聖書注解書

Wherefore (διο). See Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26 for this relative conjunction, "because of which thing." Without excuse (αναπολογητος). See on Romans 1:21. Whosoever thou art that judgest (πας ο κρινων). Literally, "every one that judgest," vocative case in apposition with ανθρωπε. Paul begins his discussion of the failure of the Jew to attain to the God-kind of righteousness (Romans 2:1-3) with a general statement applicable to all as he did (Romans 1:18) in the discussion of the failure of the Gentiles (Lightfoot). The Gentile is readily condemned by the Jew when he sins and equally so is the Jew condemned by the Gentile in like case. Κρινω does not of itself mean to condemn, but to pick out, separate, approve, determine, pronounce judgment, condemn (if proper). Another (τον ετερον). Literally, "the other man." The notion of two in the word, one criticizing the other. Thou condemnest thyself (σεαυτον κατακρινεις). Note κατα here with κρινω, to make plain the adverse judgment. For (γαρ). Explanatory reason for the preceding statement. The critic practises (πρασσεις, not single acts ποιεω, but the habit πρασσω) the same things that he condemns.

return to '

Romans 2:1-16. The Apostle has now to prove that the righteousness of God is as necessary to the Jew as to the pagan; it is the Jew who is really addressed in this chapter from the beginning, though he is not named till Romans 2:9. In Romans 2:1-10 Paul explains the principle on which God judges all men, without distinction.

Romans 2:1. διό: The Jew is ready enough to judge the Gentile. But he forgets that the same principle on which the Gentile is condemned, viz., that he does evil in spite of better knowledge (Romans 1:32), condemns himself also. His very assent to the impeachment in chap. Romans 1:18-32 is his own condemnation. This is the force of διὸ: therefore. ἐν ᾧ = in that in which. τὰ αὐτὰ πράσσεις, not, you do the identical actions, but your conduct is the same, i.e., you sin against light. The sin of the Jews was the same, but their sins were not.

Romans 2:1.—ch. Romans 3:20. Having shown, ch. Romans 1:18-32, in the case of the Gentiles, that they were strangers to the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Paul now, ch. 2–3:20, exhibits the same fact with reference to the Jews, and thus adduces the second half of the proof as to the universal necessity of justification by faith. Naturally the Apostle was chiefly concerned with this second half of the proof, as the ἀδικία of heathenism was in itself clear; but we see from ch. 2 that the detailed character of that delineation of Gentile wickedness was intended at the same time as a mirror for degenerate Judaism, to repress all Jewish conceit. Comp Mangold, p. 102.

Romans 2:1. Διό] refers back to the main tenor of the whole previous exposition (Romans 2:18-29), and that indeed in its more special aspect as setting forth the moral condition of heathenism in respect to its inexcusableness. This reference is confirmed by the fact, that ἀναπολόγητος εἶ is said with a manifest glancing back to Romans 1:20; it is laid down by Paul as it were as a finger-post for his διό. The reference assumed by Reiche, Fritzsche, Krehl, de Wette, and older writers, to the proposition in Romans 1:32, that the rightful demand of God adjudges death to the evil-doers; or to the cognizance of that verdict, in spite of which the Gentiles were so immoral (Philippi, Baur, Th. Schott, Hofmann, Mangold), has against it the fact that this thought formed only a subsidiary sentence in what went before; whereas here a new section begins, at the head of which Paul very naturally has placed a reference, even expressly marked by ἀναπολόγητος, to the entire section ending with Romans 1:32, over which he now throws once more a retrospective glance. The connection of ideas therefore is: “wherefore,” i.e. on account of that abomination of vice pointed out in Romans 2:18-29, “thou art inexcusable,” etc.; “for”—to exhibit now more exactly this “wherefore”—wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, because thou doest the same thing. In other words: before the mirror of this Gentile life of sin all excuse vanishes from thee, O man who judgest, for this mirror reflects thine own conduct, which thou thyself therefore condemnest by thy judgment. A deeply tragic de te narratur! into which the proud Jewish consciousness sees itself all of a sudden transferred. A proleptic use of διό (Tholuck) is not to be thought of; not even γάρ is so used in the N. T. (see on John 4:44), and διό neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere.

ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων] Just as Paul, Romans 1:18, designated the Gentiles by the general term ἀνθρώπων, and only brought forward the special reference to them in the progress of the discourse; so also he now designates the Jews, not as yet by name (see this first at Romans 2:17), but generally by the address ἄνθρωπε, which however already implies a trace of reproach (Romans 9:20; Luke 12:14; Plat. Prot. p. 330 D, Gorg. p. 452 B, and the passages in Wetstein, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 164), while at the same time he makes it by his πᾶς ὁ κρίνων sufficiently apparent that he is no longer speaking of the class already delineated, but is turning now to the Jews contrasted with them; for the self-righteous judging respecting the Gentiles as rejected of God (Midr. Tillin f. 6, 3; Chetubb. f. 3, 2; and many other passages) was in fact a characteristic of the Jews. Hence all the more groundless is the hasty judgment, that this passage has nothing whatever to do with the contrast between Jews and Gentiles (Hofmann). Comp Romans 2:17 ff. And that it is the condemning κρίνειν which is meant, and not the moral capacity of judgment in general (Th. Schott) and its exercise (Hofmann) (comp on Matthew 7:9), follows from the subsequent κατακρίνεις more precisely defining its import. Consequently the quite general interpretation (Beza, Calovius, Benecke, Mehring, Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 416) seems untenable, as well as the reference to the Gentiles as the judging subjects (Th. Schott), or to all to whom Romans 1:32 applied (Hofmann), or even specially to Gentile authorities (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Grotius).

Regarding the nominative as further ethical epexegesis of the vocative, see Bernhardy, p. 67, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 123.

ἐν ᾧ] either instrumental: thereby, that, equivalent to ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (Hofmann); or, still more closely corresponding to the τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις: in which thing, in which point. Comp Romans 14:22. The temporal rendering: eodem tempore quo (Köllner, Reithmayr), arbitrarily obscures the moral identity, which Paul intended to bring out. The κατακρίνεις however is not facto condemnas. (Estius, van Hengel), but the judgment pronounced upon the other is a condemnatory judgment upon thyself, namely, because it applies to thine own conduct. On the contrast between ἕτερον and σεαυτόν comp Romans 2:21; 1 Corinthians 10:24; 1 Corinthians 10:29; Galatians 6:4; Php 2:4.

τὰ αὐτά] the same sins and vices, not indeed according to all their several concrete manifestations, as previously described, but according to their essential moral categories; see Romans 2:17-24. Comp on the idea John 8:7.

ὁ κρίνων] with reproachful emphasis.

Romans 2:1. Therefore, &c. — The apostle, having shown that the Gentiles could not entertain the least hope of salvation, according to the tenor of the law of nature, which they violated, proceeds next to consider whether the law of Moses gave the Jews any better hope; an inquiry which he manages with great address. For, well knowing that on reading his description of the manners of the Greeks, the Jews would pronounce them worthy of damnation, he suddenly turns his discourse to the Jews, by telling them that they who passed such a judgment on the Gentiles were equally, yea, more guilty themselves, in that, with the advantage of the greater light of divine revelation, they were guilty of crimes as great as those he had charged on the Gentiles; and that therefore, by condemning the Gentiles, they virtually condemned themselves. Thou art inexcusable, O man — Seeing that knowledge without practice only increases guilt; whosoever thou art, that judgest — That censurest and condemnest; for wherein thou judgest another — Greek, τον ετερον, the other — Namely, the heathen, and pronouncest them worthy of condemnation and wrath; thou condemnest thyself — As deserving the same: for thou that judgest doest the same things. According to Josephus, quoted here by Dr. Whitby, the Jews of that age were notoriously guilty of most of the crimes imputed to the Greeks and Romans in the preceding chapter. “There was not,” observes he, “a nation under heaven more wicked than they were. What have you done,” says he, addressing them, “of all the good things required by our lawgiver? What have you not done of all those things which he pronounced accursed? So that,” adds he, “had the Romans delayed to come against these execrable persons, I believe either the earth would have swallowed them up, or a deluge would have swept away their city; or fire from heaven would have consumed it, as it did Sodom, for it brought forth a generation of men far more wicked than they who suffered such things. It was sport to them to force women: and they exercised and required unnatural lusts, and filled the whole city with impurities. They committed all kinds of wickedness, omitting none which ever came into the mind of man; esteeming the worst of evils to be good, and meeting with that reward of their iniquity which was proper, and a judgment worthy of God.” The apostle, Mr. Locke thinks, represents the Jews as inexcusable in judging the Gentiles, especially because the latter, with all the darkness that was on their minds, were not guilty of such a folly as to judge those who were not more faulty than themselves, but lived on friendly terms with them, without censure or separation, thinking as well of their condition as of their own. For he considers the judging, which Paul here speaks of, as referring to that aversion which the Jews generally had to the Gentiles, in consequence of which “the unconverted Jews could not bear with the thoughts of a Messiah that admitted the heathen equally with themselves into his kingdom; nor could the converted Jews be brought to admit them into their communion, as the people of God, now equally with themselves; so that they generally, both one and the other, judged them unworthy the favour of God, and incapable of becoming his people any other way than by circumcision, and an observance of the ritual law; the inexcusableness and absurdity of which the apostle shows in this chapter.”

Romans 2:1. The representation of the moral state of the heathen world, in the foregoing chapter, is a proof of the necessity of the Gospel, or of a further dispensation of grace or favour, for the salvation of mankind: and how rich the favour wherewith God visited the world! To have destroyed the race of the apostate rebels who had abused their understandings and every gift ofa bountiful Creator, would have been justice; to have spared them, lenity and mercy: but to send his only-begotten Son from heaven to redeem us from all this iniquity and ungodliness by his own blood, is the most wonderful and exuberant favour. Rightly is the doctrine which teaches it called Gospel, or glad tidings: according to its true nature it should have filled the whole world with transports of joy: however, one would think it could not possibly have met with opposition from any part of mankind. But the Jew opposed it: he abhorred the Gentile, and contradicted the grace which honoured and saved him. The Apostle pleads and defends our cause: his business is, to confound the Jew, and to prove that we have as good right as he to all the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom; and by the description of the vicious state of the Gentiles in the former chapter, he has delicately availed himself of the prejudices of the Jew. He endeavours, from the beginning of the epistle, to court his attention; but nothing would please him more than a discourse, in which the Gentiles were reduced to such a vile and abject state. Thus the Apostle rouses his contempt of the Gentiles, and gives him occasion to condemn them:—but it is, that he may the more effectually humble him in this chapter; in which he proves, that the Jews, having in an aggravated manner despised the goodness and broken the law of God, were as obnoxious to his wrath as the Gentiles. How could they,with any conscience or modesty, arrogate all the divine mercy to themselves; or pretend that other men were unworthy of it, when they had done as much, or more, to forfeit it than others? Must they not exclude themselves from being the people of God under the Gospel, by the same reason that they would have the Gentiles excluded? This, however, was an argument highly ungrateful to the Jew: and it would be very difficult to fix any conviction upon his mind: therefore the Apostle first addresses him in a covert general way, thou art therefore inexcusable, O man! &c. not giving out expressly that he meant the Jew, that the Jew might more calmly attend to his reasoning, while he was not apprehensive that he was the man. Secondly, Most judiciously, and with irresistible force of reasoning, he turns his thoughts from his present superior advantages to the awful day of judgment (Romans 2:5-16.), when God, in the most impartial equity, will render to all mankind without exception according to their works. Thusthe Apostle grounds his following argument very methodically and solidly on God's equal regards to men in all nations, who fear him and uprightly practise truth and goodness; and his disapproving, and at last condemning all men in any nation, however privileged, who live wickedly. This is striking at the root of the matter, and demolishing, in the most true and effectual manner, the Jew's prejudices in favour of his own nation, and the unkind thoughts that he had entertained of the Gentiles. For if a Jew could be convinced, that a sober virtuous heathen, fearing God and working righteousness, might, through the infinite merit of the Messiah and the secret influences of the Holy Spirit, be blessed with eternal salvation, he must be persuaded that it was no such shocking or absurd matter, that believing Gentiles should be pardoned and taken into the visible church. Thus the Apostle advances with great skill and with the justest steps in his argument; insinuating himselfby degrees into the Jew's conscience. This passage is also well adapted to encourage the Gentile, humbled by the dismal representationin the foregoing chapter; for he would here see, that he was not utterly abandoned of God; but might, upon good grounds, hope for his mercy and kindness. We may just observe farther, that what St. Paul says of the Jews, in the present chapter, answers to what he had charged on the Gentiles in the first. Forthere is a secret comparison of them one with another, running through these two chapters; which, as soon as it comes to be considered, gives such a light and lustre to St. Paul's discourse, that one cannot but admire the skilful turn of it, and look on it as the most soft, the most beautiful, and most pressing argumentation; leaving the Jews to say for themselves, why they should have the privilege continued to them under the Gospel, of being alone in a national sense the people of God. See Locke, and on Romans 2:29.

That judged— 'Ο κρινων, the judger, is here very emphatical; and the more so, as it is repeated in the latter part of the verse. It denotes more than simply judging: it implies assuming the character, place, and authority of a judge; which would be seen more clearly, if the verse were rendered thus; Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man! whosoever art a judger; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou, the judger, doest the same things. There will need no remark, to those who read this epistle with the least attention, to prove that the judging which St. Paul here speaks of, refers to that aversion which the Jews generally had to the Gentiles: insomuch that the unconverted Jews could not bear the thought of a Messiah who admitted the heathen equally with them into his kingdom; nor could the converted Jews be easily brought, for a considerable time, to admit them into their communion, as the people of God, now equally with themselves; so that they generally, both one and the other, at that time judged them unworthy the favour of God and incapable of becoming his people any other way than by circumcision and an observance of the ritual parts of the law;—the inexcusableness and absurdity whereof St. Paul shews in this chapter. Dr. Doddridge observes, that there is a greater delicacy in the Apostle's transition here, than most commentators have imagined. From what he had before said, to prove the wicked and abandoned among the heathens inexcusable in their wickedness, he justly infers, that the crimes of those who had such knowledgeof the truth as to condemn the vices of others, were proportionably yet more inexcusable. This was eminently the case with the Jews. But he does not directly speak of them till the 9th verse; drawing the inference at first in such general terms, as might also comprehend Gentiles, philosophers, and all others who contradicted the moral instructions which they themselves gave. Though the black detail of vices enumerated in the preceding chapter is such as cannot fail to shock the thinking mind; yet whoever will take the trouble to search into the state of religion and virtue among the Jews at the same period will confess, that the Apostle is rather tender than rigid in his accusations. See Joseph. Jewish War, b. 5. 100. 13 b. 7. 100. 8 and Whitby.

return to '

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Therefore thou art inexcusable — Though thou have no pleasure in them that do evil, as Romans 1:32 , but dost superciliously censure them, being thyself otherwise as bad. Cato is said to have exercised usury, to have prostituted his wife, to have slain himself. God often sets a Noverint universi "let it be known to the whole world" upon the world’s wizards, for the foulest fools.

return to '

第二章

目次

この章の目的は、異邦人に対してちょうど証明されたのと同じ訴因をユダヤ人に対しても確立すること、彼らも神の御怒りにさらされていることを示すことである。これは三つの部分から成る。第一は、すべての人がそれによってさばかれるべき単純な正義の原則の提示を含む、1-16節。第二は、これらの原則のユダヤ人の事例への適用である、ローマ2:17-24。第三は、割礼の真の性質と目的の提示であり、ユダヤ人がその儀式に基づいて免除を期待し得ないことを示すことを意図する、ローマ2:25-29。

ローマ2:1-16

分析

前章に記述されたほどの不敬虔で不道徳な人々は神の不興に値し、自らの行いによっては決して神の恵みを確保し得ないことを、ユダヤ人は進んで認める用意があった。しかし、神の側の何らかの約束、あるいは何らかの特別の義務の遂行によって、すべての罪を罰するという神の目的の執行から免除を主張し得るような人々の一群があるのではないだろうか。この点を決定するためには、仮定された根拠の上で罪人への不処罰を許すかどうかを知るため、神の正義についてもう少し詳しく考察する必要があった。それゆえ、この章の第一の部分は、前の章のローマ2:18の原則を展開するのに用いられている。そこには、すべて人の良心に直ちに訴えかける正義の諸原則の展開が含まれる。第一は、他人において非難することを自分自身が行う者は、それによって自らを罪に定めるということである、ローマ2:1。第二は、神のさばきは真実、すなわち事の実際の状態に従うということである、ローマ2:2。第三は、ある個人や民に向けて示された神の特別の善良さは、当然受くべき罰からの免除の根拠を形成しない。それは彼らを悔い改めに導くために意図されたのであり、濫用されるとき彼らの罪定めを加重する、ローマ2:3-5。第四は、さばきの根拠は行いであって、人の外的関係や表白ではない。神はユダヤ人であれ、人の偏りを少しも持たずに、悪人を罰し善人に報いるであろう、ローマ2:6-11。第五は、さばきの基準は人がそれぞれ享受してきた光である。書かれた律法を持つ者はそれによってさばかれ、心に書かれた律法しか持たない者（異邦人がそのような律法を持つことは良心の働きによって証明される、ローマ2:13-15）はその律法によってさばかれる、ローマ2:12。これらは、最後の日にイエス・キリストによってすべて人がさばかれる基準となる原則である、ローマ2:16。

注解

ローマ2:1

使徒のこの節および以下の諸節における論法の力を十分に評価するためには、ユダヤ人が神による受け入れを期待した主要な根拠が、神が彼らの父アブラハムと結ばれた契約であったことを憶えておくべきである。そこで神はアブラハムとその後の彼の子孫に神となることを約束された。彼らはこの約束を、律法と割礼の儀式の遵守によってアブラハムとのつながりを保つすべての者の救いを確保するものと理解した。それゆえ彼らは、各人がその人格に従って扱われる個人としてよりも、アブラハムへの約束によって救いが確保された共同体として、見られ扱われることを期待した。パウロは遠くから論じ始める。彼は自らに適用されることを気づかない前に、ユダヤ人の同意を確保し得ないような一般的な言葉で原則を述べる。この章でユダヤ人が語りかけられていることは、論法の全筋から、またローマ2:17以降のユダヤ人の事例への推理の明示的な適用から明らかである。この箇所の見解は今日一般的に採用されているが、多くの初期の注解者は、ここでは特定の階級の人々は語りかけられていないか、あるいは使徒は異邦人のうちのより良い部分、少なくとも前の章に記述された犯罪を是認するのではなく、むしろ非難するように見えた者たちを念頭に置いていると考えた。

この章と前の章とのつながりは、接続詞διό「それゆえ」によって示されるが、やや疑わしい。ある人々は推論を前の章のローマ2:18から教えられた教理から導かれると考える。神は正しく、すべての不義と不敬虔を罰することを決定された。それゆえ他人において非難する罪を犯す者は言い訳ができない。この場合しかし、結論は前提に適した確かな形になっていない。神の正義から導かれるのは、罪人の言い訳のなさというよりも、罰へのさらされていることである。それゆえ大部分の注解者は、推論を前の章の最後の節から導かれたと見なす。そこでは、罪を犯す者がすべて死に価することをすべての人が知っていると言われている。そして推論は、罪を犯す者は言い訳がなく、その自尊心が彼らを他人に向けてどれほど厳しくさせようとも、というのである。すべてさばく者。以下からユダヤ人がここで意図されていることは明らかであるが、上述の理由のゆえに命題は一般的にされる。κρίνων、さばく者。しかし含意においては罪に定める者。それはあなたが他人をさばく同じ点において、あなたは自分自身を罪に定めるからである。「において」（ἐν ᾧ）は、「その事柄において」あるいは「それによって」、すなわち同じさばきにおいて、あるいは「〜の間」となる。マルコ2:19、ヨハネ5:7を見よ。この主張の理由は次の節で与えられる。なぜなら、さばくあなた自身が同じことを行っているからである。罪定めの根拠となるのは行われた事柄である。それゆえ行為を非難する者は、行為者を罪に定める。その行為者が自分自身であれ他の誰であれ、ユダヤ人であれ異邦人であれ関係ない。

return to '