<p>2:1&nbsp;<i>Therefore you are without excuse</i>- s.w. only in Rom. 1:20, where lesbians and homosexuals are described as &ldquo;without excuse&rdquo;, inexcusable. The whole point is that those who are judgmental, in the sense of condemning ahead of time, are in the same category. The point is very powerful and telling. Perhaps Paul purposefully talks about lesbianism in Romans 1 because he knows it will shock and encourage his readers to condemn lesbians etc., and thus he has set them up for &lsquo;condemnation&rsquo;. Remember that Paul isn&rsquo;t merely playing mind games with his readership- he&rsquo;s building us up to a crescendo of conviction of sinfulness, which will form the backdrop for the good news of God&rsquo;s amazing grace; and this, rather than ranting about sin for the sake of it, is the theme of Romans. &ldquo;Inexcusable&rdquo; is a Greek legal term, without defence / legal answer to make. As if whenever we judge others, we are ourselves standing condemned and speechless at the judgment seat of God. The rejected in the last day will be speechless, without any legal answer to make (Mt. 22:12). If we judge others, then we right now are condemning ourselves, speechless and ashamed before the Divine judgment seat. In this sense &ldquo;wherein&rdquo;, or insofar as, we judge others- we condemn ourselves. We &ldquo;do the same things&rdquo;, not literally, but insofar as by being judgmental or unmerciful (the context is Rom. 1:31), we are sinning in the same category of mortal sins which they are; for judgmentalism is as bad as the list of major moral failures Paul has been listing at the end of Romans 1.</p><p><i>O man</i><i>, whoever you are that judge</i>- Paul is writing with at least some reference to himself personally. To be judgmental and feel spiritually superior to others would&rsquo;ve been frequent temptations for him. Paul often writes assuming his readers&rsquo; response being in a certain way. Here he assumes that having read his talk of lesbianism and a whole catena of other sins in 1:29-31, that we will be shaking our heads and judging those sins. But here in 2:1 he plays on that expected response from us &ldquo;Therefore...&rdquo; is without referent unless it is to our assumed response to 1:29-31 and basically says: &ldquo;Thou art the man&rdquo;. He confidently asserts that we who judge in the sense of condemn are doing the same things. He may mean that we all at times commit the sins of 1:29-31 and so are guilty. Or he may be saying that the very act of judging / condemning others is as bad as &lsquo;doing those same things&rsquo;. We must of course &lsquo;judge&rsquo; in the sense of having an opinion; but to condemn people in the way that only God can is just as bad as lesbianism or whatever other sin in 1:27-31 we may wish to condemn.</p><p><i>For wherein you judge another</i>- the implication could be that if you condemn a person for a sin in the sense of prejudging God&rsquo;s personal condemnation of them, then you are counted as having performed the very sin which you so despise and condemn.&nbsp;</p><p><i><br /></i><i>You condemn yourself For you that judge practise the same things</i>- By condemning others we are as it were playing judge, and whilst at it, we&rsquo;re reading out our own sentence of condemnation. The practical result of all this must be faced- there will, presumably, be some otherwise good living, upright Christian folk who come to the day of judgment and are condemned to darkness and gnashing of teeth simply because they in their brief lifetimes condemned some of the other sinners who are with them thrown out into condemnation. It may appear bizarre- hardened sinners like lifetime perverts and lesbians are there on the left hand side of the judgment seat along with the upright, righteous pillars of church life who never smoked, got drunk, had a telly or broke the speed limit. But they condemned their sinful brethren, those with whom they share condemnation. And that&rsquo;s why they are there. This reality needs far more than some passing grunt of approval or sober nod of the head from us as we consider it. All this is not to say that we in this life can&rsquo;t tell right from wrong- that&rsquo;s the point of v. 2. We are indeed sure of what the judgment of God is about these gross sins, but we are sure of what&nbsp;<i>God&rsquo;s</i>&nbsp;judgment is- and that, surely, is where the emphasis should be: &ldquo;the judgment&nbsp;<i>of God</i>&rdquo;.</p><p>We&nbsp;<i>know</i>&nbsp;right now the principles on which God will judge us. We can judge what is acceptable to the Lord (Eph. 5:10-&nbsp; judgment day language). We can judge / discern those things which are excellent in His eyes (Phil. 1:10). We are&nbsp;<i>sure&nbsp;</i>of what the judgment of God is going to be against persistent sinners (Rom. 2:2); and yet if we condemn them, we can be equally sure that even now we are condemned of ourselves, seeing that if we condemn, we will be likewise (Rom. 2:1). The wrath of God is right now revealed, constantly disclosed, against sin (Rom. 1:18).<br />It is difficult to read Rom. 2:1 without seeing an allusion to David's condemnation of the man who killed his neighbour's only sheep: &quot;Thou art inexcusable, O man,&nbsp;<i>whosoever thou art</i>&nbsp;that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself&rdquo;. Surely Paul is saying that David's massive self-deception and hypocrisy over Bathsheba can all too easily be replicated in our experience.&nbsp;</p>