Charles Ellicott Commentary Romans 2

Therefore.—The description just given of the state of one section of the human race contains implicitly the condemnation of the other; for it is equally applicable to both.

Wherein thou judgest another.—By the very act of sitting in judgment upon your fellow-man, you pass sentence upon yourself. You declare those acts to be criminal of which you yourself are guilty.

The words in the Greek, translated by “judge” and “condemn,” are related to each other much the same as the summing up of a judge is related to his verdict. In the first, sentence is in process of being passed, but there is still a possibility of acquittal; in the second, sentence has been definitively given in a sense adverse to the accused. “Another,” rather, strictly, the other, your fellow, or neighbour.

We are sure.—St. Paul assumes that this will be acknowledged as a general principle by his readers, whether Jew or Gentile, as well as by himself. There is still a strong under-current of allusion to the way in which the Jew was apt to fall back upon his privileges. “Do not think that they will save you from standing before precisely the same tribunal as the Gentiles.” The Jews, it seems, had an idea that the Gentiles only would be judged, while they would be able to claim admission into the Messianic kingdom as theirs by right of birth.

According to truth.—The principle on which God’s judgment will proceed will be that of truth or reality, as opposed to appearance, worldly status, formal precedence, etc. It will ask what a man is, not to what race he belongs.

That you shall escape.—Emphatic. “Are you—because you are a Jew—to be the only exception to this rule?”

Riches.—In this metaphorical sense, with reference to the divine attributes, this word is peculiar to and characteristic of Saint Paul. It is thus used twelve times in his Epistles, and not elsewhere in the rest of the New Testament, including the Epistle to the Hebrews. This is one of those instances where the evidence of style is important. Of the twelve places where this use occurs, eight are in the Epistles of the Imprisonment, three in the Epistle to the Romans, and one in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The later and earlier Epistles are thus linked together.

A similar use is not found in the Pastoral Epistles, but it should be remembered that arguments of this kind are more important on the positive side than on the negative. It is an inference of some strength that if a peculiar word or usage is found in two separate books, those books are by the same author. However, the absence of such a word or usage provides little support for the opposite negative conclusion if other resemblances on characteristic points are not lacking.

Forbearance and longsuffering.—We can compare with this the Sinaitic revelation given in Exodus 34:6-7, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering. The moral character and relation to His people thus attributed to the Deity was a feature that specially distinguished the religion of the Old Testament from that of the surrounding pagan nations.

We can observe that the fallacy against which the Apostle is protesting in these verses is not extinct. The goodness of God—i.e., His disposition to promote the happiness of His creatures—is insisted upon as if it were unconditional. It is treated as if it were a disposition to promote their happiness simply, without any reference to what they were in themselves.

We do not find that this is the case. Instead, the constitution of nature, as well as revelation, tells us that happiness is connected to certain acts and a certain frame of mind, and that it is withheld from all that is not consistent with this. The bliss of the Christian is reserved for the Christian and is not showered indiscriminately upon all people. Otherwise, free will would have no role, and righteous conduct no reward.

On verses 4-5

Another alternative is presented, which has less to do with the distinction of Jew and Gentile, and in which the Apostle adheres more closely to the general form that his argument has assumed: “Or do you think to take refuge in the goodness, the benevolence and long-suffering of God?”

It is true that He is good, and willeth not the death of a sinner, but His goodness is not absolute and unconditional. Its object is not to interfere with the just punishment of sin, but to lead people to repent of their sins, and so to obtain remission.

The one condition upon which the goodness of God will come into operation, you directly contravene. Instead of being penitent, you are impenitent, and therefore the load of wrath which you have been accumulating against yourself remains unremoved. It is only waiting for the day of judgment to discharge itself upon you.

Treasurest.—The treasuring up of wrath is opposed to that heavenly treasure spoken of in Matthew 6:20. The guilt of man is accumulated little by little. The punishment will be discharged upon him all at once, in one overwhelming tide.

Against the day of wrath.—Strictly, in the day of wrath—i.e., wrath to be outpoured upon the day of wrath. “The great and terrible day of the Lord” is a conception running through all the prophetic writings. (Compare also, in the New Testament, Luke 17:30; Acts 2:20; 1 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 6:17; Revelation 16:14.)

Revelation.—There is a double revelation of God’s wrath, the one inchoate, the other final. The former revelation, that described in the last chapter, is seen in the depraved condition of the heathen world; the latter revelation is represented as a judgment or trial reserved for the consummation of all things.