NOTES for Rom 2:3

This is one of the most frequent human illusions -believe that to judge the sin in other people makes us just. We indeed resist sins; we even fight against sins. And it is written in Holy Scriptures: "reprove them" (Eph. 5:11).

It is comfortable like that to overlook what is written at first there: "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness". It is so easy to forget all which was said by the Rescuer, who kept to Himself the right of judgment (Matt. 7:1-5, Jn. 8:7). The occupation of our soul with the eradication of others’ sins "protects" us from the work of own repentance and gives us the feeling of participating in a good, God’s deed – the salvation of humanity.

Reasoning about judgment and condemnation, Paul proceeds from the same thing as the Savior Himself, who called His followers to refrain from judging and condemning their neighbors. The point here is not that we are unable to see another person's sin. The point is that none of us, as human beings, is able to evaluate another person's life in all its fullness. One of the great teachers of the Torah, Hillel, who lived roughly two centuries before the Savior's coming, said: do not judge your neighbor until you yourself have been in his situation. He was speaking only about evaluating concrete actions, but even here he was very cautious and understood that, for an adequate evaluation, one must know the situation in all its fullness and from within. And Christianity is the life of the Kingdom and life in the Kingdom.

And the judgment of which Paul speaks, like the one of which Jesus Himself speaks, is judgment in the Kingdom over an inhabitant of the Kingdom. Absolute judgment. It cannot exist apart from Christ Himself, and even then only at the end of time. For only He alone can see the whole life of a person in all its fullness, and not before the moment when the person himself puts the final point in it; and the final point in any case will be put no earlier than the day of the Last Judgment.

So it follows that any other evaluation of a person's concrete act in one situation or another can be only an evaluation, not a judgment. A qualification of a crime, if it is truly a crime, but not a verdict. This is also because the principle "be in your neighbor's skin before judging" remains in force for Christians. But in this case it means not only being in his situation with respect to a concrete life circumstance, but also being in the fullness of the life of the Kingdom in order to evaluate everything adequately: after all, the issue is an evaluation of a person living in two worlds, in the world not yet transfigured and in the Kingdom at the same time. We usually have no problems with the untransfigured world, but problems may well arise with the fullness of the Kingdom.

The principle here is simple: let the one who is without sin judge. Otherwise the one judging will himself be judged according to the logic of the fallen world, not according to the logic of the Kingdom. The very world where there is no forgiveness for consciously committed sin, but only eternal punishment for it. The point here is not some vindictiveness in God, but that, choosing one or another point of view, one or another way of looking at a person and his life, we thereby choose the measure of the fullness of our own existence. Or, more precisely, having chosen one or another measure of the fullness of our own existence, we decide to evaluate in one way or another the actions of those nearby. And precisely this choice becomes the choice of destruction or salvation. It determines whether in the end we find ourselves in the Kingdom or in the "outer darkness."

It is not the existence of the law or formal adherence to it that justifies, but its fulfillment; the deeds of those under the authority of the law will be judged by that same law. But why must those who sinned without having the law perish without the law? Is the legal principle “ignorance of the law is no excuse” consistent with the highest mercy?

Paul also answers this question and another one that is constantly asked: what will happen to those who did good deeds without knowing the commandments? They did not know them intellectually, indeed, but the law of conscience lived in their hearts, intelligible to everyone who has not stifled it within themselves. In practice, such people may fulfill the unwritten law more fully than some experts in the written law. It is not said of such people that they do not come into judgment; it is those who have believed who do not come into judgment (Jn 3:18). But at the judgment they will be able to present the good deeds they performed at the prompting of conscience. We do not know what the verdict will be in each individual case, but we believe that the verdict of the One who shows no partiality cannot fail to be just.

Returning to the image of the two ways, the way of righteousness and the way of ungodliness, the apostle further develops the theme of universalism that he began in his reflections on natural knowledge of God and on the "natural Torah." He speaks of things that would appear self-evident, reminding his readers that one should not condemn others for sins from which one is not free oneself (vv. 1-2). In the letter, as we can see, he is speaking about people who test God's patience in precisely this way (vv. 3-8). And from the context it becomes clear that this condemnation had formally religious grounds: those who condemned others set themselves against others on the basis of belonging either to the Jewish people or to the Church. The first is more plausible, judging by the apostle's equalizing in righteousness "Jews" and "Greeks" (vv. 9-11), that is, Jews and Gentiles. Of course, such religious pride in no way justified before God those who gave themselves over to it; it only added one more sin to the sins they were already committing.

But the issue was not only hypocrisy and the vain hope that belonging to the Jewish people would in itself prove to be a kind of indulgence. The issue was the very understanding of righteousness held by those who took this position. For them, evidently, righteousness was inseparable from belonging to a particular national and religious community, so that those who belonged to it should by definition be judged by God according to some special, perhaps gentler, laws. Paul, however, from the very beginning sees righteousness exclusively in the context of a person's relationship with God. For him the Torah is universal; it is given to everyone regardless of national or religious belonging and is not the exclusive property of any religious community.

A Gentile can follow the Torah, and then he will find Christ and enter the Kingdom, although of course it is easier for a Jew to do this, since he studies the Torah from childhood. But if a Jew violates the Torah, the demand made of him will not be less than that made of a Gentile, but greater, although a Gentile who has had the experience of natural revelation will also answer for the evil deeds he committed, deeds he knew were evil. Paul has no doubt that the Kingdom Christ brought into the world is one for all. But then righteousness too must be one for all. And so must the Torah.

The list of “depravities of mind” in the Letter to the Romans is impressive. Perhaps we do not find all of them in ourselves, but we will certainly find some. The apostle Paul says that the voice of conscience condemns all people, regardless of their “religion.” This concerns not so much deeds as an inner orientation toward sin; Jesus says the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus also emphasizes the importance of remaining faithful within our existing relationships rather than seeking new ones. All our indecency and unfaithfulness evaporate when true love moves us.