Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 2
The teacher says early Christians saw Romans 2:11 (“there is no partiality with God”) as a main theme, while many Christians today assume God deals with Jews and Gentiles differently; what modern teachings or instincts make “no partiality” hard to accept, and what would have to change in church life if Paul is taken literally here?
Another way to ask: Romans 2:11 says God shows no favoritism, but many Christians think God treats Jews and Gentiles differently. What makes “no favoritism” hard to believe today, and what would need to change in church if Paul meant it exactly?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests “no partiality” is hard to accept today because many Christians assume God has separate dealings for Jews and Gentiles, almost like “two olive trees,” while Paul teaches one standard and one people in Christ. If taken literally, church life would have to treat Jewish and Gentile believers as fully one—same status, same judgment, same salvation framework.

Support from Transcript:

  • Paul’s theme is stated plainly: “For there is no partiality with God…He treats Jews and Gentiles the same. We're all the same in Christ.”
  • The speaker says many modern Christians effectively deny this: “Nowadays, so many Christians think, ‘Oh, there is partiality.’…God deals with Jews differently than…Gentiles.”
  • He roots “no partiality” in early apostolic teaching: Peter said in Acts 10:35, “God shows no partiality…whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him.”
  • He links the modern instinct to a two-peoples framework: “Today, most…evangelical churches say…there's…the church…and then there's Israel fleshly…a separate thing.”
  • He insists Paul’s image allows only unity: “There’s only one olive tree…one flock…one Israel…not two olive trees.”
Discussion Follow-ups If a church assumes separate tracks for Jews and Gentiles, what sermons, prayer habits, and end-times assumptions would need reworking to match “no partiality”?