradiction because it seems as if he's supporting two opposing ideas. Paul's point brings up the situation where some Jews did not have faith. Paul addresses the Jews and the Old Testament in showing his objectors that Paul can say what he has said because God's judgment on the Jews does not nullify God's faithfulness.

Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. In chapter two, Paul speaks of how Jews are hypocrites and their circumcision becomes uncircumcision when they break the law. However, how does this make sense since the Jews are God's chosen people? It's not as if it means nothing to be a Jew. There are advantages to being a Jew and one of them is the fact that God entrusted them with his words. However, there still seems to be a contradiction because of some of the things God says about his chosen people in the Old Testament. If God said some things about the Jews in the Old Testament, how can they be judged and their circumcision undone? If God gave them this law and they followed it, how can God still be faithful in the words he has said? Paul immediately discounts this possibility. God is faithful. Even if everyone in the entire world were saying something completely different, they would all be liars and God would be the only one speaking the truth. He is still righteous and faithful. God is righteous in his judgment upon us. If every man is lost, God is still true. His sending each and every one of us does not discount his character and he loses nothing. He doesn't need us or lean on us for anything.

Romans 3:3

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?

(v3, NIV)

In the last chapter, Paul was talking about Jews and how they are hypocrites. Even though they boast in circumcision, it is undone by the breaking of the law. They are even being condemned by the Gentiles who not having the law fulfill the requirements of the law. If Paul is saying that there isn't really an advantage of being a Jew here, how does that jive with what he says in chapter 3? Paul says at the beginning of chapter three that Jews have an advantage in that they were entrusted with the words of God. So they cry "foul" because it seems as though Paul has a contradiction. If Jews no long have an advantage and can be judged according to Paul's gospel, how is God still faithful to his chosen people? They seem to say that God will no longer be faithful if he chooses to judge his people. By tackling this objection, Paul poses back to them the possibility that some did not have faith. It's a "so what" kind of answer. So what if some do not have faith and do not believe? Their unbelief does not cause God to be unfaithful.

Romans 3:2

Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

(v2, NIV)

So what advantage has the Jew? Their advantage is in the fact that they were given the law. This they have been given is God's words. What a privilege it is to be entrusted with such a thing. So, it is advantageous to be a Jew for this very fact. Most devout Jews know the law inside out. They can quote it to you and they live in it and breathe in it. To be a Jew and be born into a culture where that is promoted is quite an advantage. As Paul was saying in the last chapter, they had the law but their circumcision was being undone by the breaking of the law. So, you can have the law but it doesn't mean that you follow what it says. Regardless, to be a Jew and to have been entrusted with the words of God is a valued advantage. This advantage is not to be cast aside as something useless or meaningless.

Romans 3:1

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

(v1, NIV)

The last chapter was focused on the Jews and legalists. At the beginning we saw how they were hypocrites. Paul moves on to talk about how God will give to each according to what he has done. The thing is that even though they were Jews and had the law, they were missing the point. They may have bragged about the law, but they dishonor God by breaking the law. Even though they had been circumcised and boasted in it, their circumcision was being undone by the breaking of the law. This whole chapter just seems to undo all the Jews boasted in. It almost seems as if there is really no point or no value in being a Jew or being circumcised. And so, this is what Paul addresses. Paul brings to light the question that they may have in their heads as a result of what he was talking about in the previous chapter. Paul begins this and we'll see how Paul addresses this in the verses to come. To say the very least, there is value in being a Jew or being circumcised.

Romans 2:29b

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

(v29, NIV)

There is one last thing to mention before moving on to chapter 3. I guess it was already mentioned, but I guess it's time to tackle it today. This is the aspect of praise from God and not from men. It was mentioned earlier and this ties into the rest of the passage. It is important to note that we do not seek the praise of man, but the praise from God. The Jewish hypocrites who had the law but not the Spirit were seekers of the praise of men. However, why do we wish to please or appeal to men so that they would praise us? It doesn't matter what they think. What matters is what God thinks. It may be that men praise us at the same time that God praises us. However, most importantly, it is simply what God thinks and not what men think. Seek after his praise and not solely the praise of men.

Romans 2:25-29b

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

(v25-29, NIV)

Notice at the end how Paul notes that circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. It is by the Spirit and not the written code. However, how does this work with what was mentioned earlier about uncircumcised becoming circumcised by keeping the requirements of the law? The thing is that the law isn't some terrible thing we should all run away from. However, if the law is without the Spirit, bad things happen. Paul is addressing in this chapter people who have the law but do not have the Spirit. We see that this produces external religion and ritual, but nothing internal. Since everything is external, they desire the praise of men, which is also external. This only leads to death because they were only relying on the law. However, if the law is met with the Spirit, this results in the internal circumcision of the heart. In our heart, our deepest desires become a growing passion for God's law. This is not merely external, but it is internal. Since it is internal, we find satisfaction in the praise of God and not the praise of men. In the end, this results in life; we have the Spirit. The Spirit is a necessary part of the equation. This is not merely external, but it is internal.

Romans 2:25-29

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

(v25-29, NIV)

So what's going on here in these verses? Well, there is a weird transformation that is taking place. Circumcision is becoming uncircumcision through the breaking of the law. In addition, uncircumcision is becoming circumcision through the keeping of the requirements of the law. When Gentiles who do not have the law keep its requirements, they being less advantageous, bring condemnation upon those who have the law and circumcision, but break the law. The transformation between circumcision and uncircumcision is then related to Jewishness. Being a Jew does not merely occur outwardly, but it was of the heart by the Spirit. Though this is not all there is to the passage, we must beware that we become like the legalists of that day. If you are a Jew, do not be one merely outwardly, but it is important to also be one inwardly.

Romans 2:29

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

(v29, NIV)

Being a Jew means being a Jew inwardly. You can't call yourself a Jew if you're simply one outwardly. Circumcision is not merely outward either. Instead, inwardly, your heart is circumcised. This inward circumcision is not by the written code. The Jews were circumcised and followed the written law. However, I guess these hypocritical Jews weren't circumcised of the heart, because they were not circumcised by the Spirit, but by the written code. This Spirit is what the Jews didn't get or didn't understand. They lived by the law and while living by the law, they didn't live by it in its entirety. They couldn't and they didn't have the Spirit. The Spirit is that which gives life and if you don't have the Spirit but you have the law, you're still lost.

Romans 2:28

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.

(v28, NIV)

Paul has just explained how circumcision can become uncircumcision and how uncircumcision can become circumcision. There were probably many objections to this and how this could occur. Well, clearly Paul isn't saying that there is an outward transformation occurring, changing from one to the other. Physically, if you were to be circumcised, I don't think there is any way for that to be undone. In circumcision, you remove, and I don't think it grows back. However, the point is that circumcision is not merely outward and physical. So, if circumcision were only outward and physical, then Paul would be wrong in what he is saying. However, this is not the case, and there is more to circumcision than a physical mark. Now, Paul makes a similar statement saying how a Jew is not simply a Jew if he is one outwardly. Now, this is getting personal. Paul has been talking about circumcision, but now he is switching gears and directing towards Jews in general. Sure, most would have associated circumcision with merely outward and physical appearances, but that is not true. Similarly, most would have associated Jewishness with merely outward appearances, like your parents or how you look. However, is that really the case? Being a Jew does not constitute only outward appearances.

Romans 2:27

The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

(v27, NIV)

The last two verses were about this reversal that takes place. People who are circumcised can undo their circumcision by breaking the law. However, uncircumcised people can become as if they are circumcised by keeping the requirements of the law. These circumcised Jews boasted in the law and their circumcision, but these uncircumcised Gentiles are becoming as if they are circumcised. This is quite shameful because they are somehow "getting it" without having the law. As it says here in verse 27, they condemn you. "You" is referring to those who are circumcised, the Jews who have the law and circumcise themselves. It's like some big muscular guy who worked out every day and boasted in his strength. However, one day he is somehow beaten in an arm wrestle against some tiny scrawny kid who doesn't even know what "working out" is. That really is quite mind-boggling as to how that could happen and it would certainly confuse this big muscular guy who just lost. Clearly, there is something that the big muscular guy didn't quite understand or get because he worked hard and was confident in his muscles but was defeated by someone who he would've bet $1000000 would never have a chance of winning in an arm wrestle. Yet, the Jews stand dumbfounded or in disbelief as Paul tells them that their circumcision is undone and the Gentiles are becoming as if they are circumcised. The Jews had the law and they had the advantage. However, those without the law are somehow getting "it". The Jews should be getting "it", having all the advantages of being God's chosen people and being given the law. However, the uncircumcised obey the law and condemn the Jews. This is quite sad.

The Jews become works and rules based. They tried to earn their way to heaven. As Paul mentions earlier, the Jews were hypocrites and unrepentant. When we are saved by the saving work of Jesus Christ, we do not continue in sin. Instead, there is a transformation process and we grow in righteousness. This doesn't mean we're perfect, but we grow deeper and deeper entangled in sin. Do not become like the hypocritical Jews who boasted in the law and in the flesh. Instead, hear, repent and receive what he freely gives; not by your own efforts by his alone.

Romans 2:26

If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?

(v26, NIV)

Here is the other part or other half of this logic. Breaking the law renders as if one was uncircumcised. If this is the case, isn't the opposite true? So, if an uncircumcised person keeps the law's requirements, shouldn't they in a way become as if they were circumcised? This is a great surprise to the Jews if it is in fact true. This undermines their flaunting of this physical mark. It is a reversal that is taking place. The Jews with their circumcision are having this undone by their breaking of the law. However, the keeping of it's requirements changes uncircumcision to circumcision. It's quite a surprise that this mark is no longer of the Jews only, since uncircumcised people can become like one circumcised. And so this is leading to some conclusions that Paul will get to in the verses to come. However, this continues to show how lame it is to boast in an outward physical mark. Who alone is worthy of a boast if one should boast?

Romans 2:25

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

(v25, NIV)

Paul is still addressing the Jews. These Jews boasted in the law, and they also boasted in their circumcision. This mark they wore with pride. However, what Paul says here seems to slap their circumcision in the face. Paul has just been talking about hypocrisy and he alludes to the fact that these Jews he is addressing are hypocrites. In some way shape or form, whether open or secret, they break the law. As a result, their breaking of the law in a way undoes their circumcision. Breaking the law renders you as one who is uncircumcised. The thing they boasted in they really can't boast in because they are as if they are uncircumcised.

Paul doesn't say here that circumcision is of no value. He most definitely starts off this paragraph saying that circumcision has value. However, it has value if you observe the law. Now, the point here is not that everyone should go and physically circumcise themselves. However, there is a sort of undoing of this physical mark the Jews boasted in that occurs when you break the law.

Mark 14:1-2b

Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. "But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."

(v1-2, NIV)

It's somewhat useless or less advantageous to be without application. Yesterday was filled with simply info regarding how or in what way Jesus was betrayed. However, with respect to this new revelation (to me at least), so what? Much can be said about Judas and the betrayal and Jesus at his arrest. Much can be said about the disciples or Pilate or Herod. However, what was new for me was the desire for secrecy revealing how or in what way Judas betrayed Jesus. The Pharisees sought to arrest Jesus, but they wished to do it in secret as to not cause an uproar.

So how do we apply this to our lives? One thing that came to my mind was secrecy and hiding. What are you hiding? What are you doing that you would be ashamed of others knowing? This may be a general rule that most can agree with and not deny. However, personally analyzing our lives or having someone examine us may reveal some things. We may think we're innocent or free of this charge, but we may self-righteously feel as if we're in the right. The Pharisees probably thought they were doing right. These people who lived according to rules and regulations were always cautious of how they were viewed or perceived. Concerned with outward appearances, their dealings in secret were shamefully wrong no doubt. Similarly, Judas went in secret to agree to betray Jesus. He must have at one point thought what he was doing was "okay" at the very least. Maybe that's what we do: we rationalize our actions not questioning whether it's right, but defending that it's not wrong. Please, correct me if what I'm saying is incorrect. Are we not to live with honesty and sincerity?

It's not wrong to do things in secret. There are some passages in Matthew talking about doing things in secret. However, these refer to situations where the person is not ashamed of what he or she is doing before God. Is what you're doing in secret something you would be ashamed of if Jesus was physically present? Okay, maybe this is too far sidetracked. However, let us not partake in secret dealings that are shameful before God.

Mark 14:1-2

Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. "But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."

(v1-2, NIV)

You know, for a long time, I didn't really understand how or in what way Judas betrayed Jesus. For the longest time I simply accepted that he simply betrayed him not really knowing how it worked. Sure, I knew he accepted money for it and he approached the Pharisees secretly to agree to betray Jesus. In addition, I knew that Judas lead the soldiers to meet Jesus to arrest him. However, I never really knew how or why it was this way. Why did they need Judas? In what way did he betray Jesus?

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

(Matthew 26:47-49, NIV)

Another thing I noticed was that Judas points out to the soldiers who Jesus is. He specifically greets Jesus and kisses him. So, Judas is able to distinguish to them who they are to arrest. However, is that all he was needed to do in order to betray Jesus? I would've figured that most people would have known who Jesus was. Could they not distinguish who Jesus was for themselves? This is certainly not the case; at least this is not entirely the case.

"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." Then everyone deserted him and fled.

(Mark 14:48-50, NIV)

Clearly, Jesus wasn't hiding from them because he went and taught in the streets. He even points it out when they come and arrest him. He questions as to why they didn't come to seize him when he was teaching in the temple courts. Jesus knew the answer.

This may not be some special revelation to you. However, it was new to me and it was quite surprising. I am quite ashamed for not having known this all along. It's like something that I should have known but for some reason simply accepted it without really knowing it. It's quite obvious and it goes to show you how much I do not know or read my bible (shame on me). The Pharisees sought to arrest Jesus secretly. They needed an inside man in order to get the job done. Alternatively, what could they have done? A daytime arrest wouldn't have been secretive and people would've found out. So, they would have to simply follow him or find out where he was going to be at night. However, if it was a Pharisee who followed Jesus or asked where he would be, Jesus or others would've caught on. Maybe the Pharisees could've hired someone to get the job done. However, that also leads to issues of their cover being blown. Though it may be difficult, people or Jesus may be able to find out the spy's intent or who sent him. Sure, Judas' cover could have been blown. In fact, his cover was blown because Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him. However, to the Pharisees, an inside man like Judas was the perfect person for the job. Judas was one of the twelve, so it's hard to find someone closer than Judas. Using Judas, they were able to take hold of an opportunity when Jesus was away from a crowd at night so they could arrest him secretly without people knowing that it was the Pharisees who did it.

Romans 2:23-24

You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

(v23-24, NIV)

Clearly hypocrisy is wrong. Simply put, they are bragging about the law that they hold so dear to them, but they at the same time break the law. What's sad is what's written in verse 24. This quote that Paul uses is from Isaiah 52:5 and also in Ezekiel 36:22. It is because of these hypocrites that God's name is blasphemed. The Gentiles look at the hypocritical Jews and because of their hypocrisy, God's name is blasphemed. This is evident in our lives all the time and I hate seeing the results. We see people who have such a perverted view of Christianity which makes them want nothing to do with Christians or Christianity. The problem is that people are hypocrites and live differently from what they preach. Dare you blaspheme the name of God because of your actions? Be cautious as to how you live and conduct yourself, lest the name of God be blasphemed because of you.

Romans 2:21-22b

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

(v21-22, NIV)

Paul points out these three things about Jews. The main point is hypocrisy and most of them would deny it (or so I would assume). When Paul makes these accusations and the Jews deny it, what is Paul's response? Surly Paul must have expected at least some of them to deny this. There are couple of things Paul could say in response and these are the things John Piper suggests. First, he could agree with the Jews on one level in that they do not commit these particular sins. However, there are some Jews who in fact do steal, commit adultery and fall into idolatry. In proving this, he shows that the Jews aren't special just because they have the law. Simply having the law doesn't mean that you are suddenly superior and in God's grace. It is a valuable and desirable thing to be given the law. However, as we read earlier in this chapter, it is not the hearers of the law who are justified, but the doers.

In response to the Jew's denial of these accusations, Paul could also make the point that each and every one of them does in fact commit some secret sin. Nobody's perfect, and whether we can see it or not, there is at least some secret sin evident in each of their lives.

Another thing that Paul could say in response to their denial of these accusations is that they in fact do commit one of these sins. How can he say this? Well, the fact of the matter is that these Jews do not teach themselves. They teach others, but not teaching themselves shows that they in fact do not understand it. The Jews elevate themselves or they idolize rules and regulations that they have made up themselves. They are robbing God of the glory he rightly deserves; this is stealing, adultery and idolatry. They are stealing away God's glory that is not their own. In addition, it is adultery in a sense. We all belong to God and our hearts belong to God. However, when we offer our heart to someone other than the one whom it belongs to, we are committing adultery. This is what the Jews do in not having faith and trusting themselves to the one and only God. Instead they are hypocrites and do not teach themselves; they live differently than what they preach. So these accusations, Paul may argue that they do in fact rightly fall upon them.

Romans 2:21-22

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

(v21-22, NIV)

Aside from pointing out whether they teach themselves, Paul goes into specifics. The Jews are certainly preaching about certain things, so do they practice what they preach? So, if they preach against stealing, do they in fact commit that sin? Paul addresses stealing, adultery and idolatry in these few verses.

What would the Jews say in response? I can imagine that some if not many would simply answer no to all of Paul's questions. They would say that they don't steal, they don't commit adultery and they don't commit idolatry. They preach against these things, so it would be rare or difficult to imagine them admitting to these faults. We see this in our daily lives, people who are not so open or fond of the idea of admitting their own hypocrisy. But this is Paul further pointing out their hypocrisy. They may or may not admit to it; however, God knows. Practice what you preach and many rely on the law and fall into hypocrisy.

Romans 2:21

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?

(v21, NIV)

The Jews have the law. They, having the law, are able to teach others. Apparently, they are a teacher of children and corrector of the foolish. If they can teach others, certainly they can teach themselves, can't they? How would you be able to teach others, yet not teach yourself? It's possible and we see it all the time. This is the person with the log in his own eye trying to take out the speck in his brother's eye. This is hypocrisy, and we see it all the time. It may even be evident in yourself.

The Jews have the law and boast in it. However, they are missing something because they in fact do not teach themselves. Paul poses this question, but it is meant to imply that the Jews in fact do not teach themselves. Even though they are a guide for the blind, they do not guide themselves. Beware of hypocrisy and beware especially of it in yourself. Sure, teach others; that is good. However, don't forget to teach yourself and live what you preach.

Romans 2:17-20

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—

(v17-20, NIV)

This is a long list of things Paul points out about Jews. They certainly call themselves Jews and are proud of this fact. In the first half, Paul lists out a number of things. These Jews rely on the law, boast in their relationship with God, know his will and approve of what is good. This first set in the list are results of being instructed out of the law. They have the law and they know the law. Having and knowing the law, they certainly rely on the law and boast in their relationship with God. Also note that these things are not wrong. Certainly there is a way in which boastfulness can be wrong, but there is also a proper way in which we are to boast in the Lord and our relationship with him. They do indeed have what God has given to them and that certainly is not wrong.

In the rest of the list, Paul points out a few other things about Jews. Jews are a guide to the blind, light for those in the dark, corrector of the foolish and teacher of children. In this last part of the list, we see what they are to do with the light that they have been given. It's not just having what God has given them, but applying it in the proper way. They use the law and teach others, guiding those who are blind. This certainly is not wrong either. We can imagine ways in which it could go wrong or how Jews could become prideful in these actions. However, there certainly is a proper way in which Jews are a light for those in the dark.

Jews certainly have the law and that's not wrong. They have the ability and in fact do many good things with the law like teach others. However, the way in which Paul has been speaking so far seems to be building up to something. Something's not right and Paul is about to make his point. However, be clear and know that these things the Jews have and have done are not necessarily wrong. You may point out that it's wrong to rely on the law. I agree, but it depends on what you mean. Relying on the law for our salvation is wrong because we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. However, as Paul mentioned earlier in this chapter, eternal life is received by those who in doing good seek for glory, honor and immortality. There is a sense or a way in which relying on the law is not wrong. Putting it in another sense, those who continue in sin and live in continual disobedience to God and his law will receive wrath and fury. Regardless, the Jews were given the law and their having of the law is not wrong. They could and have been doing certain things that were good, now having the law. Do not be opposed to his law, but embrace it. However, also know that we live by faith and rely on the righteousness of another. Have the light and embrace the light God gives. In addition, let your light so shine, teaching and correcting others.

Romans 2:16b

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

(v16, NIV)

Apparently, this judging of men's secrets will be through Jesus Christ. In addition, it is as Paul's gospel declares. When I think about the gospel, I feel the need to begin with how sinful we are. The problem is that we do not think we're "bad" people. This is especially noticeable in North America (or at least I think so). This matches with the train of thought in Romans as well. These first three chapters are all about our sinfulness and God's righteous wrath upon us. According to the gospel, we are unworthy and all deserve death. On that day, those who have continued to resist God and continued in unrepentant will be shown their fault. They will also be shown that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. They knew it, whether they chose to suppress the truth about God or not. Having known this, they are without excuse on the Day of Judgment.

With regards to the judgment, we also know the good news. We know that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. If you are judged, I guess you're really only judged in two ways: Jesus either stands in your defense or he did in fact not know you. On that day when you stand before the judge, your secrets will be revealed. You may have been able to fool everyone around you, but you can't fool God. Your secrets will be revealed and your sinfulness will be shown. You can't hide from God and you can't pretend to be sinless before God. We have all sinned and we all fall short of his glory.

Romans 2:16

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

(v16, NIV)

The first question is, what is Paul referring to in this verse? He says "this", but what does "this" refer to? Apparently, "this" will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets. Well, how do people normally describe something in the way Paul is describing "this"? Usually you use something different to describe a certain thing. For example, if I were to describe the day that we go to church, I wouldn't say "The day that we go to church is the day that we go to church". If I were to describe it like that, it sounds redundant and usually not very helpful. Instead, I would use something different to describe the day that we go to church. Instead, I might say something like "The day that we go to church is this coming Sunday". So, what does Paul use to describe "this"? He describes it as taking place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Christ Jesus. In looking at it this way, I do not think Paul is saying "God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ". Instead, "this" must refer to something else.

So what is "this" that Paul refers to? It must be something he mentioned earlier. At the beginning of the passage Paul talks about hypocrisy. Later on, he talks about God's judgment being revealed. After that, Paul answers objections with regards to the statement that God shows no partiality. They would object because it doesn't seem fair if only the Jews received the law but the Gentiles did not. In all this, Paul is not just talking about judgment, but the results of judgment. Sinning apart from the law will result in perishing apart from the law. However, when we sin under the law, this results in being judged under the law. This is also seen earlier when seeking for glory, honor and immortality renders eternal life, but self-seeking renders wrath and anger. People will get what they deserve according to what they do on the day in which God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ.

Romans 2:15b

since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

(v15, NIV)

Gentiles who do not have the law are a law unto themselves. They show this by doing the law. How can they do the law when they weren't even given the law? They in fact show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. The creator of the universe created each and every one of us and wrote on our hearts the requirements of the law.

What does it mean to bear witness? This is the viewing and confirming of something in particular. I think of a trial where a witness stands and gives a testimony of something that happened that they saw and claim to have happened. Their conscious bears witness to the fact that the law is written on their hearts. How does this even work? The conscience either accuses or defends a person. Your conscience may cause you to feel guilt, accusing you of doing something wrong. Alternatively, your conscience may defend your actions, trying to justify them. Either way, this is your conscience bearing witness to the fact that you have the requirements of the law written on your heart. If you didn't have requirements of the law, you wouldn't be able to accuse or excuse yourself. You don't have an idea of what's right and wrong since you haven't been given the law. But somehow, Gentiles who weren't given the law like Jews were seem to be able to accuse or excuse themselves, showing that they have the requirements of the law written on their hearts.

Romans 2:15

since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

(v15, NIV)

How are Gentiles a law unto themselves? How can they even do what the law requires if they don't know what the law is? The fact of the matter is that the law is written on their hearts. Looking back to chapter one, we can see that what can be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. God is the one who has revealed it to them and so God is the one who has written the requirements of the law on their hearts. Who else can write it on their hearts? They in fact know it and were hard wired to know it by the creator. With this fact on the table, there really is no excuse. People in fact do know the law and so they can't claim ignorance.

Romans 2:14

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,

(v14, NIV)

God shows no favoritism. This happens with regards to his judgment on us. However, some may understandably object to the fact that only the Jews were given the law. If only the Jews were given the law, how can God be impartial in his judgment? In other words, how is the standard of God's judgment fair if it seems that not everyone receives the law? If you think about it, it doesn't seem fair. You might think of it similarly to asking two people to build a bridge, but you only give one person the materials. That's not fair because one person has an advantage.

Paul's first response to this argument is that it doesn't matter whether you hear the law or you don't because you will be judged according to the truth given to you. Sinning under the law renders judgment under the law. However, for those apart from the law, their sin apart from the law will still cause them to perish apart from the law. In the previous verse, Paul says how it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who are justified. So it doesn't matter whether Jews hear it and Gentiles do not. What matters is whether Jews obey the law and what matters is whether Gentiles obey the law.

This still doesn't really answer the question of fairness with regards to Jews receiving the law and Gentiles not having the law. Paul goes on to point out something about Gentiles. Gentiles do not have the law, but some of them follow the law or at least parts of the law. So even though they do not have the law, Paul describes this as being a law to themselves. They still have a law and this is a law unto themselves. They in fact do have a law of their own. Some of it may not line up with the law given to the Jews, but some of it does. The law is evident even in those who have not been given the law. It doesn't matter whether they've been given the law; some in fact obey the law. It doesn't matter whether you hear the law, but what matters is whether you do the law. They do in fact have a law unto themselves even though they were not given the law. They're not unruly filth who are the worst kind of evil, performing everything opposite to the law. They are not without hope if they do not have the law, but they are a law to themselves.

Romans 2:13

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

(v13, NIV)

The point is that God shows no favoritism. This is with regards to judgment according to whether they do good or bad in a sense. Some may object with the fact that only the Jews were given the law, but nobody else was. In the last verse, Paul was trying to say that you will be judged according to the measure of truth you have been given. However, even those who are judged apart from the law will perish apart from the law. Here in verse 13, Paul takes his argument a step further to point out that the hearers of the law are not righteous in God's sight. So, just because the Jews have the Law doesn't mean that they are righteous. Rather, it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. It doesn't matter if you've heaped up a whole bunch of knowledge in your brain. Who cares if you've memorized the entire law, what matters is if you are a doer of the law. Paul will take this argument further in the next few verses, but the point remains that it doesn't matter that only the Jews were given the law.

Romans 2:12

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

(v12, NIV)

Paul has just stated that God shows no partiality. This is with regards to the way in which God will judge. He was talking about God judging according to work and deeds. People in doing good seek for glory, honor and immortality will receive eternal life. However, self-seeking people who reject the truth and follow evil receives wrath and anger. Here in verse 12 Paul begins to address an objection people may raise. People might say that it's unfair because God only gave the Jews the law but he didn't give it to everybody else. If he only gave the law to the Jews then how is God impartial?

As Paul begins to address this objection, he seems to be saying that people will be judged according to what has been given to them and what they do with it. Those who sin under the law will be judged by the law. From reading further in Romans we know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. These people sinning under the law are judged by it and that's not good for them. However, these people who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law. When talking about these, Paul distinctly says that they will perish. It's not an excuse to say that you didn't have the law and so you didn't know any better. It doesn't matter because you will perish apart from the law when you sin apart from the law. We see later that the law is written on their hearts. However, even so, people even break the laws and truths they have been given in a sense. In their conscious they may recognize that something is "bad" but even those things they cannot keep perfectly. So, not having the law is not a valid argument. Even if you don't have the law, you will perish apart from the law when you sin apart from the law.