:
1 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. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Previous
Next
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 2:1
That we must not rashly judge of another. In the Gospel according to Luke: "Judge not, that ye be not judged: condemn not, that ye be not condemned." Of this same subject to the Romans: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand." And again: "Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man that judgest: for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest. But dost thou hope, who judgest those who do evil, and doest the same, that thou thyself shalt escape the judgment of God" Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.: "And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." And again: "If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet in what manner he ought to know."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:1
Paul shows that the man who does evil and consents to others who do it is deserving of death, lest perhaps the one who does it and pretends not to approve of others who do it … might think he can be excused, because he can conceal his sin for a time.… It is not right to give in to someone who pretends to be better when in fact he is worse. Such a person appears to escape notice and to be worthy of honor, but in fact he will be punished.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:1
having then put this the first, he by this method grapples more powerfully with him in the sequel, speaking on this wise,

Chap. ii. ver. 1. "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man; whosoever you are that judgest; for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself."

These things he says, with an aim at the rulers, inasmuch as that city then had the rule of the world put into its hands. He anticipated them therefore by saying, You are depriving yourself of defense, whoever you may be; for when you condemn an adulterer, and yourself commit adultery, although no man condemns you, in your judgment upon the guilty person you have also passed sentence against yourself.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:1
Paul says this with the rulers of the city in mind, because at that time they ruled the entire world. He was telling them … that when they pass sentence on someone they are passing sentence on themselves as well.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:1
This concerns those who are in a position to pass judgment. Judges and princes are being put on trial. By a natural process everyone pronounces a sentence which fits the crime and knows that righteousness deserves reward while wickedness should be punished.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:1
Paul is speaking here of sins already committed. And when he says “O man, whoever you are,” he includes not only the Gentile but also the Jew who wanted to judge the Gentiles according to the law.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 7-8
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 2:1
169. After showing that the Gentiles did not become just from the knowledge of the truth they had, the Apostle now shows that neither were the Jews made just by the things in which they gloried. Consequently, both of them need the power of the gospel’s grace for salvation. First, therefore, he says that the Jews were not made just by the Law; secondly, that they were not made just by the race in which they gloried, in chapter 3 [n. 246] at Then what advantage has the Jew?; 90 thirdly, that they were not made just by circumcision, in chapter 4 [n. 322] at What therefore shall we say? 170. In regard to the first point it should be noted that Jews and Gentiles converted to the faith judged each other on their previous life. For the Jews objected to the Gentiles that when they lived without God’s law, they sacrificed to idols. The Gentiles on their part objected to the Jews that even though they received God’s law, they did not keep it. First, therefore, he rebukes both sides and their extravagant judgment; secondly, he shows that the Jews were not worthy of a reward, because the things they glory in were not sufficient for salvation, there [v. 13; n. 210] at For it is not the hearers of the Law. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he confutes human judgment; secondly, he discloses and commends the divine judgment, there [v. 2; n. 178] at For we know. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes that although they judge one another, neither has an excuse; secondly, he gives the reason, there [v. lb; n. 172] at for in passing judgment. 171. First, therefore, he concludes from what he stated in the first chapter that even though the Gentiles by their wickedness suppressed the truth they knew about God, you have no excuse, 0 man, whoever you are, when you judge another, just as he said earlier: "So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). 91 He says, whoever you are, as if to say: Whether Jew or Gentile, because even the Gentiles, who might seem to have an excuse, cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance, as he stated above in 1:20 ff; "Do not pronounce judgment before the time" (1 Cor 4:5). 172. Then when he says For in passing judgment he gives the reason by rejecting the causes for excuse: first, ignorance; secondly, innocence, there [v. 1c; n. 176] at because you, the judge. 173. Ignorance is excluded by the very act of judging. For whoever judges another an evildoer shows that he knows that the conduct is evil and, therefore, that he is himself worthy of condemnation. And this is what he says: You have no excuse, for in passing judgment upon him as an evildoer you condemn yourself, i.e., you show that you are worthy of being condemned: "Judge not, that you may not be judged" (Mt 7:1). 174. This does not mean that every judgment is a cause of condemnation. For there are three kinds of judgment: one is just, i.e., made according to the rule of justice: "Love justice, you rulers of the earth" (Wis 1:1); another is not just, i.e., made contrary to the rule of justice: "Although servants of his kingdom, you did not rule rightly" (Wis 6:4); the third is rash judgment against which Ec (5:2) says: "Be not rash with your mouth." A rash judgment is made in two ways: in one way, when a person passes judgment on a matter committed to him without due knowledge of the truth, contrary to what is stated in Jb (29:16): "I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know." In another way, when a person presumes to judge about hidden matters, of which God alone has the power to judge, contrary to what is stated in 1 Cor (4:5): "Do not pronounce 92 judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness." 175. But some things are hidden not only in relation to us but of their very nature and so belong solely to God’s knowledge: first, the thoughts of the heart: "Man’s heart is deceitful and unsearchable. Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the mind and try the heart" (Jer 17:9); secondly, the contingent future: "Tell us what is to come hereafter that we may know you are gods" (Is 41:23). Hence, as Augustine says: "There are two cases in which we must beware of rash judgment: when it is not certain in what spirit something was done, or when it is not certain how a person will turn out, who now appears to be good or to be wicked." The first judgment is not a cause for condemnation, but the second and third are. 176. Then when he says for you, the judge, he rejects the other excuse, namely, innocence. As if to say: The reason why you, the judge of others, condemn yourself is that you are doing the very same things for which you condemn them; consequently, it seems that you are acting against your conscience: "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" (Mt 7:3). 177. However, it should be noted that it is not always true, when someone judges another concerning a sin which he himself commits, that he automatically draws a condemnation upon himself, because he does not always sin mortally by so judging; yet he always reveals his own damnation. For if he is publicly guilty of the sin concerning which he judges another, he seems to be giving scandal by judging, unless perhaps he humbly reproves himself along with the other and laments his sin. 93 But if he is secretly guilty of the same sin, he does not sin by judging another about the same sin, especially when he does so with humility and with an effort to rise again, as Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: "When necessity compels us to correct someone, let us first examine whether it is a vice, such as we never had: and then let us reflect that we could have bad it or that we once had it and no longer have it: and then our common weakness will prod the memory, so that mercy and not hatred will guide that correction. But if we discover that we are presently guilty of the same vice, we should not scold but lament together and invite the other to join you in grieving." 178. Then when he says For we know (v. 2), he discloses and commends God’s judgment. And concerning this he does three things. First, he declares the truth of God’s judgment; secondly, he rejects a contrary opinion, there [v. 3; n. 180] at Do you suppose; thirdly, he manifests the truth, there [v. 6; n. 189] at Who will render. 179. First, therefore, he says: The reason I say that you condemn yourself, when you do the same things that you judge, is that we know, i.e., we hold it as certain, that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things i.e. God’s judgment threatens them: "The avenger of sin is the sword, that you may know there is a judgment" (Jb 19:29); "God will bring every deed into judgment" (Ec 12:14). We also know that this judgment will be based on the truth: "He will judge the earth with righteousness" (Ps 96:13). But man’s judgment, even though it be formed justly, is not always based on the truth of the affair, but on the words of witnesses, which sometimes clash with the truth. But this cannot happen in the divine judgment, because, as is said in Jer (21:23): "I am 94 the judge and witness." Nor is He deceived by false allegations: "I will not spare him, nor his mighty words, and framed to make supplication" (Jb 41:12). 180. Then when he says Do you suppose (v. 3) he rejects a contrary opinion. First, he states it; secondly, the cause of it, there [v. 4a; n. 182] at Or do you despise; thirdly, he disproves it, there [v. 4b; n. 183] at Do you not know. 181. First, therefore, he says: I have said that God’s judgment is in accordance with the truth, against those who do such things. But do you not, O man, whoever you are, who judges those who do such things and yet do them yourself, do you not fear a higher judgment? Do you suppose that you will escape the judgment of God? As if to say: If you suppose this, you are wrong: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from your presence? (Ps 139:7); "All way of escape will be lost to them" (Jb 11:20). 182. Then when he says, Or do you presume, he shows the cause of this false supposition. For since man is not punished at once by God for sin, he supposes that he will not be punished, which is contrary to Si (4:5): "Do not say, ‘I sinned, and what happened to me? For the Lord is slow to anger"; "because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil" (Ec 8:11) Yet the fact that the sinner does evil a hundred times and is patiently endured should not lead him to presume on God, but to conclude that it is good to fear Him. Therefore, he says here, do you presume upon: "When wickedness comes, contempt comes also" (Pr 18:3); the riches, i.e., the abundance: "God who is rich in mercy" (Eph 2:3); of his kindness, through which He diffuses His blessings on us: Thou openest thy 95 hand and satisfiest the desire of every living thing" (Psl45:l6). For according to Denis the good involves the notion of diffusing itself: "The Lord is good to those who wait on him." (Lam 3:25); and longsuffering, through which Be endures for a long time those who sin from weakness and continue in their sin for a long time: "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation" (2 Pt 3:15); and patience, through which He endures those who sin grievously and from malice: "God is a righteous and patient judge. Is he indignant every day?" (Ps 7:11). 183. Then when he says Do you not know (v.4b) he disproves the aforementioned cause, namely the cause of contempt of the divine patience. First, he discloses the purpose of God’s patience; secondly, the danger of contempt, there [v. 5; n. 186] at But by your hardness. 184. First, therefore, he says it is hard to understand your scorn; do you not know that God’s kindness in postponing punishment is meant to lead you to repentance? "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pt 3:9); "The Lord waits to be gracious to you" (Is 30:l8). 185. As is said in the gloss [of Lombard], the Apostle seems to touch upon three groups of sinners: those who promise themselves impunity; those who scorn God’s goodness; and the ignorant. Hence, the Gloss says: "You sin, O man, as long as you promise yourself that you will escape punishment; you sin more gravely, because you scorn; you sin most gravely, because you are ignorant. 96 But this seems to be false, for ignorance makes a sin less serious, rather than more serious. The answer, as is held by some, is that it is more serious, i.e., more dangerous for some, because those who are ignorant of sin do not seek a remedy. Or it is most serious, if it is the form of ignorance that pertains to unbelief, which is the gravest sin: "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (1 Cor 14:38). Or it is most serious in ingratitude, as Augustine says: "One who does not recognize a blessing is more ungrateful than one who belittles, i.e., scorns it." 186. Then when he says But by your hardness (v. 5) he shows the danger of contempt, because it is not softened by the blessings of God’s goodness: "A hard heart will be afflicted at the end" (Si 4:26); and impenitent heart, which is not moved to repent by God’s forbearance and patience: "No man repents of his wickedness" (Is 8:6), you are storing up wrath for yourself, i.e., you are multiplying the debt of punishment: "You have laid up a treasure of wrath for the last days" (Jas 5:3). Hence there follows on the day of wrath, i.e., on the day of judgment: "A day of wrath is that day" (Zeph 1:15), namely, because God does not now inflict the punishment He will inflict then, as is stated in Ps 75 (v.2): "At the set time I will judge with equity"; when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, because the justice of God’s judgment will be revealed then, whereas now it is not believed or does not seem just: "Soon my salvation will come and my justice revealed" (Is 56:1). 187. Because the gloss [of Lombard, col. 1340] says that by hardness and impenitent heart is meant a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable, it is important to see what a sin against the Holy Spirit is and why it is unforgivable. 97 Accordingly, it should be noted that in the opinion of the earlier Fathers of the Church who preceded Augustine, namely, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Chrysostom, the sin against the Holy Spirit was the blasphemy whereby the works of the Holy Spirit are attributed to an unclean spirit, as in Matthew (12:31). It is considered unforgivable both in this life and in the future, because the Jews were punished for this sin even in this life by the Romans and in the life to come by devils; or because it has no basis for being excused, unlike the blasphemy they spoke against Christ, inasmuch as He was a son of man: "Behold a glutton and a drunkard" (Mt 11:19). They could have been led to say this on account of the weakness of the flesh, as occurred even in the Old Testament, when the children of Israel complained about the lack of bread and water, as we read in Ex (16:2 ff). This could be considered a human failing and easy to forgive. But later on when they declared before an idol: "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (Ex 32:4), they sinned against the Holy Spirit, for they attributed God’s work to demons. Hence their sin is called unforgivable, when the Lord answers: "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them" (Ex 32:34). Augustine, on the other hand, calls a sin against the Holy Spirit any word or blasphemy a person speaks against the Holy Spirit, through Whom sins are forgiven, as is stated in Jn (20:22): "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven." Indeed, this sin is committed in the heart, in word and in deed, as long as one continues in sin to the end. Consequently, final impenitence is a sin against the Spirit and of its very nature unforgivable. 98 Later teachers call a sin against the Holy Spirit one that is committed with deliberate malice, which is opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit, just as a sin against the Son of God is one committed from ignorance, which is opposed to the wisdom appropriated to the Son. Similarly, a sin against the Father is one committed through weakness, which is opposed to the power appropriated to the Father. Consequently, a sin against the Father and against the Son is deemed forgivable, because the very fact that it is committed from ignorance or from weakness seems to be a ground for excuse. But one committed from deliberate malice has no ground for excuse; hence, it is deemed unforgivable, because it has nothing in it to plead forgiveness; although God does forgive it sometimes, because He is good, just as He sometimes used His power to cure a naturally incurable disease. 188. In light of the foregoing, six kinds of sin against the Holy Spirit are listed, each excluding something by which sin is forgiven. The first two are taken on the part of God, namely, hope in His mercy, to which is opposed despair, and fear of God’s justice, to which is opposed presumption. Two others are taken on the part of man, namely, contempt for the changeable good, to which is opposed obstinacy, which is here called hardness, through which a person hardens his soul to sin; and abandonment of the state of being turned away from God, to which is opposed an impenitent heart, which never intends to repent and return to God. The last two are taken on the part of God’s gifts, one of which is faith "by faith sins are cleansed," to which is opposed resistance to the acknowledged truth. The other is 99 charity: "Charity covers all offenses" (Pr 10:12), to which is opposed envy of a brother’s grace.
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:2
The truth, therefore, will be His, whose is also the wrath, which has to be revealed to avenge the truth. Likewise, when adding, "We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth," he both vindicated that wrath from which comes this judgment for the truth, and at the same time afforded another proof that the truth emanates from the same God whose wrath he attested, by witnessing to His judgment.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:2
So that both the gospel and Christ must be His, to whom appertain the law and the nature which are to be vindicated by the gospel and Christ-even at that judgment of God which, as he previously said, was to be according to truth. The wrath, therefore, which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath; so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator's, cannot possibly be ascribed to another god who is not a judge, and is incapable of wrath.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:2
The judgment of God is to be expected … not only for those who do the things which are listed above but for all who have in any way done anything good or evil. What Paul wants to show here is that only God can judge rightly. For there are some crimes committed in which the deed is evil but the intention is not, e.g., when someone accidentally kills someone else. And there are other cases in which the deed may be good but the thought behind it is not, e.g., if someone shows pity not because God has commanded it but in order to win praise from men. And there are still other cases in which thought and deed are so interfused that one cannot distinguish which is good or evil. Given that only God knows the hearts of men and only he can discern the secrets of the mind, only he has the power to judge rightly.God has judged rightly in the case of those whose iniquities have been forgiven by the grace of baptism, whose sins have been covered by repentance and whose sin has not been imputed to them because of the glory of martyrdom. Rightness of judgment presupposes that the evil person will receive bad things and the good person good ones. Although the gifts and generosity of God do not allow of any dispute, nevertheless we shall show just how right the divine judgment is. It is commonly accepted that a good man should not be punished and that an evil man should not be rewarded with good. Suppose a man has at some point done evil. It is certain that at the time he was doing it he was evil. But if he repents of his previous deeds, turns his mind to the good and does what is right, says what is right, thinks what is right, desires what is right—does not that person seem good to you, and worthy to receive good things? Likewise, if someone is turned from what is good to what is evil, he will be judged now not to be good (which he was but is no longer) but rather evil, which he is now. For the deeds of both a good and an evil man pass away, but they shape and construct the mind of the doer according to their respective quality and leave it either good or bad and accordingly destined to receive either punishment or rewards. Therefore it will be unjust either for a good mind to be punished for evil deeds or for an evil mind to be rewarded for good deeds.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:2
This means that we are not unaware that God will judge these people in truth, for we judge them ourselves. If what they do is displeasing to us, how much more will it be so to God, who is truly just and efficient in carrying out his work.… Paul is instilling fear, so that although the ungodly say that God does not care, in fact he will judge the wicked and most severely render to each one according to his deserts, not sparing any.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:2
For lest any should say, until now I have escaped, to make him afraid, he says, that it is not so with God as it is here. For here (Plato in Theæt. et Phædon.) one is punished, and another escapes while doing the same thing. But hereafter it is not so. That he that judges then knows the right, he has said: but whence he knows it, he has not added; for it was superfluous. For in the case of ungodliness, he shows both that the ungodly was so even with a knowledge of God, and also whence he got that knowledge, namely, from the Creation. For inasmuch as it was not plain to all, he gave the cause also; but here he passes it over as a thing admitted. But when he says, "whosoever you are that judgest," he is not addressing himself to the rulers only, but to private individuals and subjects also. For all men, even if they have no chair of state, nor executioners, nor stocks at command, yet even they judge those that offend, in conversations and public meetings (Gr. κοινοἵς συλλόγοις) and by the vote of their conscience. And no one would venture to say, that the adulterer does not deserve punishment. But it is others, he says, they condemn, and not themselves.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:2
Paul shows that the ungodly had fallen even with a knowledge of God. Such knowledge they had got even from their creation.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:2
If you, a sinner, pass judgment upon a sinner like yourself, how much more will God, who is just, condemn you as unjust? If he did not do so, it might appear that evil is pleasing to him while good is not. But God has no favorites, and he spared neither his friends (the patriarchs) nor his angels when they sinned! Human judgment on the other hand is imperfect in many ways. The integrity of judges is often compromised by love, hate, fear and greed, and occasionally mercy is allowed to overturn the rule of justice.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 2:2
“Judgment” means the tribunal and judgment seat of God, and as if to make the condemnation of the wicked certain Paul added “rightly.”

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:3
For this reason it is right for each person to examine his own conscience first and then debate the deeds of the person whom he is judging. If this were to happen, all desire for high ecclesiastical office would vanish from those appointed to it, if those who want to preside over the people were more concerned to judge themselves than to judge others.No one should imagine that he can escape the judgment of God, as the prophet also says: “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” These things apply most of all to those who preside over the judgment of the people. Scripture also says elsewhere that “judgment will begin at the house of God.” … Therefore judgment begins with the children of God first of all, for God chastises everyone whom he accepts into the number of his children. Indeed, I think that even if it were possible, nobody should try to escape God’s judgment, for not to come to God’s judgment is not to come to improvement, to health or to a cure.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:3
Paul does not want them to hope that they can be pardoned, since that would be unjust, when they have been given the ability to judge evil and wrongdoing and to avoid it. If they cannot manage to avoid it in this life, they will not be able to escape the judgment of God in the future. For God, with whom there is neither flattery nor respect of persons, will judge them on his own authority.If someone thinks he ought to be immune from such punishment, let him say so. But if it is right that he should not escape, let him trust that God will judge and judge rightly, and that God, the Creator of the world, will offer proper attention and care to his creation. If God had made the world and then neglected it, he would be called a bad Creator, because he would be demonstrating by his neglect that what he had made was not good. But since it cannot be denied that God made good things—for it is unworthy and impossible for one who is good to make evil things—it is necessary to say that he is concerned about them. It would be a crime and a reproach to him if he were to neglect the good things which he had made. Life itself is governed by his servants the natural elements, who act according to his pleasure and plan, as the Lord himself says: “he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Therefore, if he does all that, will he not take care to look after what he has made, so as to reward those who love him and condemn those who reject him?

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:3
For since he had shown the sin of the world to be great, from its doctrines, from its doings, and that they did yet sin though wise, and though they had the creation to lead them by the hand, and not by leaving God only, but also by choosing the images of creeping things, and by their dishonoring virtue, and deserting, in spite of nature's drawings back, to the service of vice even contrary to nature: he goes on next to show, that they who do such things are punished too. He did indeed at once point out a punishment by mentioning their very practice. For "they received," he says, "in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." But as they do not perceive that, he mentions another also, which they stood most in fear of. And indeed already he chiefly pointed at this. For when he says, "That the judgment of God is according to truth," he is speaking of no other than this. But he establishes the same again upon other further grounds, saying thus, "And do you think this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that you shall escape the judgment of God?" You have not been acquitted of your own judgment, and will you escape through God's? Who indeed would say this? And yet you have judged yourself (3 manuscripts "and not been acquitted"). But since the rigorousness of the judgment-court was such, and thou were not able to spare even yourself, how should not God, that cannot do amiss, and who is in the highest sense just, be much surer to do the same? But have you condemned yourself, and is God to approve of you and praise you? And how can this be reasonable? And all the while you are deserving of a greater punishment, than he who is of you condemned. For sinning merely, is not the same thing with falling again into the same sins you have chastised another for committing. See, how he has strengthened the charge! For if you, he means, punish a person who has committed less sins, though by it you will put yourself to shame, how shall not God cast you in your suit, and condemn you more severely, who have committed greater transgressions, and this too when He will never make Himself ashamed, and you are already condemned by your own reckoning. But if you say, I know that I deserve punishment; yet through His long-suffering thinkest slightingly of it, and art confident because thou dost not suffer punishment immediately; this surely is a reason why you ought to be afraid and tremble. For the fact that you have not yet suffered punishment, will not result in your not suffering any punishment, but in your suffering a more severe one if you abide unamended.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:3
Paul argues that these people, because they have condemned themselves by their condemnation of others, will not escape the judgment of God. For how can it be reasonable if they condemn themselves and then expect God to approve of them and praise them?Sinning, by itself, is not as serious as falling into the sins one has accused others of committing. See how Paul makes the whole thing more serious! For if you punish a person who has committed smaller sins … how will God not turn the tables on you and punish you who have committed greater transgressions?… And if you say that you know you deserve punishment but think that because God is patient with you that you will escape it and therefore do not take it seriously, this is all the more reason to fear and tremble! For the fact that you have not yet suffered punishment does not mean that you will not suffer it but that you will suffer more severely if you do not repent.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:3
Is the fact that some persist in their wickedness any proof that God does not persist in his patience, punishing very few sins in this world, lest we fail to believe in his divine providence and, saving many for the last judgment, to justify his future decree?

Source: LETTER 153
[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on Romans 2:4
The last times are upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit and fear the longsuffering of God, lest we despise the riches of his goodness and forbearance.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 11
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 2:4
E just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. ""But glory and honour "he says, "to every one that doeth good."
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:4
You can recognize the riches of God’s kindness if you consider how many evils men do every day on earth. Almost everyone has fallen away and become worthless, traveling down the wide and broad way of perdition, ignoring the narrow road that leads to eternal life. Yet God lets his sun shine daily on all of them and sends them rain, however much they may blaspheme him.… Therefore if anyone despises God’s kindness and forbearance and patience, he does not know that he is being encouraged by these things to repent.Forbearance differs from patience in that it applies more to those who sin because of their weakness and not deliberately, whereas patience is brought to bear in the case of those who sin deliberately, as if to glory in their wrongdoing. But as God has made everything with a certain measure, weight and number, so also his patience has certain limits. Those limits were reached by the people who perished in the flood, as well as by the men of Sodom who were destroyed by fire from heaven.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 2:4
But what and how great is the patience in God, that, most patiently enduring the profane temples and the images of earth, and the sacrilegious rites instituted by men, in contempt of His majesty and honour, He makes the day to begin and the light of the sun to arise alike upon the good and the evil; and while He waters the earth with showers, no one is excluded from His benefits, but upon the righteous equally with the unrighteous He bestows His undiscriminating rains. We see that with undistinguishing equality of patience, at God's behest, the seasons minister to the guilty and the guiltless, the religious and the impious-those who give thanks and the unthankful; that the elements wait on them; the winds blow, the fountains flow, the abundance of the harvests increases, the fruits of the vineyards ripen, the trees are loaded with apples, the groves put on their leaves, the meadows their verdure; and while God is provoked with frequent, yea, with continual offences, He softens His indignation, and in patience waits for the day of retribution, once for all determined; and although He has revenge in His power, He prefers to keep patience for a long while, bearing, that is to say, mercifully, and putting off, so that, if it might be possible, the long protracted mischief may at some time be changed, and man, involved in the contagion of errors and crimes, may even though late be converted to God, as He Himself warns and says, "I do not will the death of him that dieth, so much as that he may return and live." And again," Return unto me, saith the Lord." And again: "Return to the Lord your God; for He is merciful, and gracious, and patient, and of great pity, and who inclines His judgment towards the evils inflicted." Which, moreover, the blessed apostle referring to, and recalling the sinner to repentance, sets forward, and says: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the patience and goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who shall render to every one according to his works." He says that God's judgment is just, because it is tardy, because it is long and greatly, deferred, so that by the long patience of God man may be benefited for life eternal. Punishment is then executed on the impious and the sinner, when repentance for the sin can no longer avail.

Source: Treatise IX On the Advantage of Patience
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 2:4
That God is patient for this end, that we may repent of our sin, and be reformed. In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: "Say not, I have sinned, and what sorrow hath happened to me? For the Highest is a patient repayer." Also Paul to the Romans: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds."

Source: Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:4
Paul says this so that no one should think that he has escaped, just because God’s goodness has allowed him to go on sinning. Nor should anyone think that God’s patience is to be despised, as if he did not care about human affairs, but rather understand that God conceals himself, because his judgment is not promised in this life. It is for the future, so that in the next life the man who did not believe that God is a judge will repent. For in order to reveal the terror of future judgment and that his patience should not be despised, God said: “I have been silent. But shall I be silent for ever?” Thus the man who has been punished and has not repented will repent when he sees the future judgment of God, which he has spurned. Then he who thought that the longsuffering of God’s goodness was something to laugh at will not hesitate to beg for mercy.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:4
For after praising God's long-suffering, showing the gain thereof to be very great to them that heeded it (and this was the drawing sinners to repentance); he adds to the terror. For as to them, who avail themselves of it aright, it is a ground of safety; so to them that slight it, it is conducive to a greater vengeance. For whenever you utter this common notion, that God does not exact justice, because He is good and long-suffering, he says, You do but mention what will make the vengeance intenser. For God shows His goodness that you may get free from your sins, not that you may add to them. If then thou make not this use thereof, the judgment will be more fearful. Wherefore it is a chief ground for abstaining from sin, that God is long-suffering, and not for making the benefit a plea for obstinacy. For if He be long-suffering, He most certainly punishes. Whence does this appear? From what is next said. For if the wickedness be great and the wicked have not been requited, it is absolutely necessary that they should be requited. For if men do not overlook these things, how should God make an oversight? And so from this point he introduces the subject of the judgment. For the fact of showing many who, if they repent not, are liable, yet still are not punished here, introduces with it necessarily the judgment, and that with increase.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:4
God shows us his kindness in order to lead us to repentance, not in order that we might sin even more. If we do not take advantage of this opportunity, the punishment we shall receive will be all the greater.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:4
Do you imagine you can act with impunity just because God does not punish immediately.… Listen to the words of Scripture: “The Lord is not slow with his promises … but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance.” The Lord is good in as much as he waits and just in as much as he punishes.… People may go far astray because of God’s patience, because he does not want to punish sinners immediately. And because he delays, people suppose either that he does not care at all about human affairs or that he overlooks sins.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 160] Shepherd of Hermas on Romans 2:5
For luxury and deceit have no memories, on account of the folly with which they are clothed; but when punishment and torture cleave to a man for one day, he is punished and tortured for a year; for punishment and torture have powerful memories. While tortured and punished, therefore, for a whole year, he remembers at last

Source: Shepherd of Hermas Similitude Sixth
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 2:5
Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment.

Source: Against Heresies Book IV
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 2:5
Those who depart from God and despise his precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonor on him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment.

Source: AGAINST HERESIES 4.33.15
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:5
In the Scriptures a hard heart refers to a human mind which, like wax hardened by the cold of wickedness, cannot receive the imprint of God’s image. The same thing is called a dull heart elsewhere. Its opposite is a soft heart, which in the Scriptures is called a heart of flesh. … When someone knows what is good and does not do it, he is said to be contemptuous of all good things because of the hardness of his heart. For hardness of heart occurs when the mind has no feeling for a refined and spiritual understanding.…The day of wrath will be a day of vengeance and judgment, as is clear from many passages of Scripture. But note that it will also be a day of revelation, when all things are to be revealed. … Some people want to know why this day has been fixed for the end of the world, so that everyone who has died from the beginning to the end of time is held over for judgment on the last day. It is certain that the real reasons for this are concealed in the secret mysteries of God, but we shall try to give some explanation for it insofar as it is possible to do so in writing. There are many who, when they leave this life, leave behind them seeds of good or evil that will sprout after their deaths and become occasions either for salvation or for damnation for those who are left behind. I would say, for instance, that this applies to all those philosophers who founded depraved sects which are far from God, or who set up magical sacrileges, or who practiced astrology, not to mention those among us who promoted heresies and false teachings by the books they wrote, or who have brought about divisions, scandals and dissensions in the church. On the other side there is the work of the apostolic writings and the emergence through them of the universal church, conversion to God and the transformation of the entire world. These things will go on to the end of time, and therefore the judgment of God will not be just until the final results are known. This is what the apostle means when he says: “The sins of some men are conspicuous, pointing to judgment, but the sins of others appear later.”5
It may also be that the saints who are outside the body and who dwell with Christ may be doing something and working on our behalf after the example of the angels, who minister to us for our salvation. On the other hand, perhaps sinners who too have left the body are doing something in line with the disposition of their mind, and no less after the example of the fallen angels.… These things too are among the hidden things of God and have not been committed to writing. But they will be made known on the day of wrath and revelation.
Now let us consider what is meant by the just judgment of God, in which he will reward each one according to his works. First of all, we must reject the heretics who say that souls are good or evil by nature and maintain instead that God will reward each one according to his deeds and not according to his nature. Second, believers are to be instructed not to think that it is enough merely to believe [lacking fruit]; they ought to realize that the just judgment of God will reward each one according to his works.… Nor are Gentiles to be excluded from this, if they do good.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Romans 2:5
Without doubt this is said of Christ, for he himself will judge.

Source: AGAINST ARIUS 1A.17
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:5
The one who hopes he can get away with his sins not only remains unconvertible and intractable but in addition sins more seriously still, sure that there will be no future judgment. He has an impenitent heart, unaware that he is storing up wrath for himself on the day of wrath.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:5
For when a man is neither to be softened by goodness nor to be turned back by fear, what can be harder than such an one? For after that he had showed the goodness of God towards men, he then shows His vengeance that it is unbearable for him who does not even so return to repentance. And observe with what propriety he uses the words! "You treasure up unto yourself wrath," he says, so making it plain what is certainly laid up, and showing that it is not He that judges, but he that is condemned, who is the author of this. For he says, "you store up for yourself," not God for you. For He did all, whatsoever things were fitting, and created you with a power to discern between good and what was not so, and showed long-suffering over you, and called you to repentance, and threatened a fearful day, so by every means drawing you to repentance. But if you should continue unyielding, "you store up unto yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation and (so all manuscripts but two) the righteous judgment of God." For lest on hearing of wrath you should think of any passion, he adds, "the righteous judgment of God." And he said "revelation" with good reason, for then is this revealed when each man receives his desert. For here many men often annoy and practise harm to one without justice. But hereafter it is not so.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:5
When a man is neither softened by goodness nor turned back by fear, what can be harder than he is?… The true originator of wrath is the one who has stored it up, not the one who judged, as Paul makes plain. For he says “you are storing up wrath for yourself,” not “God is storing up wrath for you.”

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:5
Unaware that you are sick, you use the very cure in order to sustain even greater wounds.… Rejected kindness leads in the end to severer judgment, so that the man who refused to be touched by mercy is afflicted with punishment.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 425] Severian of Gabala on Romans 2:5
When talking about the way they were “storing up” an accumulation of sins, Paul showed that there would also be a greater store of punishment, as a result of the patient endurance of the judge toward those who were suffering so incurably.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:5
Whenever Paul talks about the wrath of God he understands it to mean punishment.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 9
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 2:5
God’s patience toward you gives you the opportunity for every kind of wickedness. Realize clearly therefore that you are storing up wrath for yourself because of your hardness.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 542] Caesarius of Arles on Romans 2:5
If a person sins once or even twice and then without excuses has recourse to the healing of penance, he will recover his former good condition without any delay. But if he begins to add sin upon sin and prefers to acquire an infection by concealing or defending the wounds of his soul rather than cure them by confession and the performance of penance, it is to be feared that these words of the apostle will be fulfilled in him.

Source: SERMON 65.1
[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on Romans 2:6
Christ died and rose again, and ascended into heaven to him who sent him, and sat down at his right hand, and will come at the end of time with his Father’s glory to judge the living and the dead.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE MAGNESIANS 11
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:6
Who will ply the sword without practising the contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of course) to the business of battles? See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,-that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action. Lawful , then, it was for the Christ of God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated "bloom," together with the "grace of the lips; "with which sword He was then "girt upon the thigh," in the eye of David, when He was announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father's decree.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:6
Such a person must be punished more severely, even to the point of being tortured in eternal fire, because despite a long stay of execution, not only did he not want to change, but he increased his sinning, adding to his contempt for God. The day of wrath is for sinners, because it is the day on which they will be punished. Therefore the wrath is on those who receive punishment on the day when the just judgment of God is revealed. For it will be revealed and made known, even though it continues to be denied as long as it is in the future.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:6-7
Since he had become awestriking and harsh by discoursing of the judgment and of the punishment that shall be, he does not immediately, as one might expect, enter upon the vengeance, but turns his discourse to what was sweeter, to the recompense of good actions, saying as follows,

Ver. 7. "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life."

Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. But observe, how when he is discoursing about the things to come, he is unable to tell clearly the blessings, but speaks of glory and honor. For in that they transcend all that man has, he has no image of them taken from this to show, but by those things which have a semblance of brightness among us, even by them he sets them before us as far as may be, by glory, by honor, by life. For these be what men earnestly strive after, yet are those things not these, but much better than these, inasmuch as they are incorruptible and immortal. See how he has opened to us the doors toward the resurrection of the body by speaking of incorruptibility. For incorruptibility belongs to the corruptible body. Then, since this sufficed not, he added glory and honor. For all of us are to rise incorruptible, but not all to glory, but some to punishment, and some to life.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 2:6
189. After suggesting that God’s judgment is true and refuting the contrary opinion [n. 178], the Apostle here unfolds the truth of God’s judgment. First, he presents his intention; secondly, he manifests it, there [v. 7; n. 195] at To those who by patience. 190. First, he states facts about God’s judgment in regard to two things, namely, persons and their works. 100 In regard to works, God does not repay in the present life according to one’s works, for sometimes He gives grace to evil-doers, as to the apostle Paul, who obtained mercy after being a blasphemer and persecutor. But this will not be so on the day of judgment, when the time comes to judge according to justice: "At the set time which I appoint, I will judge with equity" (Ps 75:2); hence, another passage says: "Requite them according to their works" (Ps 28:4). With regard to persons, equality of retribution will be observed toward all: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor 5:10). 191. However, it seems that retribution will not be made according to one’s works, because an eternal punishment will be paid for a temporal sin. The answer, as Augustine says in the City of God, is that in justice’s repayment equality in time between sin and punishment is not a consideration, because even in human judgment for a sin of adultery committed in a short time the death penalty is inflicted. Here the legislator is not interested in the time it takes to punish, but rather that the adulterer’s death will forever separate him from the society of the living. Thus, in his way man, too, punishes a temporal sin with an eternal punishment. Consequently, it is not strange if sins committed against charity, through which is formed a society between God and men, are punished eternally by the divine judgment. 192. The justice of this is clear on three counts. First, on account of the infinite dignity of God Who is sinned against. For a sin is graver, the greater the dignity of the person sinned against, just as it is a greater crime to strike a prince than to strike a private citizen. Consequently, since the guilt of mortal sin 101 is in a sense infinite, an infinite punishment should balance it. Therefore, since it cannot be infinite in intensity, it must be infinite in duration. 193. Secondly, on account of the will of the sinner. For whoever sins mortally turns from the unchangeable good and fixes his end in a changeab1e good, as a fornicator in a pleasure of the flesh and a covetous person in money. And because the end is sought for itself, whoever seeks the end is borne toward it and wills to possess it always, if something else does not hinder. Hence, one who sins mortally has the will to remain in sin forever, unless something changes him accidentally, as when he fears punishment. Consequently, it is fitting that if a man through his will seeks sin to be enjoyed forever, he should be punished for it eternally. For God, Who sees the heart, directs His special attention to the will of the sinner. 194. Thirdly, on account of the effect of sin, namely, the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man left to himself would remain forever in sin, from which he cannot be extricated except by the help of grace. But it is not fitting that, the sin remaining, the penalty should cease; consequently, the penalty lasts forever. The statement, to render to every man according to his works, does not mean according to equality of works because the reward exceeds the merit, but according to proportion, because He will render good to the good and better to the better. The same applies to evil. 195. Then when he says to those who by patience (v. 7) he clarifies his statement: first, in regard to works; secondly, in regard to persons, there [v. 9b; n. 201] at on every soul. In regard to works he shows the truth of God’s judgment: 102 first, to the good; secondly, to the wicked, there [v. 8; n. 198] at but for those who are factious. 196. In regard to the first there are two things to consider, namely, merit and reward [n. 197]. Three things combine or merit: first, patience, which can mean God’s patience as referred above: "Do you presume upon the riches of his goodness and patience?" (v.4). Then those who by patience in well-doing would be those who make good use of God’s patience by doing good. Or it can mean man’s patience, and this in two ways: in one way, so that patience implies tolerating adversity with equanimity of heart. For it is necessary that one not give up good works on account of the evils he suffers, and this is what he says: by patience in well-doing. "Patience has a perfect work" (Jas 1:4); "By your patience you will gain your lives" (Lk 21:19). In another way, patience can be taken for long-suffering or for perseverance, which keeps a person from abandoning a good work on account of tedium: "You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand" (Jas 5:8); "you have need of patience" (Heb 10:36). The second feature of merit is the goodness of a work, which is good, if it is directed to its proper end and if it conforms to its proper rule, which is God’s law and human reason: "Let us not grow weary in well-doing" (Gal 6:9). The third feature is a right intention, i.e., to seek eternal life, so that in the evils a man suffers or in the good he does he is not seeking something temporal, but eternal: "Seek first the kingdom of God" (Mt 6:33). 103 197. In regard to the reward he touches on three things: the first is glory, which signifies the splendor of the saints: either intrinsic glory, with which the mind will be filled: "The Lord will fill your soul with brightness" (Is 58:11), or external glory, with which their body will shine: "The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father" (Mt 13:43); "Let the faithful exult in glory" (Ps 149:5). The second is honor, through which is signified the dignity of the saints and the reverence paid to them by every creature. For they will be kings and priests: "Thou hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:10) and will be numbered among the sons of God: "Why has he been numbered among the sons of God?" (Wis 5:5); "Thy friends are made exceedingly honorable, O God" (Ps 139:17). The third is immortality, because that glory and honor will not pass, as they do in this world: "They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable" (1 Cor 9:25). 198. Then when he says, but for those who are factious, he shows the truth of a God’s judgment on the wicked and touches on sin and punishment. In regard to sin three things are mentioned. The first is the obstinacy of the factious, which can be understood of man toward God calling him to Himself by His blessings, against which a man seems to struggle by resisting them: "Behold, while I am yet alive with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord" (Dt 31:27). Secondly, it is understood of man’s struggle against faith: "Avoid disputing with words" (2 Ti 2:14). Thirdly, it can be understood of men struggling with one another, which is contrary to charity, the mother of the virtues: "Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice" (Jas 3:16). 104 The second is the hardness of those who do not obey the truth. This can be understood in one way of the truth of faith: "If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" (Jn 9:46); in another way, of the truth of God’s justice, to which they do not acquiesce, not believing the truth of His justice: "You say: ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’" (Ez 18:29). In a third way, it can be understood of the truth of life, in which they do not acquiesce who live perversely: "He who does what is true comes to the light" (Jn 3:21). The third is malice; hence, he says: but obey [believe] wickedness, either because they consent to those who urge wickedness: "An evil-doer listens to wicked lips" (Pr 17:4); or because they believe that sins will not be punished, which would make God wicked: "Do not say: ‘I have sinned and what happened to me’?" (Si 5:4); or they believe wickedness, i.e., unbelief, namely, teachings against the faith: "So that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Th 2:12). 199. In regard to punishment four things are mentioned, which can be distinguished in two ways. In one way, so that wrath, i.e., punishment and corporal vengeance is understood to come after the judgment: "A day of wrath is that day" (Zeph l:15); fury during the judgment, when the wicked will be angry at themselves for the sins they committed: "It was we who strayed from the way of truth" (Wis 5:6). Tribulation and distress pertain to the soul separated from the body before the resurrection: "When distress and anguish come upon you" (Pr 1:27). 105 200. Or they can be distinguished in another way, so that the first two are taken on the part of God, Whose wrath is His disposition to punish, which is horrible for the wicked: "They will call to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the force [?] of the one sitting on the throne and from the fury of the Lamb" (Rev 6:16). His fury refers to the fact that He will consider sinners unworthy of eternal life: "I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my rest" (Ps 95:11). But the other two are taken on the part of man. The word, tribulation, comes from tribulus, a prickly plant; hence, anything that causes pain can pertain to tribulation: "The sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; the mighty man meets tribulation there" (Zeph 1:14). But distress is so called from the fact that a man’s spirit is in anguish, being unable to find a remedy against the evils he fears or already suffers: "I am hemmed in on every side and know not what to choose" (Sus 1:22); "Will God hear his cry when trouble comes upon him?" (Jb 27:9). 201. Then when he says on every soul (9b) he shows the truth of God’s judgment in regard to persons. First, he proposes its equity; secondly, he assigns the reason for this, there [v. 11; n. 205] at For there is no respect of persons; thirdly, he explains the reason, there [v. 12; n. 207] All who have sinned. 202. The truth of the divine judgment in regard to persons is shown, first, as it affects the wicked, when he says, for every human being who does evil, i.e., against every soul, because just as the glory of the saints passes from the soul to the body, so the punishment of the wicked is first and chiefly in the soul and secondly in the body which, 106 on account of defect or sin, will rise capable of suffering: "The soul that sins shall die" (Ez 18:4). 203. But he says, the Jew first and also the Greek, because a greater punishment was due the Jews as knowing God’s will through the Law: "That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make ready or act according to his will shall receive a severe beating" (Lk 12:47). Similarly, Christians are punished more severely than unbelievers for the same sin, e.g., adultery or theft: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified?" (Heb 10:29). But as to total punishment, that of unbelievers is more severe on account of the sin of unbelief, which is the gravest. Hence, it says in 2 Pt (2:2) that "God’s wrath rests upon unbelievers." 204. Secondly, he shows this in regard to the good: first, he repeats the two things mentioned above, namely, glory and honor, but the third, namely, peace, he mentions instead of immortality, which includes peace among many other things. For a man’s peace cannot be complete as long as he fears he might lose the good things he has; rather, one has true peace of heart when he has everything he desires and no fear of losing then: "My people will abide in a peaceful habitation" (Is 32:18). In these things, too, he gives primacy to the Jews, because they were first promised to them, and the Gentiles entered into their promises: "Others have labored and you have entered into their labors" (Jn 4:38). 107 205. Then when he says, God shows no partiality, he assigns the reason for his statement, namely, because there is no respect of persons with God: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality" (Ac 10:34). Respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice, through which one distributes to each according to the person’s worth; therefore, there is respect of persons, when more is given or less is given without regard to worth. This happens when the person rather than his qualifications is accepted as a cause. In this case there is a cause, i.e., a rule of action, but the person is taken as the cause of doing something. Thus, if one gives more inheritance to another on account of a blood relationship, it is not respect of persons, because this relationship is a fitting cause why he should receive such benefits. But if a prelate gives more ecclesiastical goods to someone on account of a blood relationship, it would be respect of persons, if some other qualification were not present. For blood relationship is not a suitable reason for receiving spiritual goods. Therefore, because God does everything for the best of reasons, respect of persons does not enter into His actions: "Wisdom orders all things well" (Wis 8:l). 206. Yet He seems to be a respecter of persons, because He abandons some sinners and calls others to Himself. The answer is that respect of persons is opposed to justice; hence, it finds its sphere in the payment of debts, with which justice is concerned. But God calls sinners to repentance not from debt but as a favor: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works" (Rom 11:6); "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us" (*** 3:5). 108 In such gifts not only God, but man too, is free to give to whom he will: "Am I not allowed to give what I choose with what belongs to me?" (Mt 20:15). 207. Then when he says All who have sinned (v.12) he explains the reason. For if all who sinned are punished, it is clear that there is no respect of persons with God. Hence, he speaks first of those who have not received the Law, saying that all who have sinned without the Law received from God by Moses, will perish without the law, i.e., will be condemned, but not for transgression of the Law: "Because no one understands, they will perish forever" (Job 4:20 Vul.). Secondly, he speaks of those who received the written law, and he says that all who have sinned under the Law, i.e. after the written Law, will be judged by the Law, i.e., precisely for having transgressed a precept of the Law: "The word which I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (Jn 12:48). 208. The Apostle’s manner of speaking here has been taken as an occasion of error by some. Because the Apostle does not say that all who sinned under the Law will perish by the Law, as he had said of those who are without the Law that they will perish without the law, some believed that those who sin after receiving the law will be judged by some means, i.e., in the present, but will not perish. But as the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1344] says: "What Christian would say that the Jew will not perish for not believing in Christ, when the Lord says that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for them" (Mt 10:15). Hence Ez (18:32) says: "I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner." 109 209. But the Apostle uses these different expressions because, as Gregory says on Jb (36:6): "He gives judgment to the poor," some will perish in the future judgment without being judged, i.e., the wicked who are without faith and the Law: "The wicked will not stand in the judgment" (Ps 1:5), namely, because there is no basis for discussion with one entirely estranged from God: "He who does not believe is condemned" (Jn 3:18). But others who sin in spite of having received the Law and faith will perish in such a way as also to be judged through a discussion held with them; hence, Ez (34:17): "I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats," just as a king condemns enemies without a hearing, but citizens with a careful examination, as Gregory says.
[AD 185] Theophilus of Antioch on Romans 2:7-8
For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, "Show me thy God," this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.

Source: Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XIV
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 2:7
God has given that which is good, and those who do it will receive glory and honor because they have done good when they had it in their power not to do so. But those who do not do it will receive the just judgment of God, because they did not do good when they had it in their power to do so.

Source: AGAINST HERESIES 4.37.1
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:7
In saying this, Paul indicates that those who desire to do good will have to struggle and will suffer for it.… Therefore patience is necessary.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:7
Now Paul predicts the just judgment of God, as he has declared it will be for the good; that is to say, for those who, recognizing that the patience of God is designed partly for concealment and partly for greater revenge on those who do not correct themselves, repent of their previous works and live rightly, armed with confidence in their faith in God that they will not have to wait long before receiving their promised reward of eternal life. For God will give them glory and honor. And to avoid invidious comparisons with this life, where there is another kind of glory and honor, Paul added “immortality,” so that people would realize that the glory and honor which they will obtain will be of a different order altogether.… For in this life honor and glory are frequently lost, for the one who gives them, what he gives and the one who receives them are all mortal. But on the day of God’s judgment honor and glory will be given to the immortal so that they will be eternal. For this same substance will be glorified by a certain change of properties. Therefore, those who seek eternal life are not merely those who believe correctly but those who live correctly as well.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:7
Here Paul stirs up those who had fallen away during the persecutions and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For God’s tribunal will demand deeds as well. But note that when he talks about what is to come, he cannot say exactly what the blessings will be but talks in general terms of glory and honor. For because the rewards transcend everything which we have here below, there is no image he can use to illustrate them, but instead he takes things which give us a picture of brightness and sets them before us.… Glory, honor and life are things men strive for, but what God promises us are much better still because they are incorruptible and immortal. See how he has opened the door to the resurrection of our body by speaking of immortality.… For all of us will rise immortal but not all to glory. Some will rise to punishment and others to life.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:7
The reward for well-doing is awaited with patience because it is not given in this life. The glory is that with which the saints will shine like the sun. Nothing is greater than the honor of the children of God, on account of which they will judge even the angels.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 2:7
Well-doing is for a time, but the reward is eternal. Moreover, eternity applies not only to life but to honor, glory and immortality as well. Paul wanted to show that there are many rewards for those who are good.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 185] Theophilus of Antioch on Romans 2:8
To the unbelieving and despisers who obey not the truth but unrighteousness, when they have been filled with adulteries, and fornications and filthiness, and covetousness and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess them. You asked me to show you my God—this is my God, and I advise you to fear and trust him.

Source: TO AUTOLYCUS 1.14
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:8
Those who doubt that there will be a future judgment of God through Christ, and who for that reason despise his patience, do all they can to discredit it as being true and certain. For they believe in wickedness. It is wickedness to deny what God has foretold. Paul mentions three things which are fitting punishments for unbelief—wrath, fury and tribulation. The locus of wrath is not in the one who judges but in the one who is judged. God is said to get angry and to take vengeance, but in reality the nature of God transcends such passions. But this is said so that we should believe that God judges sin and that he will finally take revenge. So Paul adds “and fury.” This means that God will seek vengeance, adding to his anger in response to the injury which has been done to him.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:8
Ver. 8. "But unto them that are contentious," he says. Again, he deprives of excuse those that live in wickedness, and shows that it is from a kind of disputatiousness and carelessness that they fall into unrighteousness.

"And do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness." See, here is another accusation again. For what defense can he set up, who flees from the light and chooses the dark? And he does not say, who are "compelled by," "lorded over by," but who "obey unrighteousness," that one may learn that the fall is one of free choice, the crime not of necessity.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:8
Paul deprives those who live in wickedness of any excuse and shows that it is from factiousness and carelessness that they fall into unrighteousness.… Their fall is voluntary; their crime is not of necessity.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:9
It is enough for anyone who simply accepts this to interpret it along the lines already mentioned, viz., that God will reward everyone according to his works.… But those who think that in the apostolic writings, through which Christ speaks, not one jot or tittle is superfluous will insist that it was not by accident that the apostle added “tribulation and distress” to what he had said earlier. From this a spiritually minded person will understand what the Holy Spirit is saying through Paul … that those who from a spirit of contention refuse to accept the truth but instead consort with wickedness will receive wrath and indignation, tribulation and distress, not as God’s gift but as a consequence of their own evil deeds, because they have been storing these things up for themselves.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:9
“Tribulation” refers to the punishment which the condemned sinner will suffer. Evil is not just a matter of deeds but of unbelief as well.… Paul always puts the Jew first, whether he is to be praised or blamed, because of his privileged ancestry. If he believes he will be all the more honored because of Abraham, but if he doubts he will be treated all the worse, because he has rejected the gift promised to his forefathers.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:9
That is, if a man be rich, if a consul, if a very sovereign (so Field: several manuscripts and Edd. "the emperor himself"), by none of them is the account of the judgment out-faced. Since in this dignities have no place. Having then shown the exceeding greatness of the disease, and having added the cause, that it was from the carelessness of the disordered, and finally, that destruction awaits them and that amendment is easy, in the punishment also he again gives the Jew the heavier lot. For he that had enjoyed a larger share of instruction would also deserve to undergo a larger share of vengeance if doing lawlessly. And so the wiser or mightier men we are, the more are we punished if we sin. For if you are rich, you will have more money demanded of you than of the poor; and if wiser than others, a stricter obedience; and if you have been invested with authority, more shining acts of goodness; and so in the case of all the other things, you will have to bring in measures proportioned to your power.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:9
Having shown the extreme seriousness of the disease … Paul goes on to give the Jew the greater burden in the tribulation. For the Jew has enjoyed a larger share of instruction and so also deserves to suffer a larger share of the punishment if he does wrong. The wiser or mightier we are, the more we will be punished if we sin.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:9
The apostle threatens the soul with punishment because of heretics who say that only the flesh does wrong and that the soul cannot sin. Or perhaps “soul” refers to the whole man.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 2:9
Here Paul uses the word Greek to refer not to Gentile believers but to those who lived before Christ’s incarnation.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:10
Given that Paul puts the Jews first and the Greeks second, both for punishment and for reward, we have to ask who is meant by these terms. If he meant by Jews those who are still under the law and who have not come to Christ, and by Greeks those who are Christians from among the Gentiles, it is clear that he would be going completely against the meaning of the gospel.It seems to me that the apostle has distinguished three types of people in this passage. First of all, he talks about those who are looking for glory and honor and immortality by patience in well-doing, whom God will reward with eternal life. Patience in well-doing is something which is certainly to be found in those who have endured suffering and struggle for the sake of godliness, and therefore, as we have already explained above, this must be said about Christians, among whom the martyrs are found.
But as I understand it, when Paul mentions Jews and Greeks he is talking about people who in neither case have become believers in Christ. It may happen that among those who are still under the law there will be someone who, because of pressure from his family and friends, has not believed in Christ but nevertheless does what is good, upholds righteousness, loves mercy, preserves chastity and continence, guards modesty and meekness, and does every good work. Although this person does not have eternal life—because despite the fact that he believes that there is only one true God he has not believed in his Son Jesus Christ, whom God has sent—nevertheless it may be that the glory of his works and the peace and honor which they bring may not perish.
But the Greek, that is the Gentile, if he does not have the law, is a law to himself, showing the work of the law in his heart, and motivated by natural reason, as we see that quite a few Gentiles are, either because they uphold righteousness or preserve chastity or maintain prudence, temperance and modesty. Although such a man is cut off from eternal life because he has not believed in Christ, and cannot enter the kingdom of heaven because he has not been born again of water and the Spirit, yet it appears from what the apostle says that he cannot entirely lose the glory, honor and peace of good works. For if it appears, according to what we discussed above, that the apostle condemned the Gentiles on the ground that although they knew God by their natural intelligence they did not glorify him as God, how can we not think that he can and must praise them if they recognize God by their behavior and glorify him? Therefore I do not think it can be doubted that someone who deserves to be condemned because of his evil deeds will also be considered worthy of the reward of good works if he does something good. Consider what the apostle says: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on Romans 2:10
Paul is right to put the Jew first here and then the Greek. For those who are closer to the Lord and to his rebukes are honored above others, and they enjoy their rewards more than others.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:10
Just as Paul mentioned three woes for unbelievers, so now he mentions three benefits for believers: genuine honor as sons of God, unchanging glory and peace. Those who live rightly may be quiet in the future, undisturbed by any commotion. For everyone who keeps himself from wrongdoing has a judge who will be favorable to him.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:10
What Jew does he here mean? Or about what Gentiles is he discoursing? It is of those before Christ's coming. For his discourse had not hitherto come to the times of grace, but he was still dwelling upon the earlier times, so breaking down first from afar off and clearing away the separation between the Greek and the Jew, that when he should do this in the matter of grace, he might no more seem to be devising some new and degrading view. For if in the earlier times when this Grace had not shone forth in such greatness, when the estate of the Jews was solemn and renowned and glorious before all men, there was no difference, what could they say for themselves (τίνα ἂν ἔχοιεν λόγον εἰπεἵν;) now after so great a display of grace? And this is why he establishes it with so great earnestness. For when the hearer has been informed that this held in the earlier times, much more will he receive it after the faith. But by Greeks he here means not them that worshipped idols, but them that adored God, that obeyed the law of nature, that strictly kept all things, save the Jewish observances, which contribute to piety, such as were Melchizedek and his (οἱ περὶ), such as was Job, such as were the Ninevites, such as was Cornelius. Here then he is first breaking through the partition between the circumcision and the uncircumcision: and at a distance dissipates this distinction beforehand, so as to do it without being suspected, and to strike into it as compelled by another occasion, which is ever a characteristic of his Apostolic wisdom. For if he had showed it in the times of grace, what he said would have had a very suspicious look. But on describing the vice which possessed the world, and where end the ways of wickedness, to pass from that consecutively into the treatment of these points renders his teaching unsuspected. And that he means this, and for this purpose so put this together, is plain from hence: for if he were not intent upon effecting this, it were enough for him to have said, "According to your hardness and impenitent heart you store up unto yourself wrath against the day of wrath;" and then to have dropped this subject, since it would have been complete. But in that what he had in view was not to speak of the judgment to come only, but to show also that the Jew had no advantage of such a Greek, and so was not to be haughty-spirited, he advances farther, and speaks of them in order. But consider! He had put the hearer in fear, had advanced against him the fearful day, had told him what an evil it is to be living in wickedness, had showed him that no man sins of ignorance, nor with impunity, but that even though he suffer no punishment now, yet he certainly will suffer it: then he wishes to make good next that the teaching of the Law was not a thing of great importance. For it is upon works that both punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision and uncircumcision. Since then he had said, that the Gentile shall by no means go unpunished and had taken this for granted, and upon it had made good that he shall also be rewarded, he next showed the Law and circumcision to be superfluous. For it is the Jews that he is here chiefly opposing. For inasmuch as they were somewhat captiously disposed, first, of their haughtiness, not deigning to be reckoned along with the Gentiles, and secondly thinking it ridiculous if the faith is to do away all sins; for this cause he accused the Gentiles first, in whose behalf he is speaking, that without suspicion and with boldness of speech, he may attack the Jews. And then having come to the enquiry concerning the punishment, he shows that the Jew is so far from being at all profited by the Law, that he is even weighed down by it. And this was his drift some way back. For if the Gentile be on this score inexcusable, because, when the creation led him on and his own reasonings, he yet did not amend, much more were the Jew so, who besides these had the teaching of the Law also. Having then persuaded him to a ready admission of these reasonings, in the case of other men's sins, he now compels him even against his will to do so in the case of his own. And in order that what he says may be more readily allowed, he leads him forward with the better things also in view, speaking on this wise: "But glory and honor and peace to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." For here whatever good things a man has, he has with fightings, even if he be rich, if a prince, if a king. Even if he be not at variance with others, yet is he often so with himself, and has abundant war in his own thoughts. But there it is no such thing, but all is still and void of trouble, and in possession of true peace.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:10
Which Jews and Greeks is Paul talking about here? Those before Christ’s coming! For he has not yet gotten to the time of grace in the development of his argument but is still dwelling on earlier times.… For if there was no difference before, … how can there be any now? This is why he puts so much emphasis on this point.When referring here to Greeks, Paul does not mean those who worshiped idols but those who adored God, who obeyed the law of nature, who kept all the commandments without fail apart from the Jewish observances, which contribute toward godliness. Melchizedek was one of these people, and so were Job, the Ninevites and Cornelius.
It is on works that punishment and reward depend, not on circumcision and uncircumcision. Paul has already said that the Gentile will not go unpunished, … and on this basis he said also that the Gentile would be rewarded. Now he shows that the law and circumcision are superfluous. For in this passage it is the Jews that he is mainly opposing.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:10
Glory is opposed to wrath and honor to displeasure. What Paul called “immortality” above he calls “peace” here. The word first is emphatic and means “indeed,” because God does not play favorites. Or it may mean first in time but not in honor.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 2:10
God did not promise eternal life to those who worshiped idols but to those who even apart from the law led a Mosaic life, embraced godliness and the worship of God, and were concerned about righteousness.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:11
Anyone who doubts this needs only read what Peter said when he went to visit the Gentile Cornelius: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” We might go even farther and quote what our Lord says in the Gospel: “he who believes in me is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 311] Peter of Alexandria on Romans 2:11
Knowing, says he, that our and their Master is in heaven; and that there is no respect of persons with Him.
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:11
Paul shows that neither Jews nor Greeks will be rejected by God if they believe in Christ, but that both are justified by faith. Likewise, he says that those who do not believe are equally guilty, since circumcision without faith is worthless but uncircumcision with faith is acceptable. For God does not stick to any privilege of race, so as to accept unbelief on account of ancestors and reject believers because of the unworthiness of their parents. Rather he rewards or condemns each one on his own merits.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:11
For when he says that as well the Jew as the Gentile is punished if he sin, he needs no reasonings: but when he wants to prove that the Gentile is honored also, he then needs a foundation for it also; as it seemed wonderful and extravagant if he who had heard neither Law nor Prophets, were to be honored upon his working good. And this is why (as I also said before) he exercises their hearing in the times before grace, that he might afterwards more treatably bring in, along with the faith, the acquiescence in these things also. For here he is not at all suspected, as seeming not to be making his own point good. Having then said, "Glory and honor and peace to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile," he adds, "For there is no respect of persons with God." Wonderful! What more than victory has he gained! For he shows, by reducing it to an absurdity, that it was not meet with God that it should be otherwise. For it would then be a case of respecting of persons. But of such character God is not. And he does not say, "for if this were not so, God would be a respecter of persons," but with more of dignity, "For there is no respect of persons with God." That it is not quality of persons, but difference of actions. Which He makes inquisition for. By so saying he shows that it was not in actions but in persons only that the Jew differed from the Gentile. The consequence of this would be thus expressed; For it is not because one is a Jew and the other a Gentile, that one is honored and the other disgraced, but it is from the works that either treatment comes. But he does not say so, since it would have roused the anger of the Jew, but he sets down something more, so bringing their haughty spirit yet lower, and quelling it for the admission of the other. But what is this? The next position.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:11
When Paul says that Jews as well as Gentiles will be punished if they sin, he does not have to argue his case. But when he wants to prove that the Gentile is honored, then he needs a reason for saying so, because it seemed too much to say that someone who knew nothing of the Law or the Prophets would be honored merely for doing good.… God shows no partiality toward persons; he judges actions. Paul says that Jews differed from Gentiles, not in their actions but in their persons only. But it is not for this reason that one is honored and the other disgraced. It is from their works that honor or disgrace will come. He does not say it quite like this though, so as not to rouse the Jews to anger.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 420] Jerome on Romans 2:11
We are all born equal, emperors and paupers, and we die as equals. Our humanity is of one quality.

Source: HOMILES ON THE PSALMS 14
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 2:12
1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter,

Source: Against Heresies Book IV
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:12
If, then, God will judge the secrets of men-both of those who have sinned in the law, and of those who have sinned without law (inasmuch as they who know not the law yet do by nature the things contained in the law) -surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule to them who know not the law.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:12
When the apostle says that those who are without the law will perish without the law, the question arises as to whether this should be understood only of the law of Moses or whether it should be extended to cover the law of Christ or even some other law under which mortal men may live. Will such a person be judged according to the law under which he has sinned, or will he perish as if he were outside the law because he is outside the law of Moses, even if he lives under some other law? For the apostle Paul himself, when he speaks to those who are outside the law, says that he too is virtually outside the law but adds: “I am not without law, but I am in the law of Christ,” thus showing that although he may not be under the law of Moses he is nevertheless still under law. But whether human laws also belong to this category remains to be seen.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 2:12
Paul to the Romans: "As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged also by the law."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 380] Apostolic Constitutions on Romans 2:12
As many as have sinned in law shall be judged according to law, and as many as have sinned without law shall perish without law.

Source: CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:12
How can someone sin without the law, when Paul says that everyone is subject to the law of nature? By “law” he means the law of Moses, to which the Jews are bound although they do not believe. The Gentiles are also under the judgment of the natural law, but only insofar as they have chosen not to attach themselves to it. Thus the Gentile unbelievers are doubly in trouble, because they have neither assented to the law given through Moses, nor have they received the grace of Christ. Therefore it is quite right that they should perish. So just as the person who sins without the law will perish, so also the one who has kept the law without knowing it will be justified. For the keeper of the law maintains his righteousness by nature. For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal.The Gentiles even if they keep the natural law will perish if they do not accept the faith of Christ. For it is a greater thing to confess faith in the one Lord, since God is one, than it is to avoid sinning (for the first of these has to do with God, the second with us). The Jews who live under the law will be accused and judged by the law, insofar as they have not accepted the Christ promised to them in the law. And if you wonder about this, the fate of the Jews will be worse than that of the Gentiles, for it is worse to lose what was promised than not to receive what was not hoped for in the first place. The unbelieving Gentile has not entered the kingdom of God, but the unbelieving Jew has been removed from it.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:12
For here, as I said before, he shows not only the equality of the Jew and the Gentile, but that the Jew was even much burdened by the gift of the Law. For the Gentile is judged without law. But this "without law" (Gr. lawlessly) here expresses not the worse plight but the easier, that is, he has not the Law to accuse him. For "without law" (that is, without the condemnation arising from it), is he condemned solely from the reasonings of nature, but the Jew, "in the Law," that is, with nature and the Law too to accuse him. For the greater the attention he enjoyed, the greater the punishment he will suffer. See how much greater is the necessity which he lays upon the Jews of a speedy recourse to grace! For in that they said, they needed not grace, being justified by the Law, he shows that they need it more than the Gentiles, considering they are liable to be punished more. Then he adds another reason again, and so farther contends for what has been said.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:12
Paul says that the Jews have a much greater need of grace than the Gentiles. Because the Jews said that they were justified by the law and therefore did not need grace, Paul shows that they need it even more than the Gentiles, given that they are liable to be punished more severely.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:12
Those who lived before the giving of the law will not receive the same sentence as those after the law. Those sinning after the giving of the law will undergo heavier penalties.

Source: HOMILIES ON GENESIS 18.2
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:12
“Will perish” means the same thing as “will be judged,” for the man who perishes perishes by God’s judgment, and the man who is judged a sinner perishes. Paul puts Jews and Gentiles on the same level when he says that doers rather than hearers of the law are righteous and then adds that the Gentiles will be judged on the day of the Lord. For does anyone doubt that those under the law will perish just as those who lived without the law, unless they have believed in Christ?

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 420] Jerome on Romans 2:12
The ungodly without the law shall perish forever. But the sinner under the law who comes to faith in God will not perish.

Source: Against the Pelagians 1.28
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 2:12
So as not to appear to be condemning them out of hatred Paul has repeated himself here, saying that those who have sinned without the law will perish without the law and that those under the law will be judged by the law.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:12
It is generally agreed that judgment is the usual expression for eternal damnation.

Source: FAITH AND WORKS 23.43
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:12
The apostle did not mean to say that those who sin in ignorance will suffer worse punishment than those who know the law. It seems that it is worse to perish than to be judged. Rather the apostle here was merely distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles.

Source: GRACE AND FREE WILL 2.5
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:13
For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest.

Source: On Exhortation to Chastity
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 2:13
That we must labour not with words, but with deeds. In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: "Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds useless and remiss." And Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." Also to the Romans: "Not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "He who shall do and teach so, shall be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Also in the same place: "Every one who heareth my words, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house upon a rock. The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one who heareth my words, and doeth them not, I will liken him to the foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and its ruin became great."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on Romans 2:13
This is not the perfect righteousness according to Christ. About that, Paul says: “By works of the law shall no one be justified.”

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:13
Paul says this because those who hear the law are not justified unless they believe in Christ, whom the law itself has promised. This is what it means to keep the law. For how does someone who does not believe the law keep it, when he does not receive the One to whom the law bears witness? But the one who appears not to be under the law because he is uncircumcised in his flesh, if he believes in Christ, may be said to have kept the law. And he who says he is in the law, i.e., the Jew, because what is said in the law does not penetrate to his mind, is not a doer of the law but a hearer only, for he does not believe in the Christ who is written about in the law, as Philip said to Nathanael: “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:13
Well does he add "before God;" for haply before men they may be able to appear dignified and to vaunt great things, but before God it is quite otherwise — the doers of the Law alone are justified. You see with what advantage he combats, by turning what they said to an opposite bearing. For if it is by the Law you claim to be saved, in this respect, says he, the Gentile will stand before you, when seen to be a doer of what is written in the Law. And how is it possible (one may say) for one who has not heard to be a doer? Not this only, he says, is possible, but what is much more even than this. For not only is it possible without hearing to be a doer, but even with hearing not to be so. Which last thing he makes plainer, and that with a greater advantage over them, when he says, "You that teaches another, do you not teach yourself?" [Romans 2:21] But here he is still making the former point good.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:13
Well does Paul say “before God,” because if they may appear before men to be dignified and to boast of great things, before God it is quite different: only the doers of the law are justified before him.… But how is it possible for someone who has not heard to be a doer of the law? Paul insists not only that it is possible but that those who have heard it might not be doers of it.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:13
What benefit is it if, while listening each day, we neglect to practice what we hear? Hence I beseech you, let us be zealous in practicing those very deeds (by no other way, in fact, is it possible to be saved) so that we may also wash away our sins and be granted the Lord’s lovingkindness at his own hands, thanks to the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Source: HOMILIES ON GENESIS 47.18
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 2:13
210. After confuting the human judgment with which the Gentiles and Jews judged one another and commending God’s judgment [n. 169], the Apostle now undertakes to show that the things in which the Jews gloried do not suffice for their salvation. First, he states his position; secondly, he answers arguments against his position, in chapter 3, there [n. 246] at Then what advantage has the Jew? The Jews gloried in two things, namely, the Law and circumcision, which stemmed not from the Law but from the patriarchs, as stated in John 7(:22). First, therefore, he shows that the Jewish Law heard or accepted was not enough for salvation; secondly, he shows the same about circumcision, there [v. 25; n. 237] at Circumcision indeed. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth his position; secondly, he clarifies it, there [v. 14; n. 213] at For when Gentiles. 211. In regard to the first he sets forth two things: one by rejecting; the other by asserting. For he rejects the Jewish opinion that they were made righteous by merely hearing the Law. Hence he says: I have said that all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law, for it is not the hearers of the law, i.e., in virtue of having heard the Law, who are righteous before God, even if they are deemed righteous before men: "Every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man" 111 (Mt 7:26); "If anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror..." (Jas 1:23). Secondly, he declares that the doers of the Law are righteous, when he says, but the doers of the law will be justified: "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man" (Mt 7:24); "Be doers of the word and not hearers only" (Jas 1:22); "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). 212. But this point seems to conflict with his own statement below (3:20) that "no human being will be justified in his sight by the works of the law." Consequently, no one is justified precisely for doing the works of the Law. The answer is that justification can be taken in three ways: in one way, in regard to reputation; then one is said to be justified, when he is regarded as just: "You have made your sisters appear justified," i.e., by reputation (Ez 16:51). In this sense, the doers of the law are justified, i.e., are considered just before God and men. Secondly, by doing what is just: "This man went down to his home justified" (Lk 18:14), because the publican performed a work of justice by confessing his sin. In this way is verified the statement that the doers of the law will be justified, i.e., by performing the justices of the Law. In a third way justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice, so that a person is said to be justified, when he newly receives justice, as in (5:1): "Since we are justified by faith, we are at peace with God." It must not be supposed, however, that the doers of the Law are justified as though acquiring justice through the works of the Law. This cannot be accomplished either by the ceremonial works, which confer no 112 justifying grace, or by the moral works, from which the habit of justice is not acquired; rather, we do such works in virtue of an infused habit of justice. 213. Then when he says For when Gentiles who (v.14) he clarifies his position. First, he shows that doers of the Law are justified even without being hearers; secondly, that hearers of the Law are not justified without observing the Law, there [v. 17; n. 224] at But if you are called a Jew. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the worthiness of those who observe the Law without having heard it; secondly, he clarifies what he had said, there [v. 15; n. 218] at They show that what the law requires; thirdly, he proves it, there [v. 15b; n. 219] at while their conscience also bears witness. 214. In regard to the first he touches on three things relating to the Gentiles [nn. 215, 217]. First, their lack of the Law, saying, when Gentiles who do not have the law, namely, the divine, which they have not received. For the Law was not delivered to the Gentiles but to the Jews: "The law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob" (Si 24:24); "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20); "When Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob" (Dt 33:4). From this it is clear that the Gentiles did not sin by not observing the ceremonies of the Law. 113 215. Secondly, he commends their observance of law, when he says, they do by nature what the law requires, i.e., the moral precepts, which flow from a dictate of natural reason. Thus Job (1:1) was blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. Hence he himself says: "My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his ways" (Jb 23:11). 216. But the expression, by nature, causes some difficulty. For it seems to favor the Pelagians, who taught that man could observe all the precepts of the Law by his own natural powers. Hence, by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of Gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the Law by the help of Christ’s grace. Or by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in Ps 4 (v.6): "There are many who say, ‘Who shows us good things!’ The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us," i.e., the light of natural reason, in which is God’s image. All this does not rule out the need of grace to move the affections any more than the knowledge of sin through the Law (Rom 3:20) exempts from the need of grace to move the affections. 217. Thirdly, he shows their worth in that they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, inasmuch as they function as a law to themselves by instructing and inducing themselves to the good, because the Philosopher says: Law is a statement laying down an obligation and proceeding from prudence and understanding (Eth. 11). Therefore, it says in 1 Tim (l:9) that "the law is not laid down for the just," who is not compelled by a law outside of him, "but for the lawless," who need to be compelled from without. 114 It is, of course, the highest level of greatness among men, when they are induced toward the good not by others but by themselves. The second level belongs to those who are induced by others but without force. The third belongs to those who need to be forced to do good. The fourth belongs to those who cannot be directed to the good even by force: "In vain have I smitten your children; they took no correction" (Jer 2:30). 218. Then when he says They show (v. 15) he explains how they are a law to themselves. This can be likened to a law presented to man from without and which it is customary to deliver in writing on account of the memory’s weakness; whereas, those who observe the law without externally hearing the law show that what the law requires is written "not with ink, but" first and chiefly "with the Spirit of the living God" (2 Cor 3:3), and secondly through study: "Write them on the tablet of your heart" (Pr 3:3), i.e., the precepts of wisdom. Hence, here, too, he continues, on their hearts, not on parchment or on stone or copper tablets: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts" (Jer 31:33). 219. Then when he says their conscience also bearing witness (v.15) he proves his statement that the work of the Law is written in their hearts by citing actions which announce its presence. First [cf. n. 222], he mentions those actions, one of which is the witness of conscience. He touches on this when he says, while their conscience also bears witness, conscience being the application of one’s knowledge in judging whether some action was good or bad to do. 115 Hence, this conscience sometimes gives testimony of good: "Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience" (2 Cor 1:12); and sometimes of evil: "Your conscience knows that many times you have yourself cursed others" (Ec 7:23). However, no one can testify that an action is good or bad, unless he has knowledge of the Law. Hence, if conscience bears witness about good or evil, this is a clear sign that the work of the Law has been written in the man’s heart. 220. Another function is to accuse and defend. Here, too, knowledge of the Law is required. In regard to this he says, and their conflicting thoughts accuse [accusantium] or perhaps excuse [defendentium], i.e., accusantibus or defendentibus, following the Greek practice whereby a genitive is used in place of an ablative. And these are conflicting. For an accusing thought in regard to some action arises in a man, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted evilly: "Mow I rebuke you and lay the charge before you" (Ps 50:21); "The show of their countenance witnesses against them" (Is 3:9). But sometimes a defending thought arises, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted well: "My heart does not reproach me for any of my days" (Jb 27:6). Between this accusation and defense the testimony of conscience has the final say. 221. This passage, their conscience bears witness, can be interpreted in another way, so that there is consciousness not only of one’s deeds but also of thoughts; but the first is better. 222. But because testimony, accusation, and defense occur during a trial, he mentions the time, when he says, on that day. He says this not to designate the quality of 116 the time but the disclosure of things hidden: "I will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness" (1 Cor 4:5). Yet it is sometimes called night on account of the uncertainty of that hour: "At midnight there was a cry" (Mt 25:6). The accusing or defending thoughts are not those which will arise on the day of judgment, because on that day each one’s salvation or damnation will be clear to him; rather, such thoughts as exist now and the testimony of conscience that exists now will be represented to a man on that day by divine power, as Augustine says in book 2 of The City of God. Indeed, the recognition of those thoughts that remain in the soul seems to be nothing lees, as a Gloss says, than the debt of punishment or the reward, which follow them. 223. Then he shows the author of the judgment, when he says, when God judges: "He will judge the world with righteousness" (Ps 96:13). He also describes what the judgment will concern, when he says, the secrets of men, matters about which men cannot now judges. "He will bring to light the thing now hidden in darkness" (1 Cor 4:5). He also shows the teaching from which faith in this judgment is had when he says, according to my gospel, i.e., preaching by me: "On the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word" (Mt 12:36). He says, according to my gospel, although he could not say, "my baptism," and be a minister of both, because in baptism a man’s diligence effects nothing, but in preaching 117 the Gospel the preacher’s industry achieves something: "When you read this you can perceive my insight in the mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:4) Then he mentions the judge, when he says, by Christ Jesus, Who has been appointed by God to be "judge of the living and the dead" (Ac 10:42); "The Father has given all judgment to the Son" (Jn 5:20), Who will appear to the good and the wicked during the judgment: to the good in the glory of the godhead: "Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17), but to the wicked in His human form: "Every eye will see him" (Rev 1:7).
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 2:14
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; uncircumcision observing the precepts of the law".

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book I
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:14
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature.

Source: De Corona
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:14
The Gentiles need not keep the sabbaths or the new moons or the sacrifices which are written down in the law. For this law is not what is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. Rather it is that which can be discerned naturally, e.g., that they should not kill or commit adultery, that they should not steal nor bear false witness, that they should honor father and mother, etc. It may well be that since God is the one Creator of all, these things are written on the hearts of the Gentiles.… For the natural law may agree with the law of Moses in the spirit, if not in the letter. For how would anyone understand by nature that a child should be circumcised on the eighth day? … But we who feel that such things must be understood in a spiritual sense believe that we are not merely hearers of the law but doers of it also, being justified not according to the letter of the law, which in any case is so difficult that nobody could ever do it correctly, but according to the Spirit, which is the only way the law can ever be kept. This then is the work of the law which the apostle says even the Gentiles can fulfill. So when they do what the law says, it seems that they have the law written on their hearts by God, “not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on Romans 2:14
"Who that is acquainted with the mystery of God could so significantly relate the law of God, as a man far removed from the knowledge of the truth has set forth that law? But I consider that they who speak true things unconsciously are to be so regarded as though they prophesied
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:14
Paul calls the Gentiles Christians because he is the teacher of the Gentiles, as he says elsewhere: “For I speak to you Gentiles.” These people are uncircumcised and do not keep new moons or the sabbath or the law of foods, yet under the guidance of nature they believe in God and in Christ, i.e., in the Father and the Son. To keep the law is to acknowledge the God who gives the law. This is the first part of wisdom: to stand in awe of God the Father, from whom all things come, and the Lord Jesus his Son, through whom all things come. Therefore nature itself acknowledges its Creator by its own judgment, not by the law but by reason, for the creature recognizes its Maker in itself.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on Romans 2:14
The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts. There is therefore something like the law of God which exists in the hearts of men.

Source: PARADISE 8.39
[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on Romans 2:14
If men had been able to keep the natural law which God the Creator planted in the breast of each one, there would have been no need of that law which, written on stone tablets, enmeshed and entangled the weakness of human nature rather than freed and liberated it.

Source: LETTER 83
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:14
I am not, he means, rejecting the Law, but even on this score I justify the Gentiles. You see how when undermining the conceit of Judaism, he gives no handle against himself as villifying the Law, but on the contrary by extolling it and showing its greatness he so makes good his whole position. But whenever he says "by nature," he means by the reasonings of nature. And he shows that others are better than they, and, what is more better for this, that they have not received the Law, and have not that wherein the Jews seem to have an advantage over them. For on this ground he means they are to be admired, because they required not a law, and yet exhibited all the doings of the Law, having the works, not the letters, graven upon their minds.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:14
When Paul is challenging the pride of Judaism, he is careful not to appear to be condemning the law as such. On the contrary, by extolling the law and showing its greatness he makes good his whole position. When he says “by nature” he means “by the reasoning of nature.” He shows that the Gentiles are on better footing than the Jews. They have not received the law and therefore do not have what seems to give the Jews an advantage over them. For this reason Paul says the Gentiles are to be admired, because they did not need a law, but did all the things which were written in the law, having its works but not its letters engraved on their minds.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:14
Paul is referring either to those who were righteous before the law or to those who even now are doing some good. He shows that the Gentiles are not without any kind of law in order to leave them with no excuse and to take away the glory which the Jews had by their possession of the law.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:15
“Written on their hearts” should not be taken too literally. What Paul calls the heart is the rational faculty of the soul.It is also necessary to discuss what Paul means by the word conscience. Is it something distinguishable from the heart or from the soul?… Conscience is the spirit which the apostle says is with the soul, according to which we have been instructed in the higher things. This spirit or conscience is linked to the soul as a teacher and guide to point out what things are best and to reprove and condemn faults. The apostle was speaking of it when he said: “What person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:15
The meaning here is that those who believe under the guidance of nature do the work of the law not through the letter but through their conscience. For the work of the law is faith, which, although it is fully revealed in the Word of God, also shows itself to be a law for the natural judgment. Faith goes beyond what the law commands. Faith trusts in Christ. These people believe because of the inner witness of their conscience, because they know in their conscience that what they believe is right. It is not disjunctive for the creature to believe and worship his Creator, nor is it absurd for the servant to recognize his Lord.Unbelieving Gentiles will be judged first of all by other believing Gentiles, just as the Lord said that his disciples would judge the unbelieving Jews: “They themselves will be your judges.” The unbelief of the Jews will be judged by the faith of the apostles who, although Jews themselves, believed in Christ while the rest of their people rejected him. Similarly the Gentiles will be accused by their own thoughts if, touched by the faith and power of the Creator, they refuse to believe. But if because of some foolishness a man does not think to believe the words or deeds of the Lord, his conscience will defend him on the day of judgment, because he did not think that he was obliged to believe. He will be judged not as an intentional malefactor but as one who was merely ignorant.… It is Christians to whom Paul is referring when he speaks of accusing and excusing on the day of judgment. Those who differ from the true church, either because they think differently about Christ or because they disagree about the meaning of the Bible in the tradition of the church (e.g., Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists and other heretics) will be accused by their own thoughts on the day of judgment. Likewise one who recognizes that the Christian faith is true but refuses to follow it so as not to appear that he has been corrected and who is ashamed to depart from what he has so long held will be accused by his own thoughts on the day of judgment.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:15
Conscience and reason take the place of the law. By saying this, Paul showed that God made persons independent, giving them the freedom to choose virtue and avoid vice. Do not be surprised that he proves this point, not once or twice but several times. He had to do this in order to counter those who said: “Why did Christ delay his coming so long? Where was this great scheme of providence before Christ came?” … But even before the law was given the human race enjoyed the care of providence.Why does Paul insert the words accuse or perhaps excuse? If they have a written law and do what it says, how can their thoughts still accuse them? Paul is not speaking here of the righteous only but of all mankind. For then our thoughts do pass judgment, some excusing us and others accusing. And at that tribunal, one needs no other accuser.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:15-16
See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. But what is most to be marvelled at in the discretion of the Apostle, it is worth while to mention now. For having shown, from the grounds given, that the Gentile is greater than the Jew; in the inference, and the conclusion of his reasoning, he does not state it, in order not to exasperate the Jew. But to make what I have said clearer, I will give the very words of the Apostle. For after saying, that it is not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of the Law, that shall be justified, it followed to say, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law," they are much better than those who are instructed by the Law. But this he does not say, but he stays at the encomium of the Gentiles, and does not yet awhile carry on his discourse by way of comparison, that so at least the Jew may receive what is said. And so he does not word it as I was doing, but how? "For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the Law, written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." For the conscience and reason does suffice in the Law's stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. And be not surprised that he proves this point, not once or twice, but several times. For this topic was very needful for him to prove owing to those who say, Why ever is it, that Christ came but now? And where in times before was the (most manuscripts this mighty) scheme of Providence? Now it is these that he is at present beating off by the way, when he shows that even in former times, and before the Law was given, the human race (Gr. nature) fully enjoyed the care of Providence. For "that which may be known of God was manifest in them," and they knew what was good, and what bad; by means whereof they judged others, which he reproaches them with, when he says, "wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself." But in the case of the Jews, besides what has been mentioned, there was the Law, and not reason or conscience only. And why does he put the words "accusing or else excusing?"— for, if they have a Law written, and show the work of it in them, how comes reason to be able to accuse them still? But he is not any longer speaking of those only who do well, but also of mankind (Gr. the nature) universally. For then our reasonings stand up, some accusing and some excusing. And at that tribunal a man needs no other accuser. Then to add to their fear, he does not say the sins of men, but the secrets of men. For since he said, "Do you think, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that you shall escape the judgment of God;" that you may not expect such a sentence as you pass yourself, but may know, that that of God is far more exact than your own, he brings in, "the secrets of men," and adds, "through Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." For men sit in judgment upon overt acts alone. And above too he spoke of the Father alone, but as soon as he had crushed them with fear, he brought in the mention of Christ also. But he does not do barely this, but even here, after having made mention of the Father, he so introduces Him. And by the same things he raises the dignity of his preaching. For this preaching, he means, openly speaks out what nature taught by anticipation. Do you see with what wisdom he has bound them both to the Gospel and to Christ, and demonstrated that our affairs come not here to a stand, but travel further. And this he made good before also, when he said, "you store up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath:" and here again, "God shall judge the secrets of men."

Now let each man enter into his own conscience, and reckoning up his transgressions, let him call himself to a strict account, that we be not then condemned with the world. [1 Corinthians 11:32] For fearful is that court, awful the tribunal, full of trembling the accounts, a river of fire rolls along (ἕ λκεται). "A brother does not redeem: shall man redeem?" [Psalm 49:8, Septuagint] Call then to mind what is said in the Gospel, the Angels running to and fro, of the bridechamber being shut, of the lamps going out, of the powers which drag to the furnaces. And consider this, that if a secret deed of any one of us were brought forth into the midst, today, before the Church only, what could he do but pray to perish, and to have the earth to gape for him, rather than have so many witnesses of his wickedness? How then shall we feel, when, before the whole world, all things are brought into the midst, in a theatre so bright and open, with both those known and those unknown to us seeing into everything? But alas! Wherewith am I forced to affright you! With men's estimation! When I ought to use the fear of God, and His condemnation. For what, pray, is to become of us then when bound, and gnashing our teeth, we are led away to the outer darkness? Or, rather, what shall we do (and this is the most fearful thought of all) when we offend (προσκρούσωμεν) God? For if any one have sense and reason, he has already endured a hell when he is out of sight of God. But since this does not pain, fire is therefore threatened. For we ought to smart not when we are punished, but when we sin. Thus listen to Paul wailing and lamenting over sins, for which he was not to be punished. For "I am not meet," he says, "to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church." [1 Corinthians 15:9] Hear also David, when he is set free from the punishment, yet, as thinking that he had offended God, calling vengeance down upon himself, and saying, "Let your hand be upon me and upon my father's house." [2 Samuel 24:17] For to have offended God is more distressing than to be punished. But now we are so wretchedly disposed, that, were there no fear of hell, we should not even choose readily to do any good thing. Wherefore were it for nothing else, yet for this at least, we should deserve hell, because we fear hell more than Christ (several manuscripts. God). But not so the blessed Paul, but contrariwise. But since we feel otherwise, for this reason are we condemned to hell: since, did we but love Christ as we should love Him, we should have known that to offend Him we love were more painful than hell. But since we love Him not, we know not the greatness of His punishment. And this is what I bewail and grieve over the most! And yet what has God not done, to be beloved of us? What has He not devised? What has He omitted? We insulted Him, when He had not wronged us in anything, but had even benefited us with blessings countless and unspeakable. We have turned aside from Him when calling and drawing us to Him by all ways, yet has He not even upon this punished us, but has run Himself unto us, and held us back, when fleeing, and we have shaken Him off and leaped away to the Devil. And not even on this has He stood aloof, but has sent numberless messengers to call us to Him again, Prophets, Angels, Patriarchs: and we have not only not received the embassy, but have even insulted those that came. But not even for this did He spew us out of His mouth, but like those slighted lovers that be very earnest, He went round beseeching all, the heaven, the earth, Jeremiah, Micah, and that not that He might weigh us down, but that He might speak in behalf of His own ways [Micah 6:1]: and along with the prophets He went also Himself to those that turned aside from Him, being ready to submit to examination, and deigning to condescend to a conference, and drawing them that were deaf to every appeal into a disputation with Himself. For He says, "O my people, what have I done unto you, and wherein have I wearied you? Answer me." [Micah 6:3] After all this we killed the Prophets, we stoned them, we did them other cruel wrongs without number. What then? In their place He sent no longer Prophets, no longer Angels, no longer Patriarchs, but the Son Himself. He too was killed when He had come, and yet not even then did He quench His love, but kindled it even more, and keeps on beseeching us, after even His own Son was killed, and entreating us, and doing all things to turn us unto Himself. And Paul cries aloud, saying, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: be ye reconciled to God." [2 Corinthians 5:20] None of these things however reconciled us. Yet not even then did He leave us, but keeps on both threatening hell, and promising a kingdom, that even so He may draw us unto Himself. But we be still in an insensible mood. What can be worse than this brutishness? For had a man done these things, should we not many times over have let ourselves become slaves to him? But God when doing so we turn us away from! O what listlessness! O what unfeelingness! We that live continually in sins and wickednesses, if we happen to do any little good, like unfeeling domestics, with what a niggardly spirit do we exact it, and how particular are we about the recompense made, if what we have done has any recompense to come of it. And yet the recompense is the greater if you do it without any hope of reward. Why saying all this, and making exact reckoning, is language fitter for an hireling than a domestic of willing mind. For we ought to do everything for Christ's sake, not for the reward, but for Him. For this also was why He threatened hell and promised the kingdom, that He might be loved of us. Let us then so love Him as we ought to love Him. For this is the great reward, this is royalty and pleasure, this is enjoyment, and glory, and honor, this is light, this is the great happiness, which language (or reasoning) cannot set before us, nor mind conceive. Yet indeed I do not know how I was led so far in this way of speaking, and came to be exhorting men who do not even think slightly of power and glory here for Christ's sake, to think slightly of the kingdom. Yet still those great and noble men even attained to this measure of love. Hear, for instance, how Peter burns with love towards Him, setting Him before soul, and life, and all things. And when he had denied Him, it was not the punishment he was grieved for, but that he had denied Him Whom he longed for, which was more bitter to him than any punishment. And all this did he show before the grace of the Spirit was given. And he perseveringly pressed the question, "Where are you going?" [John 13:36] and before this; "To whom shall we go?" [John 6:67]; and again; "I will follow You wherever You go." [Luke 22:33?] Thus He was all things to them, and neither heaven nor the kingdom of heaven did they count of, in comparison of Him they longed for. For You are all these things unto me, he means. And why doest thou marvel that Peter was so minded? Hear now what the Prophet says: "What have I in heaven, and what is there upon earth, that I should desire in comparison of You?" [Psalm 73:25] Now what he means is nearly this. Neither of things above nor of things below desire I any, save You only. This is passion; this is love. Can we so love, it will not be things present only, but even things to come, which we shall reckon as nothing compared with that love-charm, and even here shall we enjoy the Kingdom, delighting ourselves in the love of Him. And how is this to be? One may say. Let us reflect how oft we insult Him after numberless goodnesses, yet He stands and calls us to Him, and how often we run by Him, but He still does not overlook us, but runs to us, and draws us to Him, and catches us in unto Himself. For if we consider these things, and such as these, we shall be enabled to kindle this longing. For if it were a common man that so loved, but a king who was thus beloved, would he not feel a respect for the greatness of the love? Most assuredly he would. But when the case is reversed, and His Beauty (S. "that beauty") is unspeakable, and the glory and the riches too of Him that loves us, and our vileness so great, surely we deserve the utmost punishment, vile as we are and outcasts, who are treated with so exceeding great love by One so great and wonderful, and yet wax wanton against His love? He needs not anything of ours, and yet He does not even now cease loving us. We need much what is His, and for all that we cleave not unto His love, but money we value above Him, and man's friendship, and ease of body, and power, and fame, before Him who values nothing more than us. For He had One Son, Very (Lit. "true-born") and Only-Begotten, and He spared not even Him for us. But we value many things above Him. Were there not then good reason for a hell and torment, even were it twofold or threefold or manifold what it is? For what can we have to say for ourselves, if even Satan's injunctions we value more than the Laws of Christ, and are reckless of our own salvation that we may choose the works of wickedness, before Him who suffered all things for us? And what pardon do these things deserve? What excuse have they? Not one even. (5 manuscripts οὐδὲ μιἵς.) Let us stop then after this in our headlong course, and let us grow again sober; and reckoning up all these things, let us send up glory unto Him by our works (for words alone suffice not thereto), that we may also enjoy the glory that comes of Him, which may we all attain unto by the grace and love toward man of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom, and with Whom, to the Father be glory, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

Source: Homily 5 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:15
Nature produces a law in their hearts through the witness of their conscience. Or it may mean that the conscience testifies to the fact that it has its own law, because even if the sinner is afraid of no one the conscience is worried when he sins and rejoices when that sin is overcome.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:15
Compare this with 1 John [3:20]: “Dearly beloved, if our own hearts condemn us, God is greater than our conscience.”

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 10
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:16
If God will judge the secrets of men … surely the God who will judge is he to whom belong both the law and that nature which is the rule for those who do not know the law. But how will he conduct this judgment? “According to my gospel,” says the apostle, “by Christ Jesus.” The law and nature are vindicated by the gospel and Christ.

Source: AGAINST MARCION 5.13
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:16
Now he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ." Now who was it that said; "Let there be light? " And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles" -to them, that is, "who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death? " (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:16
Who can doubt that a trial is properly conducted when there are accusers and defenders and witnesses all present?… See therefore how on that day, when God will judge the secrets of men, our thoughts will either accuse or defend our soul—not the thoughts which we will have then but the ones which we have now.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on Romans 2:16
Men sit as judges of the external things only. It is God who judges things hidden. For Scripture says: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart.” When Christ judges, then God is the judge.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:16
There are two thoughughts inside a man which will accuse each other—the good and the evil. The good accuses the evil because it has denied the truth. The evil accuses the good because it has not done what it knows to be right. One who knows that the church is good and true but persists in heresy or schism will be judged guilty. Other thoughts will excuse, insofar as one has done what is expedient to do. He will say inwardly: “In my mind I have always thought it expedient to do what I have done. This was my faith.” He will have a better case, even though he will still have to be corrected, because his conscience will not accuse him on the day of judgment. This is how the secret things of men will be judged by Jesus Christ our Lord on the day of judgment.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 386] Cyril of Jerusalem on Romans 2:16
The awe-inspiring countenance of the Judge will compel you to speak the truth. Even if you are silent, it will convict you. You will rise clothed either in your sins or in your just deeds. The Judge himself declared this.

Source: CATECHESIS 15.25
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:16
Paul says the “secrets of men” and not the sins of men, in order to add to their fear.… For men sit in judgment on overt acts alone.If a secret deed of any one of us were brought into the open right now, in the midst of the church, what would we do except pray for death and have the earth swallow us up, rather than have so many witnesses of wickedness?

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:16
Paul says that there is a mental debate when we decide after long deliberation what we should and should not do. On the day of the Lord we shall be judged by this. This proves that we were not ignorant of good and evil. Or perhaps it means that on the day of judgment our conscience and our thoughts will appear before our eyes like history lessons to be learned; they will either accuse us or excuse us.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 2:16
Paul continually preached that there will be a day of judgment and that it will be necessary to have believed in Christ in order to escape punishment.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 2:17
Ction of the law, the apostle showed in the passage relating to the Jews, writing thus: "Behold, thou art called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and knowest the will of God, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who hast the form of knowledge and of truth in the law."
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:17
The first thing to notice here is that Paul does not say that the person he is rhetorically addressing is a Jew; only that he calls himself one, which is not at all the same thing. For Paul goes on to teach that the true Jew is the one who is circumcised in secret, i.e., in the heart, who keeps the law in spirit and not according to the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God. But the man who is circumcised visibly in the flesh, observing the law in order to be seen by men, is not a real Jew; such a man only appears to be one.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:17
They are called Jews because it was their ancestral right to be called Israelites. Nevertheless, if we wish to understand everything which is relevant to the case, we must note that the name Jew had three different meanings. First, it meant the children of Abraham, who because of his faith was made the father of many nations. Then it refers to Jacob, who because of his increasing faith was called Israel, for the dignity which began with the father was honored in the sons. Third, they are called Jews not so much because of Judah as because of Christ, who was born of Judah according to the flesh, since in Judah it was made known that he would be in Christ. For it is said: “Judah will be your master,” and: “Judah, your brothers praise you.” This praise was given not to Judah as such but to Christ, whom nowadays all those whom he deigns to call his brethren praise.… The Jews themselves do not understand the meaning of their name and claim that it refers to the human Judah.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:17
The Jew may boast that he is loved by God and honored above all other men. It seems to me that here Paul is gently mocking their unreasonableness … because they misused this gift … to set themselves up against the rest of mankind and to despise them.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 5
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:17-18
"Behold, you are called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest your boast of God, and know His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law."

After saying that the Gentile wants nothing appertaining to salvation if he be a doer of the Law, and after making that wonderful comparison, he goes on to set down the glories of the Jews, owing to which they thought scorn of the Gentiles: and first the very name itself, which was of great majesty, as the name Christian is now. For even then the distinction which the appellation made was great. And so he begins from this, and see how he takes it down. For he does not say, Behold, you are a Jew, but "art called" so, "and makest your boast in God;" that is, as being loved by Him, and honored above all other men. And here he seems to me to be gently mocking their unreasonableness, and great madness after glory, because they misused this gift not to their own salvation, but to set themselves up against the rest of mankind, and to despise them. "And know His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent." Indeed this is a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say, you do, but know; and approvest, not followest and doest.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:17
At this point Paul turns to the Jews and says that a man should be a Jew in deed and not merely in name.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 2:17
This is not to be read as a question, as some people think, but rather as a statement, as if to say: “Not as a true Jew, albeit in secret, but merely claiming to be one and making false pretenses.”

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:17
If a Jew boasts in God in the manner called for by grace, which is given not according to the merits of works but freely, his praise would be of God and not of men.… But they thought that they had fulfilled this law of God by their own righteousness, even though they were transgressors of it. And so for them it worked wrath as sin multiplied, committed by those who knew what sin was. Those who did what the law commanded without the help of the Spirit of grace did it through fear of punishment and not out of love for righteousness.

Source: THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 11.7
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 2:17
224. After showing that the doers of the Law are justified even without being hearers, which pertained to the Gentiles, the Apostle now shows that hearers are not justified, unless they are doers, which pertains to the Jews. First, therefore, he shows the Jews’ privileged state in receiving the Law; secondly, their shortcomings in transgressing the Law, there [v. 21; n. 232] at You then who teach others. He shows their privileged state on three counts: first, in being the race to whom the Law was given; secondly, as regards the Law itself, there [v. 17b; n. 226] at and rely upon the law; 119 thirdly, as regards the effect or work of the Law, there [v. 18; n. 227] at and know his will. 225. In regard to race he says, But if you call yourself a Jew, which is an honorable name: "Judah became his sanctuary" (Ps 114:2); "Salvation is from the Jews" (Jn14:22). They are called Jews not after Judas Maccabeus as some say, probably on the ground that he united and protected that people, when they were scattered: "He gladly fought for Israel" (1 Macc 3:2); for the name, "Jews," was in use before his time, as in Est (8:l6): "The Jews had light and gladness..." Rather, it seems that the Jews were named after the patriarch Judah: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you" (Gen 49:8); for in the time of Roboam, when ten tribes seceded from his kingdom and adored a golden calf, they were led away captive by the Assyrians (1 Sam l7). Scripture makes no mention of their return; rather, the land remained occupied by strangers later called Samaritans. But two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained in the kingdom of Roboam and persevered in the word of God. Although they were led away captive to Babylon, they were permitted to return to their native land by Cyrus, the Persian king (1 Ezra 1). Then, because the tribe of Judah was the greater, the entire group was named after him: not only those from the tribe of Benjamin but those from the other tribes who joined them. 226. Then when he says and rest on the law (17b) he mentions their prerogative in regard to the Law. First, in regard to the Law itself, when he says, and rest on the law, as certifying what they believed and did. For an intellect in doubt is not at rest but is solicited by both 120 sides; but once it has the certainty of wisdom it rests: "When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her" (Wis 8:16). Secondly, in regard to the lawgiver, when he adds, and boast of your relation to God, i.e., in their worship and knowledge of one God: "Let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me" (Jer 9:24); "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Cor 1:31). 227. Then when he adds and know his will (v. 18) he mentions their prerogative in regard to the fruit of the Law: first, with respect to the person himself; secondly, with respect to others, there [v. 19; n. 229] at and if you are sure. 228. In regard to the first he mentions two fruits. The first corresponds to boasting of their relation to God, when he says, and know his will, i.e., what God wants us to do: "That you may prove what is the will of God" (Rom 12:2). The second corresponds to their resting in the law, when he says, and approve what is excellent, i.e., able to select not only good from bad things but better from less good. Hence someone asked: "Which is the great commandment?" (Mt 22:36). And this, because you are instructed in the law: "Happy the man whom you teach your law and teach him about your law" (Ps 94:12) 229. Then he mentions its fruit with respect to others who find themselves in three different situations, so far as knowledge of the Law is concerned [n. 230ff]. For some are entirely ignorant of the Law, because they lack natural talent, just as a man is physically blind, because he lacks visual power: "We grope for the wall like the 121 blind" (Is 59:10). To such persons cannot be given the light of knowledge enabling them to see by themselves what to do; rather, they must be led, as the blind are, by commanding them to do this or that, even though they do not understand the reason for the command: "I became an eye to the blind" (Jb 29:15); "They are blind and leaders of the blind" (Mt 15:14). Others are ignorant through lack of training, being as it were in the exterior darkness and not enlightened by teaching. To such persons a wise man can offer the light of training, so that they will understand what is commanded. This is why he says, a light to those who are in darkness: "To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death" (Lk 1:79). 230. Secondly, he touches on those who are on the way to knowledge they have not yet attained either through lack of full instruction; hence he says, a corrector of the foolish, i.e., of those who have not yet received wisdom who are said to be instructed, i.e., free from ignorance which is present in everyone from the beginning when they are first instructed: "Do you have children? Discipline them" (Si 7:23). In another way, through lack of age, as children. Hence he says, a teacher of children: "Where is the teacher of little ones?" (Is 33:18). 231. A third group are already advanced in knowledge, but they need instruction from the wise in order to possess the authoritative sayings of wisdom as their rule or pattern. In regard to this he says, having in the law the embodiment [pattern] of knowledge: "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me" (2 Tim 1:13); "Mark those who so live as you have an example in us" (Phil 3:17). 122 However, people so patterned must be instructed by the authority of their forbears, if they are to know what has been handed down in the Law. Therefore, he says, of knowledge: "Wisdom gave him knowledge of holy things" (Wis 10:10). This is also necessary if they are to know the true understanding of what has been handed down. That is why he says, and truth: "Send out thy light and thy truth" (Ps 43:3). 232. Then when he says you then who teach others (v.21) he indicates some of their failings. First, failings toward themselves, when he says, You then who teach others by directing them to the good, will you not teach yourself? This can be taken as a question asked with an overtone of indignation or with an overtone of mildness which, nevertheless, suggests wickedness on their part, as it does in Job (4:3): "Behold, you have instructed many" and (4:5): "The scourge has now touched you and you are dismayed." Secondly, their failings toward their neighbor: first, in regard to things taken furtively, when he says: While you preach against stealing, do you steal?: "Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves" (Is 1:23); then in regard to defiling another person through adultery, when he says: You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?: "They are all adulterers, like a heated oven" (Hos 7:4); "Each neighing for his neighbor’s wife" (Jer 5:8). 234. Thirdly, he indicates their failings with respect to God: first, that they sin against His worship, when he says: You who abhor idols, since you know from the Law that they are not to be adored, do you commit sacrilege by abusing the things of divine worship. 123 This they did during the Old Law: "You profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted" (Mal 1:12) and later, when they blasphemed Christ: "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons" (Mt 12:24). 235. Secondly, that they sin against His glory, when he says: You who glory in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For as observance of the Law by good works is an occasion for others to honor God, so its transgression by evil works is an occasion for others to blaspheme: "That they may see your good deeds and glorify God" (1 Pt 2:12). Hence, he says in 1 Tim (6:1): "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed" and in Ps 119 (v.158) it is said: "I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep thy commands." 236. In support of this he quotes an authority, when he says The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, i.e., because the Gentiles, noting the evil practices of the Jews, laid it to evil training dictated by the Law. He says: it is written, namely, in Is 52(:5), "Their rulers wail, and continually all the day my name is despised" and in Ez 36(:22), "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations." 237. Then when he says Circumcision (v.25) he shows that circumcision is not sufficient for salvation any more than the Law is, and for the same reason, namely, that without circumcision there is value in the Law’s observance, without which circumcision has no benefit, as was said above. In regard to this he does three things. 124 First, he compares circumcision to the circumcised Jews; secondly, to the uncircumcised Gentiles, there [v. 26; n. 240] at So, if a man who is uncircumcised; thirdly, he explains what he had said, there [v. 28; n. 242] at For it is not the one who is so outwardly. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how circumcision is of value; secondly, how not, there [v. 25b; n. 239] at but if you break the law. 238. First, therefore, he says: Circumcision indeed is of value, inasmuch as it remits original sin; hence, it is written in Gen (17:14): "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people." But it will benefit you as an adult, if you obey the law, just as profession benefits a religious, if he keeps the rule. For circumcision is a form of profession obliging men to observe the Law: "I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law" (Gal 5:3). However, the Apostle’s statement in Gal (5:2) that "if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you," refers to the era after grace; but now he is referring to the time before the passion of Christ, when circumcision had status. 239. Secondly, there at but if you break the law (v. 25b), he shows how circumcision has no value, when he says: If you, a Jewish adult, break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision, i.e., has no more value than your previous condition, because you do not observe what you profess by circumcision: "All these nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart" (Jer 125 9:26). In fact they are more guilty for not observing what they promised: "A foolish and faithless promise displeases him" (Ec 5:3). 240. Then when he says, so, if a man who is uncircumcised (v. 26), he considers circumcision in relation to the Gentiles in two ways. First, from the aspect that the Gentiles obtain the benefits of circumcision by observing the Law. Hence he says: Since circumcision profits, if the Law is observed, but not, if it is not; then, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the law, i.e., the moral precepts of the Law: "All your commandments are true" (Ps 119:86), will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? As if to say: He will enjoy the fruit of true circumcision. For a man is circumcised outwardly in the flesh in order to circumcise himself in the heart: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts" (Jer 4:4). 241. Secondly, at then those who are physically uncircumcised, he shows that on account of observing the Law the Gentile is preferred to the Jew. Hence he says, Then those who are physically uncircumcised, but keep the law through natural reason will condemn you, the circumcised Jew, who have the written law but break it by transgressing the precepts of the written law and have circumcision, i.e., of the flesh. Hence on the basis of this comparison it is written in Mt (12:4): "The men of Nineveh will arise with this generation...and condemn it." 242. Then when he says For it is not the one who is so outwardly (v. 28) he assigns the reason for his statements. First, he gives the reason; 126 secondly, he proves it, there [v. 29b; n. 245] at His praise. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he assigns the reason why circumcision or Judaism without observance of the Law is fruitless; secondly, why observance of the Law without Judaism and circumcision has value, there [v. 29; n. 244] But he who is so in a hidden way. 243. He says, therefore, that circumcision in one who breaks the Law is uncircumcision and will be judged by the uncircumcised who obey the law, because he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly according to carnal birth: "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel..., but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants" (Rom 9:6-9). Similarly, true circumcision is not that which appears in the flesh, for it is a sign: "It shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me" (Gen 17:11). But it is not a true sign, unless the reality signified corresponds to it. Hence, if a Jew transgressed the covenant, his circumcision would not be true; consequently, it would be regarded as uncircumcision. 244. Then when he says but he who is so in a hidden way (v. 29) he assigns the reason why the uncircumcision of one who keeps the Law is regarded as circumcision and will judge bodily circumcision. The reason is that he is truly a Jew who is one inwardly, i.e., whose heart is possessed by the precepts of the Law, which the Jews professed: "Your father who sees in secret will repay you" (Mt 6:6). Again, true circumcision is of the heart in the spirit, i.e., made by one’s spirit, which expels superfluous thoughts from the heart. Or in the spirit, i.e., effected by a 127 spiritual and not a literal understanding of the Law: "For we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit" (Phil 3:3). 245. Then when he says His praise (v29b) he proves this reason. For it is obvious that in all matters the divine judgment must prevail over the human. Now things that appear outwardly, such as Judaism or circumcision, are praised by men, but things that exist within are judged according to God’s judgment, because "man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7).
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:18
It is hardly surprising that a Jew should believe, since he has been taught to do so by the law. It is indeed dangerous for him not to believe if he has the law as his guide.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:18
What seems to be an advantage—being given the law—may turn out to be a disadvantage if one does not keep the law. Paul states this with great accuracy. He does not say “do” but “know,” nor does he say “follow” but only “approve.”

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:18
The Jew boasts that he alone understands God and knows his will. He approves what is excellent, because what is beneficial by nature is made much more so by the law.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:19
Here again he does not say that you are "a guide of the blind," but "you are confident," so you boast, he says. So great was the unreasonableness of the Jews. Wherefore he also repeats nearly the very words, which they used in their boastings. See for instance what they say in the Gospels. "You were altogether (ὅ λος] 4 manuscripts ὅ λως) born in sin, and do you teach us?" [John 9:34] And all men they utterly looked down upon, to convince them of which, Paul keeps extolling them and lowering the others, that so he may get more hold on them, and make his accusation the weightier. Wherefore he goes on adding the like things, and making more of them by different ways of relating them.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:19
Paul does not say that the Jews are really guides to the blind, only that they think they are.… Remember what they said in the Gospels to the blind man who had received his sight: “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?”

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:19
The blind are those who have been deprived of the light of knowledge.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:20
These things are true, because this is the task of the law: to teach the ignorant, to subject the wicked to God, to provoke those who by the worship of idols are ungodly to trust in a better hope by the promise which is given through the law. The teacher of the law is right to glory in these things, because he is teaching the form of truth. But if the teacher does not accept the Expected One whom the law has promised, he glories in vain in the law, to which he is doing harm as long as he rejects the Christ who is promised in the law. In that case he is no more learned than the fools, nor is he a teacher of children, nor is he a light to those who are in the darkness, but rather he is leading all of these into perdition.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:20
Here again he says not, in the conscience and in actions and in well-doings, but "in the Law;" and after saying so, he does here also what he did with regard to the Gentiles. For as there he says, "for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself," so says he here also.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:20
Paul says that they had knowledge and truth not in their conscience, their actions or their well-doing but in the law. After saying this he repeats what he has already said to the Gentiles: In judging others they condemn themselves.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:20
One who continually keeps the law in view does not stumble.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 2:20
By “embodiment” is meant not the form but the substance and the knowledge and the truth, like the one “who was in the form of God.”

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 160] Shepherd of Hermas on Romans 2:21
How will you instruct the elect of the Lord, if you yourselves have not instruction? Instruct each other therefore, and be at peace among yourselves, that

Source: Shepherd of Hermas Vision Third
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:21
Hence his invective against the transgressors of the law, who teach that men should not steal, and yet practise theft themselves. (This invective he utters) in perfect homage to the law of God, not as if he meant to ten sure the Creator Himself with having commanded a fraud to be practised against the Egyptians to get their gold and silver at the very time when He was forbidding men to steal, -adopting such methods as they are apt (shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other particulars also.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:21
This means: “You who complain about the Gentiles because they are without the law and God are accusing yourself, because you do not believe in the Christ promised by the law but find this belief in those you are complaining about.” The Jew does what he preaches should not be done. For by denying the Christ promised to us in the law, he removes faith by false interpretation and thus does what he preaches against.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:21
But there he frames his speech with more of sharpness, here with more of gentleness. For he does not say, However on this score you deserve greater punishment, because though entrusted with so great things you have not made a good use of any of them, but he carries his discourse on by way of question, turning them on themselves (ἐ ντρέπων]), and saying, "Thou that teachest another, do you not teach yourself?" And here I would have you look at the discretion of Paul in another case. For he sets down such advantages of the Jews, as came not of their own earnestness, but by a gift from above, and he shows not only that they are worthless to them if neglectful, but that they even bring with them increase of punishment. For neither is the being called a Jew any well doing of theirs, nor yet is the receiving of the Law, nor the other things he has just enumerated, but of the grace from above. And towards the beginning he had said, that the hearing of the Law is valueless unless the doing be thereto added ("for not the hearers of the Law," he says, "are just before God,") but now he shows further still, that not only the hearing, but, what is more than the hearing, the teaching of the Law itself will not be able to screen the teacher, unless he do what he says; and not only will it not screen him, but will even punish him the more. And he has used his expressions well too, since he does not say, You have received the Law, but "You rest in the Law." For the Jew was not wearied with going about to seek what was to be done, but had on easy terms the Law pointing the way leading to virtue. For if even the Gentiles have natural reason (and it is on this ground that these are better than they, in that they do the Law without hearing), yet still the others had greater facility. But if you say, I am not only a hearer, but even a teacher, this very thing is an aggravation of your punishment. For because they prided themselves upon this, from this above all he shows them to be ridiculous. But when he says, "a guide of the blind, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes," he is speaking their own pompous language. For they treated proselytes extremely ill, and these were the names they called them by. And this is why he dwells at large upon what were supposed to be their praises, well knowing that what was said gave ground for greater accusation; "Which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law." As if any one who had a picture of the king, were to draw nothing after it, and they that were not entrusted with it were to imitate it exactly even without the original. And then after mentioning the advantages they had from God, he tells them of their failings, bringing forward what the prophets accused them of. "You therefore who teaches another, do you not teach yourself? You that preaches that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who says a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhors idols, do you commit sacrilege?" For it was strictly forbidden them to touch any of the treasures upon the idols (so Field from the manuscripts: Vulg. "in the idol temples") by reason of the defilement. But the tyranny of avarice, he says, has persuaded you (4 manuscripts and mar. "us") to trample this Law also under foot.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:21
Sometimes Paul speaks more harshly and sometimes more softly. Here he does not attack them directly … but carries on his discourse by way of questions, getting them to give the answers themselves.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:21
Paul says to the Jew: If you rely on the law, why do you not obey it? If you glory in God, why do you dishonor him? If you know his will, why do you not do it? If you approve what is excellent, why do you go after what is harmful? Why do you not look for the right way, if you are a guide for the blind? Surely if you saw it you would walk in it! If you are a light for others, why do you not cast off the works of darkness? As an instructor of the foolish, why have you abandoned the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom? As a teacher of children, why are you a child in understanding? If you have the standard of knowledge and truth in the law, why do you not follow it yourself, nor by your evil example allow others to follow it? Why does your life not match your teaching, and why does your behavior make a mockery of your faith? Because you have not kept the law it will happen that not only will the law do you no good, it will condemn you for the greater crime of holding it in contempt.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 2:21
Paul shows here and in the next two verses that the Jews had learned little from the law even if they gloried in the letter of it. When they tried to teach others, their deeds contradicted their words, and their pride in the law was pointless.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 500] Desert Fathers on Romans 2:21-22
Poemen also said, ‘Teach your heart to follow what your tongue is saying to others.’ He also said, ‘Men try to appear excellent in preaching but they are less excellent in practising what they preach.’

Source: The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:22
These words could equally well be applied to the heretics who call themselves Christians.… Since they rob the Word of God of its true meaning and seduce the minds of their hearers by their perverse interpretation, joining an adulterated kind of faith to the bride of Christ which is the church, this [verse] fits them exactly.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:22
The Jew adulterates the law by removing the truth of Christ from it and putting lies in his place. In another of his epistles Paul writes: “They are adulterers of God’s Word.” A man is sacrilegious when he denies Christ, whom the law and the prophets call God. Did the Jews ever say, “Thou art God and we did not know it” of God the Father, when the entire law proclaims the authority of God the Father, by whom all things are made? But when the Son of God appeared, what he was was hidden and not revealed until after the resurrection. It was then that it was said of him: “Thou art God and we did not know it.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:22
It was strictly forbidden for Jews to touch any of the treasures deposited in heathen temples, because they would be defiled. But Paul claims here that the tyranny of greed has persuaded them to disregard the law at this point.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:22
There is not just one kind of adultery, for you commit adultery if you give anyone other than God what the soul owes exclusively to him.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on Romans 2:23
If we prefer a life of pleasure to the life of obedience to the commandments, how can we expect a life of blessedness, fellowship with the saints and the delights of the angelic company in the presence of Christ? Such expectations are truly the fantasies of a foolish mind.

Source: THE LONG RULES, PREFACE
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:23
The breaker of the law is the one who overlooks the meaning of the law, which speaks of the incarnation and divinity of Christ, and dishonors God by not accepting the testimony which he gave concerning his Son. For the Father said: “This is my beloved Son.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:23
There are two accusations which he makes, or rather three. Both that they dishonor, and dishonor that whereby they were honored; and that they dishonor Him that honored them, which was the utmost extreme of unfeelingness. And then, not to seem to be accusing them of his own mind, he brings in the Prophet as their accuser, here briefly and concisely as it were in a summary, but afterwards more in detail, and here Isaiah, and after that David, when he had shown the grounds of reproof to be more than one. For to show, he means, that it is not I who speak these things to your reproach, hear what Isaiah says.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:23
Here Paul makes two, or rather three, accusations. First, that they dishonor. Second, that they dishonor that by which they were honored. Third, that they dishonor the One who honored them, which was the depth of ingratitude. And then, so as not to appear to be accusing them off his own bat, he brings in the prophet Isaiah as their accuser.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:23
Sacrilege is something committed only against God, because it is a violation of the sacred.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 2:24
Nomen enim Dei blasphematur propter ipsos."

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book III
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:24
There is a blasphemy which we must avoid completely, viz., that any of us should give a pagan good cause for blasphemy by deceit or injury or insult or some other matter justifying complaint. It is that blasphemy in which the Name is deservedly blamed, so that the Lord is deservedly angry. But the words “Because of you my Name is blasphemed” seem to cover every blasphemy. So then, are we all lost, since the whole Roman circus assails the Name, for no fault of ours, with its wicked outcries? Shall we stop being Christians in order for there to be less blasphemy? No! If the blasphemy continues, we will observe our discipline, not abandoning it, as long as we are being approved and not condemned. The blasphemy which affirms our Christian faith by detesting us because of it is in close proximity to martyrdom. To curse us for keeping our discipline is to bless our Name.

Source: ON IDOLATRY 14
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:24
Else, if of all blasphemy it has been said, "By your means My Name is blasphemed," we all perish at once; since the whole circus, with no desert of ours, assails "the Name" with wicked suffrages.

Source: On Idolatry
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:24
And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, "the law and the prophets were until John," and the fishpool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: "On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: " for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:24
Are we then to suppose that the apostle abstained through fear from openly calumniating God, from whom notwithstanding He did not hesitate to withdraw men? Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as to point against them the denunciation of the prophet, "Through you the name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles)." But how absurd, that he should himself blaspheme Him for blaspheming whom he upbraids them as evil-doers! He prefers even circumcision of heart to neglect of it in the flesh.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:24
What Paul says [in verses 17-23] about the Jews is meant to be taken ironically, since anyone who genuinely relies on the law, glories in God and proves the things which are most useful would be doing the things which are listed here. But [in verse 24] he speaks directly to them, borrowing the words of the prophet Isaiah.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 2:24
For as the Jews were alienated from God, as those on whose account "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles," so on the other hand those are dear to God through whose conformity to discipline the name of God is declared with a testimony of praise, as it is written, the Lord Himself forewarning and saying, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven." And Paul the apostle says, "Shine as lights in the world." And similarly Peter exhorts: "As strangers," says he, "and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify the Lord."

Source: Epistle VI.3
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:24
Isaiah the prophet said this because God’s name was being blasphemed among the Gentiles when the Jews, by their misdeeds, did not observe the things which were handed down to them but instead gave glory to idols.… So also at the time of the apostles, God’s name was being blasphemed in Christ, because the Jews, by denying that Christ was God, were blaspheming the Father also, as the Lord said: “Whoever receives me does not receive me, but him who sent me.” Therefore God was blasphemed among the Gentiles because when they believed in Christ the Jews tried to persuade them not to call Christ “God.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:24
[Isaiah 52:5; Ezekiel 36:20-23] See again another double accusation. For they not only commit insolence themselves, but even induce others to do so. What then is the use of your teaching when you teach not your own selves? Above, however, he merely said this, but here he has even turned it round to the contrary. For not only yourselves, but even others, do ye not teach what should be done. And what is far worse — ye not only teach not the things of the Law, but you even teach the opposite, viz. to blaspheme God, which is opposite to the Law. But the circumcision, one will say, is a great thing. Yea, I also confess it, but when? When (So all manuscripts S. "then, when") it has the inward circumcision. And observe his judgment, in bringing in what he says about it so opportunely. For he did not begin straightway with it, since the conceit men had of it was great. But after he had shown them to have offended in that which was greater and to be responsible for the blasphemy against God, then having henceforth possession of the reader's judgment against them, and having stripped them of their pre-eminence, he introduces the discussion about circumcision, feeling sure that no one will any more advocate it, and says [Romans 2:25]

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:24
Here Paul makes another double accusation. The Jews not only commit insolence themselves; they even persuade others to do the same. What then is the use of their teaching, if they cannot teach themselves?… But it is much worse than this, for not only do the Jews not teach the law, they actually teach others to blaspheme God, which is the very opposite of the law.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:24
Paul realized that what he was saying was also to be found in the prophets, which is why he quotes them here.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:25
We must examine carefully what this circumcision is which is of value, and what law this is which is profitable if it is kept, so that when we have understood his meaning we may be circumcised as well.… Paul teaches in the verses which follow that it is not the circumcision of the flesh which he is talking about but the circumcision of the heart, which is made by the Spirit and not according to the letter, and which receives its praise not from men but from God.Someone might raise the objection that, if it is true that the circumcision which the apostle regards as being profitable is nothing other than the cleansing of the soul and the rejection of all vices, why does he add here that it is profitable only if you keep the law, since circumcision does not exist apart from the observance of the law? It must be understood that circumcision is not just a matter of rejecting wickedness and ceasing from evil; it is also a matter of doing good and carrying out what is perfect. That is what keeping the law means. For there is no perfection in someone who merely desists from evil; rather it is found in him who does what is good.
Circumcision becomes uncircumcision if, after abstaining from evil, you fail to do what is good. For then you are considered to be an unbeliever. Obviously it is not possible for one who has been physically circumcised to get his foreskin back again, and so this text must be understood figuratively. For if the containment of evil which circumcision signifies is not matched by the works of faith, it is regarded as a form of wickedness. Even in the church, if someone is “circumcised” by the grace of baptism and then becomes a transgressor of the law of Christ, the circumcision of baptism is reckoned to him as uncircumcision, because “faith without works is dead.”
Consider also whether in this passage the following interpretation may be accepted, that even after the coming of Christ physical circumcision, observed according to the law, might be said to be of some value to those who keep the law on the same principle as that which obtained at the beginning of our faith, when it was still observed by those who believed in Christ.… Now if this (Christian) circumcision were to be turned into uncircumcision, not only would it be of no benefit to anyone, it would call down even greater judgment on the one who by the circumcision of the flesh appeared to be proclaiming the observance of the law but was in fact breaking it. And this judgment would be given by the one who had not submitted to physical circumcision but who nevertheless did the works of the law. Whether this interpretation is to be accepted or not is up to you, the reader, to decide.
Circumcision was of no value to those who thought they could be justified by it, but it was of value to those who thought that they might not come to Christ if they were forbidden to circumcise their children. For in the beginning there were some who thought of circumcision mainly as a recognizable symbol of their nationality and kept it up for that reason. They might have been hindered from coming to faith if they had been forbidden to do something which they could not do without. Therefore the apostle says this to them, so as not to close the door of faith to them.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:25
An opponent might say: “If circumcision is of value, why was it stopped?” It is only of value if you keep the law. Circumcision may be retained therefore, but if it is to be of any value the law must be observed. So why did Paul prohibit what he shows to be of value if the law is observed?Paul answers by saying that if the law is not kept, the Jew effectively becomes a Gentile.… But to keep the law is to believe in Christ, who was promised to Abraham. Those who are justified by faith have their own merit and are included in the honor shown to the patriarchs. For every mention of salvation in the law refers to Christ. Therefore the man who believes in Christ is the man who keeps the law. But if he does not believe then he is a transgressor of the law because he has not accepted Christ … and it is no advantage for him to be called a son of Abraham.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:25
And yet, were this not so, a man might have rejected it and said, What is circumcision? For is it any good deed on his part that has it? Is it any manifestation of a right choice? For it takes place at an unripe age, and those in the wilderness too remained uncircumcised for a long time. And from many other points of view also, one might look at it as not necessary. And yet it is not on this foot that he rejects it, but upon the most proper ground, from the case of Abraham. For this is the most exceeding victory — to take the very reason for showing it to be of small regard, whence it was held by them in reverence. Now he might have said that even the prophets call the Jews uncircumcised. But this is no disparagement of circumcision, but of those that hold ill to it. For what he aims at is to show that even in the very best life, it has not the least force. This is what he next proves. And here he does not bring forward the Patriarch, but having previously overturned it upon other grounds, he keeps him till afterwards, when he brings in what he has to say of faith, on the words — "How then was it reckoned" to Abraham? "when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?" For so long as it is struggling against the Gentile and the uncircumcised, he is unwilling to say anything of this, lest he should be over irksome to them. But when it comes in opposition to the faith, then he disengages himself more completely for a combat with it. Up to the present point then it is uncircumcision that the contest is against, and this is why he advances in His discourse in a subdued tone, and says,

"For circumcision verily profits if you keep the Law; but if you be a breaker of the Law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision." For here he speaks of two uncircumcisions, and two circumcisions, as also two laws. For there is a natural law and there is a written law. But there is one also between these, that by works. And see how he points these three out, and brings them before you.

"For when the Gentiles," he says, "which have not the Law." What Law, say? The written one. "Do by nature the things of the Law." Of what Law? Of that by works. "These having not the Law." What Law? The written one. "Are a law unto themselves." How so? By using the natural law. "Who show the work of the Law." Of what law? Of that by actions. For that which is by writing lies outside; but this is within, the natural one, and the other is in actions. And one the writing proclaims; and another, nature; and another, actions. Of this third there is need, for the sake of which also those two exist, both the natural and the written. And if this be not present they are of no good, but even very great harm. And to show this in the case of the natural he said, "For wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself." But of the written Law, thus — "You who preaches that a man should not steal, do you steal?" Thus also there are two uncircumcisions, one that of nature, and the second from conduct: and one circumcision in the flesh, and the other from the will. I mean for instance, a man has been circumcised upon the eighth day; this is circumcision of the flesh: a man has done all the Law bids him; this is circumcision of the mind which St. Paul requires above all, yea rather the Law also. See now how having granted it in words, he in deed does away with it. For he does not say the circumcision is superfluous, the circumcision is of no profit, of no use. But what says he? "Circumcision verily profits if you keep the Law." [Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6] He approves it so far, saying, I confess and deny not that the circumcision is honorable. But when? When it has the Law kept along with it.

"But if you be a breaker of the Law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision." He does not say, it is no more profitable, lest he should seem to insult it. But having stripped the Jew of it, he goes on to smite him. And this is no longer any insult to circumcision, but to him who through listlessness has lost the good of it. As then in the case of those who are in dignified stations and are after convicted of the greatest misdemeanors, the judges deprive them of the honors of their stations and then punish them; so has Paul also done. For after saying, if you are a breaker of the Law, your "circumcision is made uncircumcision," and having shown him to be uncircumcised, he condemns him after that without scruple.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:25
Paul accepts the value of circumcision in theory but abolishes it in practice. For circumcision is only useful if the person circumcised keeps the law.… But a circumcised person who breaks the law is really uncircumcised, and Paul condemns him without hesitation.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:25
Circumcision is of value as a sign if righteousness accompanies it; without righteousness the rest is useless. Or this [verse] may mean that circumcision enabled the Jew to live and escape condemnation in childhood before reaching the age of understanding. Or perhaps, because he set it in the context of the law, it is that … when the circumcision of the flesh ends, the true circumcision of the heart will come. A man breaks the law when he does not follow what is foretold in it.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:25
The apostle did not say this as if he favored forcing either the Gentiles to remain uncircumcised or the Jews not to adhere to the traditions of their fathers. Rather, he urged that neither group should be forced into the practice of the other but that each person should have the right, not the obligation, to adhere to his own custom.

Source: On Lying 5.8
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:26
We can apply this lesson to our situation in the church as well. For example, let us say that catechumens are still uncircumcised, i.e., Gentiles, and that believers are circumcised by the grace of baptism. Therefore, if a catechumen who has not yet been circumcised by the grace of baptism keeps the law of Christ, he obeys the precepts and commandments. Will he not by analogy with what is written here judge the one who claims to be a believer but does not keep the precepts and despises the law of Christ and his commands?

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:26
Faith in Christ is the righteousness of the law.… From this it is clear that if a Gentile believes in Christ he becomes a son of Abraham, who is the father of faith.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:26
See how he acts. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for this was highly grating to those who then heard him), but that the uncircumcision has become circumcision. And he next enquires what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision and he says that circumcision is well doing and uncircumcision is evil doing. And having first transferred into the circumcision the uncircumcised, who has good deeds, and having thrust out the circumcised man that lived a corrupt life into the uncircumcision, he so gives the preference to the uncircumcised. And he does not say, To the uncircumcised, but goes on to the thing itself, speaking as follows: "Shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?" And he does not say "reckoned," but "turned to," which was more expressive. As also above he does not say your circumcision is reckoned uncircumcision, but has been made so.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:26
Look how clever Paul is. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for that would have angered the Jews who read his letter) but that the uncircumcision has become circumcision. Next he asks what circumcision really is, and he says that it is well-doing, whereas uncircumcision is evil-doing. Having moved the uncircumcised who does good deeds over to the circumcised and having pushed the circumcised man who leads a corrupt life into the ranks of the uncircumcised, Paul states his preference for the physically uncircumcised.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:26
The visible needs the invisible but not the other way round, because the visible is an image of the invisible, while the invisible is the reality itself. Thus, the circumcision of the flesh needs the circumcision of the heart but not vice versa, because the reality does not need the image.… If circumcision has no value by itself, why was it instituted? First, in order to distinguish the people of God from among the Gentiles. This is why when they were by themselves in the desert they were not circumcised. Or perhaps so that their bodies might be identified in battle. The reason why they were marked in that part of the body was first so that they would not be disfigured in a part of the body which was open to public view, and second, because the promise of grace would make this part of the body honorable through chastity. Or perhaps it was because it signified that Christ would be born from its seed. He was destined to introduce spiritual circumcision, but until he was born, physical circumcision would continue.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:26
Gentiles become members of the house of Israel when their uncircumcision is counted for circumcision, inasmuch as they do not display the righteousness of the law by the cutting of the flesh but keep it in charity of heart.

Source: THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 46
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 2:27
1. And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:27
The Jew according to the flesh may keep the law, but only the man who is spiritual, who is a Jew in secret, can fulfill it. Insofar as the former is a transgressor of the law, it is the latter who will be his judge.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:27
The Gentile who believes under the guidance of nature condemns the Jew, to whom Christ was promised through the law and who refused to believe in him when he came. For as much as the Gentile is being prepared for glory for having known the Creator of nature by nature alone, so the Jew deserves to be punished all the more because he did not know Christ the Creator, either by nature or by the law.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:27
You see, he recognizes two uncircumcisions, one from nature, and the other from the will. Here, however, he speaks of that from nature, but does not pause here, but goes on, "if it fulfil the Law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?" See his exquisite judgment. He does not say, that the uncircumcision which is from nature shall judge the circumcision, but while where the victory had been, he brings in the uncircumcision, yet where the defeat is, he does not expose the circumcision as defeated; but the Jew himself who had it, and so by the wording spares offending his hearer. And he does not say, "you that hast the Law and the circumcision," but yet more mildly, "you who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law." That is, such uncircumcision even stands up for the circumcision, for it has been wronged and comes to the Law's assistance, for it has been insulted, and obtains a notable triumph. For then is the victory decided, when it is not by Jew that Jew is judged, but by the uncircumcised; as when he says, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it." [Matthew 12:41] It is not then the Law that he dishonors (for he reverences it greatly), but him that does disgrace to the Law. Next, having settled these grounds clearly, he goes on confidently to define what the Jew really is; and he shows that it is not the Jew, nor the circumcision, but he that is no Jew, and uncircumcised, whom he is rejecting. And he seems indeed to stand up in its behalf, but yet does away with the opinion regarding it, securing men's concurrence by the conclusion he comes to. For he shows not only that there is no difference between the Jew and the uncircumcised, but that the uncircumcised has even the advantage, if he take heed to himself, and that it is he that is really the Jew; and so he says [Romans 2:28]

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:27
Here Paul clearly recognizes that there are two types of uncircumcision—one by nature and the other by will. Here he speaks of the physical uncircumcision and goes on to say that if it keeps the law it will judge the circumcision which breaks it.… For this kind of uncircumcision is offended when the law is broken and comes to its defense.… It is not the law which is dishonored but the one who disgraces the law.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:27
This either means that as long as the Jews continue their literal circumcision they reject the spiritual circumcision, or that they will be judged because they have not followed what the law said, viz., that by believing in Christ they might receive the true circumcision.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:28
Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; " because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:28
On exactly the same principle, they consider the special soil of Judµa to be that very holy land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord's flesh, which, in all those who put on Christ, is thenceforward the holy land; holy indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judµan by reason of the friendship of God. For "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly." In the same way it is that both God's temple and Jerusalem (must be understood) when it is said by Isaiah: "Awake, awake, O Jerusalem! put on the strength of thine arm; awake, as in thine earliest time," that is to say, in that innocence which preceded the fall into sin.

Source: On the Resurrection of the Flesh
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:28
And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision. Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age, either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.

Source: To His Wife Book I
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:28
Here he attacks them as doing all things for show.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:28
Here Paul attacks the Judaizers on the ground that much they do is for outward show.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:28
This is the true Jew, for everything which was previously done externally was but an image of what was meant to happen internally.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 2:29
For he possesses in its sincerity the faith which is exercised in reference to the affairs of life, and praises the Gospel in practice and contemplation. And, in truth, he wins his praise "not from men, but from God"

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book VII
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 2:29
Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter. Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; " because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 2:29
We must realize that in some people these two things go together while in others they do not. For there are some things which have their beginning inside a man and which proceed from there to the outside, but there are other things which start on the outside and work their way inside. What I mean is this. If chastity begins inside a man, there is no doubt that it will manifest itself on the outside of him as well. For it is hardly possible if someone does not commit adultery in his heart that he should do so in his body. But it does not follow from this that if chastity starts as an outward observance that it will necessarily penetrate to the point of inner continence, so that if someone does not commit adultery in his body it will follow immediately that he does not do so in his heart either. Therefore the circumcision of the inner and the outer man must be understood allegorically as meaning that the inner man should not lust in his heart, nor should the outer man surrender to lust in his body, so that he whom the apostle says is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and who mortifies the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, may be said to be circumcised in the flesh as well.It is true that he who has been circumcised has given up a part of his flesh to perdition and kept a part of it unharmed. The part that is lost is, I think, what is referred to in the following text: “All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of the field.” But the flesh which is retained is, I think, a type of that flesh of which it is said: “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.” It is the task of those ears which can hear to determine which is which.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on Romans 2:29
The apostle testifies without any hesitation that those who walk according to the teaching of Christ—in the spirit, not in the letter—are the Israel of God.

Source: THE TRINITY 5.28
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 2:29
It is clear why Paul denies that the circumcision of the flesh has any merit with God. For Abraham was not justified because he was circumcised; rather, he was justified because he believed, and afterward he was circumcised. It is the circumcision of the heart which is praiseworthy before God. To circumcise the heart means to cut out error and recognize the Creator. And because the circumcision of the heart was to come in the future, first Moses said: “Circumcise the hardness of your heart,” and Jeremiah also: “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart.” He said this to Jews who were following idols. For there is a veil over the heart which the one who is converted to God circumcises, because faith removes the cloud of error and grants those who are perfect knowledge of God in the mystery of the Trinity, which was unknown in earlier times. The praise of this circumcision is from God but is hidden to men, for it is the merit of the heart which God looks for, not that of the flesh. But the praise of the Jews is from men, for they glory in the circumcision of the flesh, which comes from their ancestors.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:29
By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is outwardly, and the sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all of which he hints in a single word, when he says, "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly." But since much was made of the circumcision, inasmuch as even the sabbath gave way to it [John 7:22], he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But when he has said "in the spirit" he thereafter paves the way for the conversation of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in the heart and spirit and has its praise of God. And how comes he not to show that the Gentile which does aright is not inferior to the Jew which does aright, but that the Gentile which does aright is better than the Jew which breaks the Law? It was that he might make the victory an undoubted one. For when this is agreed upon, of necessity the circumcision of the flesh is set aside, and the need of a good life is everywhere demonstrated. For when the Greek is saved without these, but the Jew with these is yet punished, Judaism stands by doing nothing. And by Greek he again means not the idolatrous Greek, but the religous and virtuous, and free from all legal observances.

Source: Homily 6 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 2:29
By saying this Paul sets aside everything which is merely of the body. For the circumcision is external, and so are the sabbaths, the sacrifices and the purifications.… The Gentile who does right is more praiseworthy than the Jew who breaks the law. When this is agreed upon, the circumcision of the flesh must be set aside, and the need for a good life is everywhere demonstrated.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 2:29
This is foretold in the law: “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God,” and again: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove the foreskin of your heart,” not according to the letter of the law but according to the New Testament, which examines the inner secrets which only God can see.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 2:29
“Spiritual” here does not refer to the Holy Spirit. For Paul is not talking about those who have been put right by grace but is referring above all to those outside the faith who do the works of the law and who show themselves to be better than those transgressors who are under the law.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 2:29
This means that the law should be understood according to the Spirit, and not according to what the letter says. This pertains especially to those who have interpreted circumcision more according to the flesh than according to the Spirit.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 11