Rom 2:11, 3:22, 10:12, Gal 2:6 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 11. For . This particle is used here to confirm what is said before, particularly that this punishment should be experienced by the Jew as well as the Gentile . For God would deal with both on the principles of justice. Respect of persons . The word thus rendered means partiality , in pronouncing judgment, in favouring one party or individual more than another, not because his cause is more just, but on account of something personal--on account of his wealth, or rank, or office, or influence, or by personal friendship, or by the fear of him. It has special reference to a judge who pronounces judgment between parties at law. The exercise of such partiality was strictly and often forbidden to the Jewish magistrates, . In his capacity as a Judge , it is applied often to God. It means that he will not be influenced in awarding the retributions of eternity, in actually pronouncing and executing sentence, by any partiality, or by regard to the wealth, office, rank, or appearance of men. He will judge righteous judgment; he will judge men as they ought to be judged; according to their character and deserts; and not contrary to theft character, or by partiality. The connexion here demands that this affirmation should be limited solely to his dealing with men As THEIR JUDGE . And in this sense, and this only, this is affirmed often of God in the Scriptures, . It does not affirm that he must make all his creatures equal in talent, health, wealth, or privilege; it does not imply that, as a sovereign, he may not make a difference in their endowments, their beauty, strength, or graces; it does not imply that he may not bestow his favours where he pleases where all are undeserving, or that he may not make a difference in the characters of men by his providence, and by the agency of his Spirit. All these are actually done, done not out of any respect to their persons, to their rank, office, or wealth, but according to his own sovereign good pleasure, . To deny that this is done, would be to deny the manifest arrangement of things everywhere on the earth. To deny that God had a right to do it, would be (1.) to maintain that sinners had a claim on his favours; (2.) that he might not do what he willed with his own; or (3.) to affirm that God was under obligation to make all men with just the same talents and privileges; that is, that all creatures must be , in all respects, just alike . This passage, therefore, is very improperly brought to disprove the doctrine of decrees, or election, or sovereignty. It has respect to a different thing, to the actual exercise of the office of the Judge of the world ; and whatever may be the truth about God's decrees, or his electing love, this passage teaches nothing in relation to either. It may be added, that this passage contains a most alarming truth for guilty men. It is that God will not be influenced by partiality , but will treat them just as they deserve . He will not be won or awed by their rank or office; by their wealth or endowments; by their numbers, their power, or their robes of royalty and splendour. Every man should tremble at the prospect of falling into the hands of a just God , who will treat him just as he deserves; and should, without delay, seek a refuge in the Saviour and Advocate provided for the guilty, . (u) "For there is no"

Romans 2:11

Verse 11. For. This particle is used here to confirm what is said before, particularly that this punishment should be experienced by the Jew as well as the Gentile. For God would deal with both on the principles of justice.

Respect of persons. The word thus rendered means partiality, in pronouncing judgment, in favouring one party or individual more than another, not because his cause is more just, but on account of something personal--on account of his wealth, or rank, or office, or influence, or by personal friendship, or by the fear of him. It has special reference to a judge who pronounces judgment between parties at law. The exercise of such partiality was strictly and often forbidden to the Jewish magistrates, Lev 19:15, De 1:17, Prov 24:23, Jas 2:1,3,9. In his capacity as a Judge, it is applied often to God. It means that he will not be influenced in awarding the retributions of eternity, in actually pronouncing and executing sentence, by any partiality, or by regard to the wealth, office, rank, or appearance of men. He will judge righteous judgment; he will judge men as they ought to be judged; according to their character and deserts; and not contrary to theft character, or by partiality. The connexion here demands that this affirmation should be limited solely to his dealing with men As THEIR JUDGE. And in this sense, and this only, this is affirmed often of God in the Scriptures, De 10:17, 2Chr 19:7 Eph 6:9, Col 3:25, Gall 6:7,8, 1Pet 1:17, Acts 10:34. It does not affirm that he must make all his creatures equal in talent, health, wealth, or privilege; it does not imply that, as a sovereign, he may not make a difference in their endowments, their beauty, strength, or graces; it does not imply that he may not bestow his favours where he pleases where all are undeserving, or that he may not make a difference in the characters of men by his providence, and by the agency of his Spirit. All these are actually done, done not out of any respect to their persons, to their rank, office, or wealth, but according to his own sovereign good pleasure, Eph 1. To deny that this is done, would be to deny the manifest arrangement of things everywhere on the earth. To deny that God had a right to do it, would be

(1.) to maintain that sinners had a claim on his favours;

(2.) that he might not do what he willed with his own; or

(3.) to affirm that God was under obligation to make all men with just the same talents and privileges; that is, that all creatures must be, in all respects, just alike. This passage, therefore, is very improperly brought to disprove the doctrine of decrees, or election, or sovereignty. It has respect to a different thing, to the actual exercise of the office of the Judge of the world; and whatever may be the truth about God's decrees, or his electing love, this passage teaches nothing in relation to either. It may be added, that this passage contains a most alarming truth for guilty men. It is that God will not be influenced by partiality, but will treat them just as they deserve. He will not be won or awed by their rank or office; by their wealth or endowments; by their numbers, their power, or their robes of royalty and splendour. Every man should tremble at the prospect of falling into the hands of a just God, who will treat him just as he deserves; and should, without delay, seek a refuge in the Saviour and Advocate provided for the guilty, Jn 2:1,2.

(u) "For there is no" De 10:17, 2Chr 19:7, Gal 6:7,8, 1Pet 1:17

Romans 3:22

Verse 22. Even the righteousness of God. The apostle, having stated that the design of the gospel was to reveal a new plan of becoming just in the sight of God, proceeds here more fully to explain it. The explanation which he offers makes it plain that the phrase so often used by him, "righteousness of God," does not refer to an attribute of God, but to his plan of making men righteous. Here he says that it is by faith in Jesus Christ; but surely an attribute of God is not produced by faith in Jesus Christ. It means God's mode of regarding men as righteous through their belief in Jesus Christ.

By faith of Jesus Christ. That is, by faith in Jesus Christ. Thus the expression, Mk 11:22, "Have the faith of God," (margin,) means, have faith in God. So Acts 3:16, the "faith of his name," (Greek,) means, faith in his name. So Gal 2:20, the "faith of the Son of God" means, faith in the Son of God. This cannot mean that faith is the meritorious cause of salvation, but that it is the instrument or means by which we become justified. It is the state of mind, or condition of the heart, to which God has been pleased to promise justification. (On the nature of faith, Mk 16:16.) God has promised that they who believe in Christ shah be pardoned and saved. This is his plan in distinction from the plan of those who seek to be justified by works.

Unto all and upon all. It is evident that these expressions are designed to be emphatic, but why both are used is not very apparent. Many have supposed that there was no essential difference in the meaning. If there be a difference, it is probably this: the first expression, "unto all"--ειςπαντας--may denote that this plan of justification has come (Luther) unto all men, to Jews and Gentiles; i.e. that it has been provided for them and offered to them without distinction. The plan was ample for all, was fitted for all, was equally necessary for all, and was offered to all. The second phrase, "upon all"--επιπαντας--may be designed to guard against the supposition that all therefore would be benefited by it, or be saved by the mere face that the announcement had come to all. The apostle adds, therefore, that the benefits of this plan must actually come upon all, or must be applied to all, if they would be justified. They could not be justified merely by the fact that the plan was provided, and that the knowledge of it had come to all, but by their actually coming under this plan, and availing themselves of it. Perhaps there is reference in the last expression, "upon all," to a robe, or garment, that is placed upon one to hide his nakedness, or sin. Comp. Isa 64:6, also Php 3:9.

For there is no difference. That is, there is no difference in regard to the matter under discussion. The apostle does not mean to say that there is no difference in regard to the talents, dispositions, education, and property of men; but there is no distinction in regard to the way in which they must be justified. All must be saved, if saved at all, in the same mode, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, rich or poor, learned or ignorant. None can be saved by works; and all are therefore dependent on the mercy of God in Jesus Christ.

(a) "faith of Jesus Christ" Rom 5:1

Romans 10:12

Verse 12. For there is no difference. In the previous verse Paul had quoted a passage from Isa 28:16, which says that every one (πας) that believeth shall not be ashamed; that is, every one of every nation and kindred. This implies that it was not to be confined to the Jews. This thought he now further illustrates and confirms by expressly declaring that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. This doctrine it was one main design of the epistle to establish, and it is fully proved in the course of the argument in Romans chapters 1-4. See particularly Rom 3:26-30. When the apostle says there is no difference between them, he means in regard to the subject under discussion. In many respects there might be a difference; but not in the way of justification before God. There all had sinned; all had failed of obeying the law; and all must be justified in the same way, by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The word difference (διαστολη) means distinction, diversity. It also means eminence, excellence, advantage. There is no eminence or advantage which the Jew has over the Greek in regard to justification before God.

The Jew. That portion of mankind which professed to yield obedience to the law of Moses.

The Greek. Literally, those who dwelt in Greece, or those who spoke the Greek language. As the Jews, however, were acquainted chiefly with the Greeks, and knew little of other nations, the name Greek among them came to denote all who were not Jews; that is, the same as the Gentiles. The terms "Jew and Greek," therefore, include all mankind. There is no difference among men about the terms of salvation; they are the same to all. This truth is frequently taught. It was a most important doctrine, especially in a scheme of religion that was to be preached to all men. It was very offensive to the Jews, who had always regarded themselves as a peculiarly favoured people. Against this, all their prejudices were roused, as it completely overthrew all their own views of national eminence and pride, and admitted despised Gentiles to the same privileges with the long-favoured and chosen people of God. The apostles, therefore, were at great pains fully to establish it. Acts 10:9, Gal 3:28.

For the same Lord over all, etc. For there is the same Lord of all; that is, the Jews and Gentiles have one common Lord. Comp. Rom 3:29,30. The same God had formed them and ruled them; and God now opened the same path to life. See this fully presented in Paul's address to the people of Athens, in Acts 17:26-30. See also 1Timm 2:5. As there was but one God; as all, Jews and Gentiles, were his creatures; as one law was applicable to all; as all had sinned; and as all were exposed to wrath; so it was reasonable that there should be the same way of return--through the mere mercy of God. Against this the Jew ought not to object; and in this he and the Greek should rejoice.

Is rich unto all. (πλουτωνειςπαντας). The word rich means to have abundance, to have in store much more than is needful for present or personal use. It is commonly applied to wealth. But applied to God, it means that he abounds in mercy or goodness towards others. Thus, Eph 2:4, "God, who is rich in mercy," etc.; 1Timm 6:17,18, "Charge them that are rich in this world--that they be rich in good works;" Jas 2:5, "God hath chosen the poor--rich in faith;" that is, abounding in faith and good works, etc. Thus God is said to be rich towards all, as he abounds in mercy and goodness towards them in the plan of salvation.

That call upon him. This expression means, properly, to supplicate, to invoke, as in prayer. As prayer constitutes no small part of religion, and as it is a distinguishing characteristic of those who are true Christians, (Acts 9:11, "Behold he prayeth,") to call on the name of the Lord is put for religion itself, and is descriptive of acts of devotion towards God. 1Pet 1:17, "And if ye call on the Father," etc.; Acts 2:21, 9:14, "He hath authority to bind all that call on thy name; Acts 7:59, 22:16, Gen 4:26, "Then began men to call on the name of the Lord."

(s) "the same Lord" 1Timm 2:5

Galatians 2:6

Verse 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat. Gal 2:2. This undoubtedly refers to those who were the most eminent among the apostles at Jerusalem. There is an apparent harshness in our common translation, which is unnecessary. The word here used δοκουντων denotes those who were thought to be, or who were, of reputation; that is, men who were of note and influence among the apostles. The object of referring to them here, is to show that he had the concurrence and approbation of the most eminent of the apostles to the course which he had pursued.

Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me. Tindal renders this, "What they were in time passed, it maketh no matter to me." The idea seems to be this: Paul means to say, that whatever was their real rank and standing, it did not in the least affect his authority as an apostle, or his argument. While he rejoiced in their concurrence, and while he sought their approbation, yet he did not admit for a moment that he was inferior to them as an apostle, or dependent on them for the justness of his views. What they were, or what they might be thought to be, was immaterial to his claims as an apostle, and immaterial to the authority of his own views as an apostle. He had derived his gospel from the Lord Jesus; and he had the fullest assurance that his views were just. Paul makes this remark evidently in keeping with all that he had said, that he did not regard himself as in any manner dependent on them for his authority. He did not treat them with disrespect; but he did not regard them as having a right to claim an authority over him.

God accepteth no man's person. Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11. This is a general truth, that God is not influenced in his judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or external condition of any one. Its particular meaning here is, that the authority of the apostles was not to be measured, by their external rank, or by the measure of reputation which they had among men. If, therefore, it were to be admitted that he himself was not in circumstances of so much external honour as the other apostles, or that they were esteemed to be of more elevated rank than he was, still he did not admit that this gave them a claim to any higher authority. God was not influenced in his judgment by any such consideration; and Paul therefore claimed that all the apostles were in fact on a level in regard to their authority.

In conference. When I conferred with them, Gal 2:2. They did not then impose on me any new obligations; they did not communicate anything to me of which I was before ignorant.

(a) "seemed" Gal 6:3 (*) "somewhat" Of most reputation" (b) "God accepteth" Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11 (+) "to be somewhat" "of reputation"