When I first started studying theology, our set text for our New Testament Greek class was 1 Peter, the same text which is the focus of study of the Lambeth Conference meeting of Anglican bishops from around the world planned for this summer. It was a slightly odd text to choose for those starting out in their Greek learning, since its grammar is more challenging and vocabulary more unusual than other NT texts like the gospels of Mark and John or the letter of James. But it meant engaging with some important theological ideas—and learning from my American tutor phrases like ‘the whole ball wax’ and ‘a rock-ribbed Calvinist’!
But I was particularly struck by one unusual word, which I have continued to think about ever since. It comes in 1 Peter 1.17:
And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile…
The word translated ‘impartially’ is the adverb ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, aprosopolemptos, derived from the negative prefix a-, the noun prosopon meaning ‘face’, and the verb lambano meaning ‘to take’ or ‘to lift’. God is not a ‘taker [or lifter] of the face’. There is an obvious and slightly naive inference to be made from this: God is not one who judges according to appearances, as narrated in the story of David’s anointing as king by Samuel. Samuel is tempted to anoint Eliab, Jesse’s oldest and most impressive son, but God has a different perspective:
Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things human beings look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart (1 Sam 16.7)
(This is a sufficiently important theological idea to have been made into a snappy chorus ‘Man looks on the outside, but God looks [clap, clap] on the heart’.)
Given that we live in a world which is more than happy to make judgements on the basis of the colour of someone’s skin, and where tall people exercise more influence and are paid more, this is a powerful idea. (Have you ever noticed how easy it is to spot whether a TV programme is a drama or a documentary? In a drama, all the characters are good looking; in a real-life documentary, well, people just look a little bit more odd! In our screen viewing, we seem to think that faces matter rather a lot.)
But the idea behind the word is actually much more specific, and specific to the Bible. The standard lexicon of the Greek NT, BDAG, includes this entry for the opposite verb ‘to show partiality or favouritism’:
προσωπολημπτέω (edd. also -ληπτέω; this word and the two words following, which are closely related, have so far been found only in Christian writers. They are based on the πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν of the LXX, which in turn is modeled on the Hebr. [s. πρόσωπον 1bα, end]. On the spelling with or without μ s. λαμβάνω, beg.) show partiality Js 2:9.—DELG s.v. πρόσωπον. M-M. TW.
In the Hebrew Old Testament, the idea of ‘lifting the face’ can simply mean ‘to look upon’ someone. But to have one’s face lifted meant to be favoured. The root of the metaphor is the situation of subjects who bow before their king, faces looking to the ground in humility and servitude; as the king comes to his favourite, his lifts the subject’s face so that he or she can look at the king and sense his pleasure and approval. (The idea of looking on the face as a sign of blessing and favour is found in the ‘high priestly’ prayer of blessing in Numbers 6.24–26; we pray that the king of creation will look on us with his favour.) We find the phrase in this sense in the description of Naaman the Syrian:
Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded [lit: he was great before the face of his lord, and his face was lifted], because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. (2 Kings 5.1)
This idea finds two important expressions in the OT, and particularly in the Torah and Wisdom literature. The first is that God does not do this: God is impartial, and does not show favouritism, and this is a key aspect of his character.
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. (Deut 10.17)
Is he not the One who says to kings, ‘You are worthless,’ and to nobles, ‘You are wicked,’ who shows no partiality to princes and does not favour the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands? (Job 34.18–19)
It is worth noting where this idea comes from, and where it is going. It originates in the creation narratives, where God makes humanity, male and female, in his image and likeness (Gen 1.27). If all humanity, male and female, kings and commoners, slave and free, are alike made in the image of God and the work of his hands, then God cannot treat different people or different classes of people in different ways—and in fact the defining of these different classes is the result of human sinful differentiation, and not God’s creation intention. And we find one working out of this principle in the words of the Magnificat, on Mary’s lips, where it echoes the words of Job, as God ‘sets down the mighty in the imagination of their hearts’. The Magnificat is not so much celebrating the inversion of the hierarchy of humanity, as its abolition. Since God is impartial, then when his justice comes it is the great leveller.
The connection between lack of partiality, having no favourites, and the exercise of justice is made clear by a dictionary of antonyms: fairness, justice, equity, objectivity and even-handedness are qualities that are repeatedly associated with God throughout the OT. And as a result, these qualities are to mark Israel in all her dealings.
Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favouritism to the poor in a lawsuit. (Ex 23.2)
Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Lev 19.15)
Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God. (Deut 1.17)
Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. (Deut 16.19)
It sounds rather odd to us, but this is often behind the practice of ‘casting lots’ when making decisions in the Old Testament, and into the New; it bypasses human partiality, and hands the decision over to the will of God in his impartiality (see 1 Chron 24.5, Jonah 1.7 and Acts 1.26).
But this idea does not just have an impact on Israel’s ethic and moral life; it is also to be the basis of their theological understanding. God has not chosen Israel because the nation has somehow merited God’s favour, but has simply happened out of God’s sovereign choice.
The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deut 7.7–8)
Despite some apparently ethno-centric aspects of the OT narrative, it is the impartiality of God which leads to the surprising welcome that is given at key points in the narrative to outsiders and foreigners, but also to the judgement of Israel when they defy God’s call and command. Their ethnic status is no protection to them from God’s judgement—since God is one who ‘judges impartially’! As the Authorised Version renders 1 Peter 1.17, ‘God is no respecter of persons’!
God’s quality of impartiality becomes a theological turning point in the proclamation of the gospel in the New Testament. Luke sows the seeds of this idea in his portrayal of Jesus, albeit in the words of his adversaries:
‘Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth’ (Luke 20.21)
Curiously, in seeking to communicate to an audience including Gentiles, Luke goes back to the root of the metaphor and notes that Jesus ‘does not lift the face’ but teaches truth. Then, in Acts when Peter sees that God has blessed Cornelius and the other Gentiles with him, this idea comes home to roost:
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts those from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10.34–35).
For Luke, the ‘every nation’ Jews who have witnessed the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost now open out to become the ‘every nation’ Jew and Gentile, who will receive the good news of the message of Jesus. The same principle is at work for Paul, where the carefully structured binary focus of the opening chapters of his Letter to the Romans, balancing the reality before God for both Jew and Gentile, hinge on this idea of impartiality.
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favouritism. (Rom 2.9–11).
Again, this theological principle works itself out in practical ethics, from the earliest to the latest of the NT letters. James is emphatic that the early community of followers of Jesus cannot treat different people in different ways according to outward appearance (James 2.1, 9). Paul treats both allies and enemies in the same way in his disputes (Gal 2.6), and he is clear that the human distinction between slave and master cannot stand up to scrutiny under the searching spotlight of God’s lack of favouritism (Eph 6.9). And Paul’s protege Timothy is to both guard gospel teaching and appoint gospel ministers without a hint of partiality (1 Tim 5.21).
One implication of all this relates to judgement. The place where all this started, in 1 Peter 1.17–18, explicitly links judgement with the impartiality of God, and connects this quite explicitly with judgement ‘according to deeds’. I think it is sometimes easy to get the idea, listening to some Christian talk about salvation, that final judgment will run according to the T-shirt slogan: ‘God loves you, but I am his favourite’. God loves all people, but Christians are his favourite! That kind of exceptionalism is the opposite to every way in which the NT describes judgement. This is particularly clear in the Book of Revelation (you knew, dear reader, that I would come to this text eventually!) where the growing focus on judgement in the later chapters is framed by a repeated emphasis on the justice of God. Even in the final visions of the New Jerusalem there is a (to us) awkward tension between the severe language of judgement and exclusion from the Holy City, and words of radical welcome and invitation—all held together by the theological idea of God’s impartiality. God’s free offer of life is open to all who will accept it.
God’s impartiality is rooted in the theology of creation, with all made in his image. It is expressed in the conviction of the nature of the fall and redemption: all have sinned, and all are invited to accept the offer of reconciliation and life in Jesus. It underpins the ‘election’ of Israel, and because of that also underpins the overflow of grace to the Gentiles. It shapes the practice and composition of the community of the redeemed, which must be ethnically and social diverse. And it is reflected in the final judgement of God. It is therefore at the heart of the gospel in ways that we do not always recognise.
Buy me a Coffee
A quick response at breakfast….
The 1662 BCP Holy Communion describes God as “indifferent “.
Ian – this is a case where the meaning has changed over time, like that word ‘gay’; though I’m pretty sure you did realise that!!
Indeed..thats my point.
God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live.
God has predestined some to eternal life and they only will be saved.
Both of these statements are true. How they can both be true is one of God’s secrets.
Phil Almond
It’s a secret well beyond my pay grade to elucidate. However as a bear of little brain I’ll offer this thought:
Clearly God’s existence cannot be bound within the dimension of human time; so he can see from the beginning to the final outcome of a person’s life in a way that escapes our human imagination. While we all indeed have the choice to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation, God himself knows what that choice will be even before our birth.
You might say that notion could imply a set of biological and environmental circumstances which inevitably will lead to that choice and so it is already set in stone for us: predestined – either in a philosophical and/or scientific sense. Perhaps you could argue that in creating man in his own image God has already decided not to interfere with man’s freedom of choice because to do so would make man a controlled being which would not be compatible with that image. So God’s inhibition in not saving those of us who make a seriously bad choice is the unavoidable price of his unique gift (being made in his image) to humanity: it’s logically inescapable.
Except that doesnt seem to be what ‘predestination’ is about.
What you’ve done is to put the ball firmly in man’s court, when the NT indicates it is in God’s court. It isnt that He simply already knows our choice, and doesnt interfere in the eventual consequences. Rather it is HIS choice that determines our choice and thus the outcome. If it is God’s mercy and grace which brings salvation, Paul makes it clear it is God who has decided to whom He will show mercy.
So Im afraid what you have said is not logically inescapable. I think Phil’s comment is closer to the truth.
Well, as I said, I was offering a thought rather than defining a doctrine!
I actually offered 2 thoughts a) about God’s foreknowledge because he’s not bound within human time, and b) about God giving us freedom of choice which is an essential aspect of being created in his image – that’s the bit I thought was logically inescapable.
I wonder how you think 2 Peter 3:9 applies which expresses that the Lord doesn’t want anyone to perish? If his choice determines our choice, what’s really going on?
I sometimes wonder how much freedom of choice we actually have. Do many cater to their base instincts? If we do have a ‘fallen’ nature, does that not mean we may have lost our freedom to really choose? That would seem to be the logical position of many – as fallen creatures, we can no longer choose God, He must choose us first, hence Jesus’ words that seem to say people only come to him when enabled by the Father. Indeed is that not what grace is all about?
For my own part, assuming I make it to ‘heaven’ (noone should assume that), during the process of my conversion there was a definite sense in which I felt I could not say ‘no’. I was making a real choice from my pov, but was there something more than me prompting that choice? It seems so. Therefore was it a genuinely ‘free’ choice? And if others never make that choice, is it because such prompting was simply missing?
I ask questions here because I often dont have the answers as the Bible is unclear.
“God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked tour from his wicked way and live. ” This is a rough translation of Ezekiel 33:11 .” And following on from this : “God has predestined some to eternal life and they only will be saved.”
From these two quotes Philip Almond deduces the following syllogism : ” Both of these are true.”
Really? The first is based upon scriptural revelation, but the second is actually based upon a specific type of exegesis. In other words, where is it to be found *in this form* in the biblical narrative? Ergo the syllogism is somewhat dubious in its conclusions.
In his interpretation of the term predestination, Don Benson states :” —- so it is already set in stone for us :predestined – either in a philosophical and-or scientific sense.”
Has anyone on this post actually taken time out to grasp its significance in a *theological” sense? The word actually occurs in the Bible! For example, read Ephesians 1: 3 – 11! Note the use of ‘love’ and ‘adoption as sons’ ! Predestination is an essential qualiity of God’s passionate desire to provide the utmost blessing for his covenant people, “having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” —-. [Ephesians 1: 11].
Please do not confuse the philosophy of *determinism* with biblical predestination! The primary significance of the latter is *not* to promote intellectual debates, but to bring us closer to the heart of the Godhead .
What planet are you on today, Colin? You’ve just stated:
“In his interpretation of the term predestination, Don Benson states :” —- so it is already set in stone for us :predestined – either in a philosophical and-or scientific sense.”
But you’ve taken an unjustifiable extraction of a few words from a much longer sentence (which was referring to 2 preceding sentences) and alleged that it’s my “interpretation of the term predestination”.
However compelled you may feel about you own understanding of an issue, it is neither honest nor helpful to imply others have said things which they clearly have not.
“Really? The first is based upon scriptural revelation, but the second is actually based upon a specific type of exegesis. In other words, where is it to be found *in this form* in the biblical narrative? Ergo the syllogism is somewhat dubious in its conclusions.”
But Romans 9:14-21 is clear:
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Phil Almond
An edifying investigation on a topic I hadn’t thought much about – thank you so much!
For me God’s impartiality is a feature grounded in His Wisdom
For us it is a mark of godliness, of being considered a wise man.
The book of Proverbs, wisdom literature, defines the wise {godly]man.
For me the Wisdom of God is unsearchable yet in experience is an
ocean of great wonder.
There are aspects of such wisdom that are beyond our capacity to
Understand. Psalm 139:17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
139:18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
David wondered,
“Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house (family), that you have brought me this far?
” This question is found in 2 Samuel 7:18.
He is reflecting on his rise from a shepherd to a king and acknowledging that his position and family legacy are due to God’s favor.
Along side Impatiality is the Favour of God, why He chooses is beyond human intellect.
As Jesus says “you did not choose me I chose you and ordained you…John 15:16
In the context of 1 Peter 1, isn’t God’s Holiness the standard for his impartial judgement. Holiness is to be measured against his holiness. It applies to everyone and is impartial, and an absolute, in that respect.
Is God truly impartial if He chooses whom to gave salvation to, and that choice excludes perhaps many?
Why would God’s choice negate his sovereign omniscient, outside of time, impartiality based on His holiness?
How would you be i
You may disagree with God but that doesn’t mean he is not impartial. Judgment, redemption, justification, salvation and sanctification, all come into play when considering God’s holiness in Triunity.
Maybe there is a need it consider God’s holiness.
There seems to be a great reluctance to do so.
but arent we all unholy, and worthy of condemnation? Is it not God’s grace that makes the difference, but that grace is only extended to some.
Are we only “dumb recipients “?
Ian – on the one hand, Ephesians 2:1-3 followed by Ephesians 2:4-6 would suggest that perhaps, initially, we are ‘dumb recipients’ in the sense that he drags us out of the very depths of Hell while we are rebelling against Him, but on the other hand Hebrews 6:4 indicates that once we are there, we can choose to reject Him. I don’t think that Hebrews 6:4 refers to the ’empty set’.
What is God’s grace? It not some abstract stuff called grace, he lobs out from heaven. It is supremely manefested in and through the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension of Jesus, saving grace, unearned, unmerited, saving faith, believing God. Pistis, of, and or in Jesus.
Common grace is
to all.
Now PC1, Peter what is God’s Holiness and how can we have fellowship with such a God of Christianity. The beauty of Holiness is to be ‘feared’ is it not? As we all live before the ‘face’ of God, an audience of One.
Common grace, but not saving grace it seems.
‘It sounds rather odd to us, but this is often behind the practice of ‘casting lots’ when making decisions in the Old Testament, and into the New; it bypasses human partiality, and hands the decision over to the will of God in his impartiality’
If that really does show God’s will, why do no churches now do that when making important decisions? Should they? If not, why not?
There is only one recorded incident of casting lots and never recommended after that.
“Choose for yourselves…” is what comes along more obviously and is right through the Old Testament
I am no theologian so the mystery of election/free will is beyond me. When I was a youngster, many decades ago, my father, a pastor and evangelist in a pentecostal church illustrated it thus;
The doorway of salvation facing humanity has inscribed above the gate ‘Whosoever will may come” . If and when you enter look back. You will see inscribed above the gate “Chosen and elect of God”.
A simple story for simple souls.
It seems to me that there is another dimension in God’s relationships with individuals.
That is, He takes into account their history with Him.
For example, at the burning bush encounter, Moses is not disqualified by his murder of the Egyptian. But when later he ‘merely’ hits the rock rather than speaking to it – as instructed – he is told that he will not enter the promised land.
Another was when Mary responded to Gabriel’s announcement, “How shall this be ?”, she got an explanation, and no rebuke. When Zechariah responded “How can this be ?”, he was rebuked and punished.
As Jesus said, ” From those to whom much has been given, much will be required”.
That is all part of the arc of God’s Redemptive history, not merely dealing with individuals.
The Rock struck by Moses was Jesus from whom the water of life flows. Jesus is only ‘struck’ once on the cross, never to be repeated.
Mary is the new Eve, mother of all ‘new’ and eternal life in Jesus, God’s Son, Saviour. Mary asked how and she believed. Zechariah, a priest, disbelieved God. Belief v disbelief of God.
Thanks Ian. Good stuff as usual.
On masters and slaves, it seems interesting that Eph 6:9 is addressed to masters and the equivalent in Col 3:25 is addressed to slaves. Could it be that God’s impartiality in judgment is to masters, a warning, but to slaves, a promise?
Well, ‘impartiality’ is extremely important; I’d agree with everything in this article – and very well expressed – except that I can’t see how it expresses the ‘heart’ of the gospel (as in the title). It could be at the heart of ‘righteousness’, God’s righteousness and failure to exercise impartiality could be at the root of much of our personal sin.
But isn’t the heart of the gospel how God dealt with our sin? Because when God judges each of us impartially according to our deeds, isn’t there only one answer to this – which is ‘guilty’ and ‘condemned’ as expressed by Ephesians 2:1-3? Isn’t the heart of the gospel God’s *love* for us – and consequently His redemptive plan to deal with our sin? (Ephesians 2:4-6 really is a non-sequitur). So that our sins are nailed to the cross and we bear them no more? Isn’t that what faith is all about? Isn’t that the *defining* property of the Christian faith? Isn’t that the heart of the gospel?
Ephesians was written to believers., saints.
Chapters 1-3 are in the indicative ‘mood’ what has been done, nu God, very much a retrospective, setting out who they are, how and where they are, not only in Ephesus! Acts sets out the context of their lives.
Theologians hold that Ephesians is an example of the unvariable Gospel ‘grammar’ indicatives, facts, followed by imperatives, how to live. Chapters 4-5
Geoff – there are two people contribution here who I feel have ‘got it’ – i.e. come to faith and, as a result, have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. They are you and PC1.
“Since God is impartial, then when his justice comes it is the great leveller.”
Thank you Ian, I read this today and then read William Mason’s devotional reading for this morning:
God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Acts 10:34, 35.
It is a common, artful device of the adversary to insinuate, “one part of scripture opposes and contradicts another.” Hereby he aims to distress the minds, weaken the confidence of disciples, and to render the doctrines of grace of no esteem. The unlearned and unstable in the truths of free grace salvation, “wrest this, as they do also other texts of scripture, to their own destruction.” It was farthest from St. Peter to make this declaration, to subvert the fundamental truths of the gospel, and the one only way of salvation taught by himself; namely, by “election, according to the fore- knowledge of God the Father, through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” 1 Pet. 1:2.
But he now perceived of a truth that this blessing came equally alike upon Gentiles as well as Jews. “God is no respecter of persons.” This is a most comfortable truth to the vilest of the human race. There is nothing that claims respect in the person of one man above another in the sight of God. “All are alike corrupt and become abominable. There is naturally no fear of God before our eyes. There is none that doeth good; no not one.” There is no difference. Jew and Gentile, publican and pharisee, outwardly devout, and openly profane, are all upon a level in point of justification before God. Enlightened souls see and own this in deep humility, and self-abasement: while proud pharisees challenge and claim respect from God, because they think their persons and characters are more amiable in his sight than others.
But saith Moses, “The Lord your God is a mighty and terrible God, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.” Deut. 10:17. What reward can poor sinners give to procure God’s regard, bribe his justice, or avert his wrath? Do they naturally fear God and work righteousness in order to this? Lay thine hand upon thine heart, O soul; judge as in the sight of God. Say, was this thy natural conduct and practice towards him? God knoweth, to hate him and work wickedness is the natural state and practice of thee and of all men. But yet he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, be he who or what he will, is accepted with God. For this is a full proof of being “accepted in the beloved Jesus.” The Lord puts his fear in one’s heart according to covenant promise, Jer. 32:40. He renews us in righteousness and true holiness. Hence our practice is agreeable to our state. Prayers and alms come up before the Lord as a memorial of what he has done on the heart. And “the same Lord over all, is rich in mercy to ALL that call upon him. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” Rom. 10:12, 13.
https://williammasondaily.webador.co.uk/june/june-21-am
Sam Tippets,
Thank you for posting that.
You’re welcome, Geoff.
This is a reading from Mason’s “A Spiritual Treasury for the Children of God”, which I’ve found to be very helpful over the last few years. Mason lived during the ‘First Great Awakening’ and was acquainted with some of the Evangelical leaders of the time. He wasn’t a member of the clergy, but these devotionals have endured and continue to be a blessing to many. Mason is also known for writing explanatory notes found in some editions of The Pilgrim’s Progress and The Holy War, well worth getting editions with these notes in.
I believe that three different ideas are being confused here.
The idea of lifting the face to show acceptance of a person first occurs at Gen 4:7. Cain’s countenance has fallen, in despondency, because God has rejected his offering. Then God says (lit.) “If you do well, will there not be elevation?” – either elevation of the face or elevation in status. Either way, the meaning is “will you not be accepted/raised up from your abasement?” Clearly the implied subject of the verb is God.
Deut 10:17 says of God that he does not lift up faces, apparently in the sense of respecting persons or showing partiality, in keeping with the next phrase ‘nor take [different verb] a bribe’.
Luke 20:21 οὐ λαμβάνεις πρόσωπον – the closest English equivalent is ‘you do not take anything at face value’. Here the context is whether to pay Roman taxes, not any question about showing favour or partiality to a person; the positive counterbalancing clause is ‘rather, you teach on the basis of truth’.
Is God impartial?, His mercy grace and favour are not
deserved by anyone let alone certain individuals of what ever
merits they may have practiced.
There are strictly no mitigating factors that may obtain His favour. All are equally sold under sin.
Any choice of God dwells in His Wisdom which is past finding out
And is a work of His grace [unmerited favour]
Why choose a pagan Abram to found a national and spiritual dynasty?
Why choose a rabid persecutor to stabilize and establish an embryonic church? Etc. etc.
Why does the Psalmist say“you are my glory and the lifter of my head?
Surly the “Heart” of the Gospel, the mercy and grace and a fulfilment of God’s own purpose to glorify His Son and establish His kingdom?
The work of His Priests – to make intersession, to obtain mercy and grace for sinful man.