Rom 2:14, 27, 1Cor 11:14 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 14. For when . The apostle, in , had stated a general principle, that the doers of the law only can be justified, if justification is attempted by the law. In this verse and the next, he proceeds to show that the same principle is applicable to the heathen; that though they have not the written law of God, yet that they have sufficient knowledge of his will to take away every excuse for sin, and consequently that the course of reasoning by which he had come to the conclusion that they were guilty is well founded. This verse is not to be understood as affirming, as an historical fact , that any of the heathen ever did perfectly obey the law which they had, any more than the previous verse affirms it of the Jews. The main point in the argument is, that if men are justified by the law , their obedience must be entire and perfect ; that this is not to be external only, or to consist in hearing or in acknowledging the justice of the law; and that the Gentiles had an opportunity of illustrating this principle as well as the Jews, since they also had a law among themselves. The word when (οταν) does not imply that the thing shall certainly take place, but is one form of introducing a supposition, or of stating the connexion of one thing with another; . It is, however, true that the main things contained in this verse, and the next, actually occurred, that the Gentiles did many things which the law of God required. The Gentiles . All who were not Jews. Which have not the law . Who have not a revelation, or the written word of God. In the Greek the article is omitted, "who have not law," i.e., any revealed law. By nature . By some, this phrase has been supposed to belong to the previous member of the sentence, "who have not the law by nature ." But our translation is the more natural and usual construction. The expression means clearly by the light of conscience and reason, and whatever other helps they may have without revelation. It denotes simply, in that state which is without the revealed will of God . In that condition they had many helps of tradition, conscience, reason, and the observation of the dealings of Divine Providence, so that to a considerable extent they knew what was right and what was wrong. Do the things . Should they not merely understand and approve , but actually perform the things required in the law. Contained in the law . Literally, the things of the law, i.e. the things which the law requires. Many of those things might be done by the heathen, as, e.g., respect to parents, truth, justice, honesty, chastity. So far as they did any of those things, so far they showed that they had a law among themselves. And wherein they failed in these things, they showed that they were justly condemned. Are a law unto themselves . This is explained in the following verse. It means that their own reason and conscience constituted, in these things , a law, or prescribed that for them which the revealed law did to the Jews. (w) "a law unto"

Romans 2:14

Verse 14. For when. The apostle, in Rom 2:13, had stated a general principle, that the doers of the law only can be justified, if justification is attempted by the law. In this verse and the next, he proceeds to show that the same principle is applicable to the heathen; that though they have not the written law of God, yet that they have sufficient knowledge of his will to take away every excuse for sin, and consequently that the course of reasoning by which he had come to the conclusion that they were guilty is well founded. This verse is not to be understood as affirming, as an historical fact, that any of the heathen ever did perfectly obey the law which they had, any more than the previous verse affirms it of the Jews. The main point in the argument is, that if men are justified by the law, their obedience must be entire and perfect; that this is not to be external only, or to consist in hearing or in acknowledging the justice of the law; and that the Gentiles had an opportunity of illustrating this principle as well as the Jews, since they also had a law among themselves. The word when (οταν) does not imply that the thing shall certainly take place, but is one form of introducing a supposition, or of stating the connexion of one thing with another; Mt 5:11, 6:2,5,6,16, 10:19. It is, however, true that the main things contained in this verse, and the next, actually occurred, that the Gentiles did many things which the law of God required.

The Gentiles. All who were not Jews.

Which have not the law. Who have not a revelation, or the written word of God. In the Greek the article is omitted, "who have not law," i.e., any revealed law.

By nature. By some, this phrase has been supposed to belong to the previous member of the sentence, "who have not the law by nature." But our translation is the more natural and usual construction. The expression means clearly by the light of conscience and reason, and whatever other helps they may have without revelation. It denotes simply, in that state which is without the revealed will of God. In that condition they had many helps of tradition, conscience, reason, and the observation of the dealings of Divine Providence, so that to a considerable extent they knew what was right and what was wrong.

Do the things. Should they not merely understand and approve, but actually perform the things required in the law.

Contained in the law. Literally, the things of the law, i.e. the things which the law requires. Many of those things might be done by the heathen, as, e.g., respect to parents, truth, justice, honesty, chastity. So far as they did any of those things, so far they showed that they had a law among themselves. And wherein they failed in these things, they showed that they were justly condemned.

Are a law unto themselves. This is explained in the following verse. It means that their own reason and conscience constituted, in these things, a law, or prescribed that for them which the revealed law did to the Jews.

(w) "a law unto" 1Cor 11:14

Romans 2:27

Verse 27. Which is by nature. Which is the natural state of man; his condition before he is admitted to any of the peculiar rites of the Jewish religion.

If it fulfil the law. If they who are uncircumcised keep the law.

Judge thee. Condemn thee as guilty. As we say, the conduct of such a man condemns us. He acts so much more consistently and uprightly than we do, that we see our guilt. For a similar mode of expression, see Mt 12:41,42.

Who by the letter, etc. The translation here is certainly not happily expressed. It is difficult to ascertain its meaning. The evident meaning of the original is, "Shall not a heathen man who has none of your external privileges, if he keeps the law, condemn you who are Jews; who, although you have the letter and circumcision, are nevertheless transgressors of the law?"

The letter. The word letter properly means the mark or character from which syllables and words are formed. It is also used in the sense of writing of any kind, (Lk 16:6,7, Acts 28:21, Gal 6:11) particularly the writings of Moses, denoting, by way of eminence, the letter, or the writing, Rom 7:6, 2Ti 3:16.

(h) "fulfil the law" Mt 12:41,42

1 Corinthians 11:14

Verse 14. Doth not even nature itself. The word nature (φυσις) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war --the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain: nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right--a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations, showing what that sense is. No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded ill an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed, (Rhet. i.--see Rosenmuller,) that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him καρηκομοωντεςαχαιοι, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among men has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Nu 6:1-6, Jud 13:6; Jud 16:17, 1Sam 1:11. Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom, (2Sam 14:26;) but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of AElian, (Hist. lib. ix. c. 14; Eustath. on Hom. ii. v.)

It is a shame unto him. It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.