Romans 2:17

In the latter part of the chapter the apostle directs his discourse more closely to the Jews, and shows what sins they were guilty of, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions. He had said (Rom 2:13) that not the hearers but the doers of the law are justified; and he here applies that great truth to the Jews. Observe,

I. He allows their profession (Rom 2:17-20) and specifies their particular pretensions and privileges in which they prided themselves, that they might see he did not condemn them out of ignorance of what they had to say for themselves; no, he knew the best of their cause.

1. They were a peculiar people, separated and distinguished from all others by their having the written law and the special presence of God among them. (1.) Thou art called a Jew; not so much in parentage as profession. It was a very honourable title. Salvation was of the Jews; and this they were very proud of, to be a people by themselves; and yet many that were so called were the vilest of men. It is no new thing for the worst practices to be shrouded under the best names, for many of the synagogue of Satan to say they are Jews (Rev 2:9), for a generation of vipers to boast they have Abraham to their father, Mat 3:7-9. (2.) And restest in the law; that is, they took a pride in this, that they had the law among them, had it in their books, read it in their synagogues. They were mightily puffed up with this privilege, and thought this enough to bring them to heaven, though they did not live, up to the law. To rest in the law, with a rest of complacency and acquiescence, is good; but to rest in it with a rest of pride, and slothfulness, and carnal security, is the ruin of souls. The temple of the Lord, Jer 7:4. Bethel their confidence, Jer 48:13. Haughty because of the holy mountain, Zep 3:11. It is a dangerous thing to rest in external privileges, and not to improve them. (3.) And makest thy boast of God. See how the best things may be perverted and abused. A believing, humble, thankful glorying in God, is the root and summary of all religion, Psa 34:2; Isa 45:15; Co1 1:31. But a proud vainglorious boasting in God, and in the outward profession of his name, is the root and summary of all hypocrisy. Spiritual pride is of all kinds of pride the most dangerous.

2. They were a knowing to people (Rom 2:18): and knowest his will, thelēma - the will. God's will is the will, the sovereign, absolute, irresistible will. The world will then, and not till then, be set to rights, when God's will is the only will, and all other wills are melted into it. They did not only know the truth of God, but the will of God, that which he would have them to do. It is possible for a hypocrite to have a great deal of knowledge in the will of God. - And approvest the things that are more excellent - dokimazeis ta diapheronta. Paul prays for it for his friends as a very great attainment, Phi 1:10. Eis to dokemazein humas ta diapheronta. Understand it, (1.) Of a good apprehension in the things of God, reading it thus, Thou discernest things that differ, knowest how to distinguish between good and evil, to separate between the precious and the vile (Jer 15:19), to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, Lev 11:47. Good and bad lie sometimes so near together that it is not easy to distinguish them; but the Jews, having the touchstone of the law ready at hand, were, or at least thought they were, able to distinguish, to cleave the hair in doubtful cases. A man may be a good casuist and yet a bad Christian - accurate in the notion, but loose and careless in the application. Or, we may, with De Dieu, understand controversies by the ta diapheronta. A man may be well skilled in the controversies of religion, and yet a stranger to the power of godliness. (2.) Of a warm affection to the things of God, as we read it, Approvest the things that are excellent. There are excellences in religion which a hypocrite may approve of: there may be a consent of the practical judgment to the law, that it is good, and yet that consent overpowerd by the lusts of the flesh, and of the mind: -

- Video meliora proboque

Deteriora sequor.

I see the better, but pursue the worse.

and it is common for sinners to make that approbation an excuse which is really a very great aggravation of a sinful course. They got this acquaintance with, and affection to, that which is good, but being instructed out of the law, katēchoumenos - being catechised. The word signifies an early instruction in childhood. It is a great privilege and advantage to be well catechised betimes. It was the custom of the Jews to take a great deal of pains in teaching their children when they were young, and all their lessons were out of the law; it were well if Christians were but as industrious to teach their children out of the gospel. Now this is called (Rom 2:20), The form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law, that is, the show and appearance of it. Those whose knowledge rests in an empty notion, and does not make an impression on their hearts, have only the form of it, like a picture well drawn and in good colours, but which wants life. A form of knowledge produces but a form of godliness, Ti2 3:5. A form of knowledge may deceive men, but cannot impose upon the piercing eye of the heart-searching God. A form may be the vehicle of the power; but he that takes up with that only is like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.

3. They were a teaching people, or at least thought themselves so (Rom 2:19, Rom 2:20): And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind. Apply it, (1.) To the Jews in general. They thought themselves guides to the poor blind Gentiles that sat in darkness, were very proud of this, that whoever would have the knowledge of God must be beholden to them for it. All other nations must come to school to them, to learn what is good, and what the Lord requires; for they had the lively oracles. (2.) To their rabbis, and doctors, and leading men among them, who were especially those that judged others, Rom 2:1. These prided themselves much in the possession they had got of Moses's chair, and the deference which the vulgar paid to their dictates; and the apostle expresses this in several terms, a guide of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, the better to set forth their proud conceit of themselves, and contempt of others. This was a string they loved to be harping upon, heaping up titles of honour upon themselves. The best work, when it is prided in, is unacceptable to God. It is good to instruct the foolish, and to teach the babes: but considering our own ignorance, and folly, and inability to make these teachings successful without God, there is nothing in it to be proud of.

II. He aggravates their provocations (Rom 2:21-24) from two things: -

1. That they sinned against their knowledge and profession, did that themselves which they taught others to avoid: Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Teaching is a piece of that charity which begins at home, though it must not end there. It was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that they did not do as they taught (Mat 23:3), but pulled down with their lives what they built up with their preaching; for who will believe those who do not believe themselves? Examples will govern more than rules. The greatest obstructors of the success of the word are those whose bad lives contradict their good doctrine, who in the pulpit preach so well that it is a pity they should ever come out, and out of the pulpit live so ill that it is a pity they should ever come in. He specifies three particular sins that abound among the Jews: - (1.) Stealing. This is charged upon some that declared God's statutes (Psa 50:16, Psa 50:18), When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him. The Pharisees are charged with devouring widows' houses (Mat 23:14), and that is the worst of robberies. (2.) Adultery, Rom 2:22. This is likewise charged upon that sinner (Psa 50:18), Thou hast been partaker with adulterers. Many of the Jewish rabbin are said to have been notorious for this sin. (3.) Sacrilege - robbing in holy things, which were then by special laws dedicated and devoted to God; and this is charged upon those that professed to abhor idols. So the Jews did remarkably, after their captivity in Babylon; that furnace separated them for ever from the dross of their idolatry, but they dealt very treacherously in the worship of God. It was in the latter days of the Old Testament church that they were charged with robbing God in tithes and offerings (Mal 3:8, Mal 3:9), converting that to their own use, and to the service of their lusts, which was, in a special manner, set apart for God. And this is almost equivalent to idolatry, though this sacrilege was cloaked with the abhorrence of idols. Those will be severely reckoned with another day who, while they condemn sin in others, do the same, or as bad, or worse, themselves.

2. That they dishonoured God by their sin, Rom 2:23, Rom 2:24. While God and his law were an honour to them, which they boasted of and prided themselves in, they were a dishonour to God and his law, by giving occasion to those that were without to reflect upon their religion, as if that did countenance and allow of such things, which, as it is their sin who draw such inferences (for the faults of professors are not to be laid upon professions), so it is their sin who give occasion for those inferences, and will greatly aggravate their miscarriages. This was the condemnation in David's case, that he had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, Sa2 12:14. And the apostle here refers to the same charge against their forefathers: As it is written, Rom 2:24. He does not mention the place, because he wrote this to those that were instructed in the law (in labouring to convince, it is some advantage to deal with those that have knowledge and are acquainted with the scripture), but he seems to point at Isa 52:5; Eze 36:22, Eze 36:23; and Sa2 12:14. It is a lamentation that those who were made to be to God for a name and for a praise should be to him a shame and dishonour. The great evil of the sins of professors is the dishonour done to God and religion by their profession. "Blasphemed through you; that is, you give the occasion for it, it is through your folly and carelessness. The reproaches you bring upon yourselves reflect upon your God, and religion is wounded through your sides." A good caution to professors to walk circumspectly. See Ti1 6:1.

III. He asserts the utter insufficiency of their profession to clear them from the guilt of these provocations (Rom 2:25-29): Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; that is, obedient Jews shall not lose the reward of their obedience, but will gain this by their being Jews, that they have a clearer rule of obedience than the Gentiles have. God did not give the law nor appoint circumcision in vain. This must be referred to the state of the Jews before the ceremonial polity was abolished, otherwise circumcision to one that professed faith in Christ was forbidden, Gal 5:1. But he is here speaking to the Jews, whose Judaism would benefit them, if they would but live up to the rules and laws of it; but if not "thy circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, thy profession will do thee no good; thou wilt be no more justified than the uncircumcised Gentiles, but more condemned for sinning against greater light." The uncircumcised are in scripture branded as unclean (Isa 52:1), as out of the covenant, (Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12) and wicked Jews will be dealt with as such. See Jer 9:25, Jer 9:26. Further to illustrate this,

1. He shows that the uncircumcised Gentiles, if they live up to the light they have, stand upon the same level with the Jews; if they keep the righteousness of the law (Rom 2:26), fulfil the law (Rom 2:27); that is, by submitting sincerely to the conduct of natural light, perform the matter of the law. Some understand it as putting the case of a perfect obedience to the law: "If the Gentiles could perfectly keep the law, they would be justified by it as well as the Jews." But it seems rather to be meant of such an obedience as some of the Gentiles did attain to. The case of Cornelius will clear it. Though he was a Gentile, and uncircumcised, yet, being a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house (Act 10:2), he was accepted, Rom 2:4. Doubtless, there were many such instances: and they were the uncircumcision, that kept the righteousness of the law; and of such he says, (1.) That they were accepted with God, as if they had been circumcised. Their uncircumcision was counted for circumcision. Circumcision was indeed to the Jews a commanded duty, but it was not to all the world a necessary condition of justification and salvation. (2.) That their obedience was a great aggravation of the disobedience of the Jews, who had the letter of the law, Rom 2:27. Judge thee, that is, help to add to thy condemnation, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress. Observe, To carnal professors the law is but the letter; they read it as a bare writing, but are not ruled by it as a law. They did transgress, not only notwithstanding the letter and circumcision, but by it, that is, they thereby hardened themselves in sin. External privileges, if they do not do us good, do us hurt. The obedience of those that enjoy less means, and make a less profession, will help to condemn those that enjoy greater means, and make a greater profession, but do not live up to it.

2. He describes the true circumcision, Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29. (1.) It is not that which is outward in the flesh and in the letter. This is not to drive us off from the observance of external institutions (they are good in their place), but from trusting to them and resting in them as sufficient to bring us to heaven, taking up with a name to live, without being alive indeed. He is not a Jew, that is, shall not be accepted of God as the seed of believing Abraham, nor owned as having answered the intention of the law. To be Abraham's children is to do the works of Abraham, Joh 8:39, Joh 8:40. (2.) It is that which is inward, of the heart, and in the spirit. It is the heart that God looks at, the circumcising of the heart that renders us acceptable to him. See Deu 30:6. This is the circumcision that is not made with hands, Col 2:11, Col 2:12. Casting away the body of sin. So it is in the spirit, in our spirit as the subject, and wrought by God's Spirit as the author of it. (3.) The praise thereof, though it be not of men, who judge according to outward appearance, yet it is of God, that is, God himself will own and accept and crown this sincerity; for he seeth not as man seeth. Fair pretences and a plausible profession may deceive men: but God cannot be so deceived; he sees through shows to realities. This is alike true of Christianity. He is not a Christian that is one outwardly, nor is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Christian that is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom_2:17-29

Behold, thou art called a Jew.

The Jews also without excuse

Hitherto the apostle, in seeking to shut up the Jew unto the faith of Christ, has contented himself with an enunciation of the equitable principles on which the final judgment shall proceed, simply affirming, of both rewards and punishments, that they shall be to the Jew first, but also to the Gentile. He now proceeds, in a direct appeal to the Jew, to indicate to him the folly of any hope of escape but in the free grace of God as revealed in the gospel.

I. The appeal is made to the Jew as to the practical effect of the religion of which he made his boast upon his own character and conduct.

1. Did it make him to become a wiser or better man? If not, of what avail could it be in the day of final account? For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law, etc. (Rom_2:25). Circumcision therefore is not itself a saving rite, but the sign and seal of a salvation already secured by faith (Rom_4:10-11). But, if a mans life proclaims his profession of faith false, then the sign becomes a falsehood, and the seal a delusion and a snare. The sign is not the thing signified; nor does the thing signified of necessity wait upon the sign. The seal is not the treasure sealed; and neither is it produced by the magic influence of the sealing; nor does it of necessity remain so long as the seal remains. Marvellous it is that men should ever have imagined that God could be bound, by this mere external rite, to deliver men from the just punishment of their sins. How different the faith and reasoning of the great Father of the faithful! With him it was not a question of circumcision, but of righteousness (Gen_18:24-25).

2. But if an uncircumcised Gentile should practically meet the laws requirement he should be accounted as a circumcised person, and his conduct would condemn that of the unfaithful Jew (Rom_2:26, etc.). The inward and spiritual character of the religion required both by the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic law had been distinctly insisted upon by all the inspired writers, and the one ever-recurring complaint was that of Stephen, Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye (Act_7:51). By the testimony of Moses, and all the prophets, such circumcised ones were really and before God uncircumcised. But could an uncircumcised Gentile remaining uncircumcised, secure a position of grace equal to that which the disobedient Jew forfeited? By consenting to be circumcised he confessedly might. For that express provision had been made. But besides proselytes there were great numbers of Gentiles like the devout centurion (Luk_7:1, etc.), and devout Cornelius, who were truly godly men and accepted of God, and whose circumcision was that of the heart (Act_10:34). And why should the reference be restricted even to these? Surely there are men, even in purely heathen lands, who turn from sin seeking for redemption. And shall it be said that because they do not possess the light of revelation, and cannot exercise an intelligent personal faith in the Saviour of men, they must therefore be cut off from all interest in His great redeeming work? But if men, under such disadvantages, should become circumcised in heart and accepted of God, their fulfilment of the law would indeed judge those who, with all the advantages of revelation, continued still to be transgressors of the law.

II. Objections to the conclusiveness of the argument are answered (Rom_3:1, etc.).

1. If a Gentile, by keeping the law, might become, in the estimation of God, a Jew, while the Jew, through disobedience, might be reduced to the position of a sinful Gentile, then what profit could there be in circumcision? The advantage was much every way. First, indeed, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. The question to be solved was not how could a man be assured of perfect immunity from punishment, but how could he be most effectually rescued from the love and the practice of sin? For this Gentilism had no aptitude or power, but rather the contrary; while Judaism had both. In its sacred oracles, the need, the grace, the way, and the sure promise of salvation were made abundantly plain; so that, if the Jew did not secure it, he was without excuse. Then it is demanded--

2. If some of the Jews did not believe those sacred oracles, so as to secure possession of the promised salvation, would their unbelief invalidate the promise of God? Most surely not. For the fact that He had given the promise to believing and holy Israel could not be supposed to bind Him to insure salvation to every descendant of Abraham, whether believing and obedient or not. In respect to that, Let God be true, and every man a liar. David (Psa_51:4) would have vindicated God for excluding him from salvation, because of his sin; and he sought the restoration of the joy of that salvation only on the ground of the promise which free grace had made to the penitent. But now--

3. If our unrighteousness (who, being Jews, fail to manifest the faith and obedience of the covenant people) commend the righteousness of God, establish and make it more conspicuous, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance upon us whose very iniquities have served to promote His glory? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? If He must needs exempt from punishment all who contribute to His glory, then none can possibly be condemned. For His real glory is that He deals impartially with men according to their true characters, and not according to accidental relationship; and if it were possible for Him to depart from this rule, then the glory would also depart. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory, why am I yet to be judged as a sinner? Clearly because I am a sinner. If otherwise, why should we not say, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we do say, Let us do evil that good may come? To that Jesuitry which carried out to its logical results would justify any crime, the apostle deigns no other reply than that the damnation of its promulgators is just.

III. As to actual moral and religious character, the Jew must stand sine by side with the Gentile, as a sinner, and exposed to just condemnation (Rom_2:9, etc.) (W. Tyson.)

The advantages of the Jews

consisted in their--

I. Bearing the name of Jew, which embraces three significations--confession, praise, and thanksgiving, by which that people was distinguished from all other nations. The Jew alone had been chosen as the confessor of God, while all the rest of the world abjured His service; he alone was appointed to celebrate His praises, while by others He was blasphemed; he alone was appointed to render thanksgiving to God for multiplied benefits received, while others were passed by.

II. Having received the law. They had no occasion to study any other wisdom or philosophy (Deu_4:6). In this they rested.

1. Labour was spared them of employing many years and great endeavours, and travelling to distant countries, as was the case with other nations in acquiring knowledge and certain rules of direction.

2. They had an entire confidence in the law as a heavenly and Divine rule which could not mislead them, while the Gentiles could have no reliance on their deceitful philosophy.

III. Having the true God as their God, while the Gentiles having only false gods were without God in the world. They had, therefore, great reason to glory in Him, and on this account David said, that in God was his strength and his refuge (Psa_18:1-50; Psa_62:7; Psa_144:1-15).

IV. Knowing His will, and that not by a confused knowledge, such as the Gentiles had by the revelation of nature, but a distinct knowledge by the revelation of the word, which the Gentiles did not possess (Psa_147:19-20).

V. Discerning what is evil. They knew the will of God, and consequently what was contrary to it, i.e., what He condemns.

VI. Their ability to teach and guide others. The law not only instructed the Jews for themselves, but also for others, and in this they held that they enjoyed a great superiority over the other nations, who are here called blind, for with all the lights of their philosophy, laws, and arts, being without true religion, they had no true saving light. (R. Haldane.)

Jewish boasting

I. The Jews grounds of dependence.

1. Their covenant relation. The Jew expected salvation because he was a Jew. Denominationalism, rather than the living personal Christ, is too often made a ground of trust. They rested in the law as their confidence, and boasted that God was their God and they His people.

2. Their superior knowledge. Divine things had been specially revealed to them; on this ground they expected special favour of God. They forgot that superior knowledge often enhances the guilt of sin, and increases the certainty, necessity, and severity of punishment. It should make us first anxious to do right ourselves and then to lead others right.

3. The fact of circumcision.

II. The just principles of Divine judgment. These are to be mens works or character, and the standard of judgment, the light we all severally enjoy. This is true both of Gentiles and Jews. The one will be judged precisely by the same principles as the other (Rom_2:28-29). (C. Higgins.)

The need of spiritual religion

Paul now addresses the Jew direct.

I. The false conceptions of the Jews.

1. The Jews were--

(1) Overweeningly proud of their national name. To be entitled to the name of Jew was the highest of earthly honours. To be an Athenian, or a Roman, was a much inferior distinction. Nor without reason; yet they should not have carried it to so ridiculous an excess. Alas! how has the fine gold now become dim (Deu_28:37).

(2) Boastful of their religious privileges, and vainly built upon them their confidence of final safety and present acceptance with God. He possessed the law, etc. With such distinguishing favours he gave himself wondrous airs of self-importance; and looked down upon Grecian sages and Roman legislators with contempt. As to the common people among the uncircumcised, they were mere dogs and swine.

(3) Thought themselves at liberty to indulge in all manner of unrighteousness with impunity. As the special favourites of heaven, God would be tolerant of their vices, and readily sanction them in their evil propensities. What would be a damnable crime among the heathen would, in a Jew, be a small and venial offence scarcely needing forgiveness.

2. Accordingly, the apostle boldly assails their refuges of lies, and shows them that their transgressions were as abhorrent to God as the corresponding iniquities of the heathen. And here he establishes the principle, that circumcision was never meant to be a substitute for personal holiness, and can never be accepted as such, while uncircumcision will not place at a disadvantage any virtuous and well-meaning Gentile. And why? Because God regards the heart rather than the outward appearance. The sign of the covenant is of little worth unless the terms of the covenant have been apprehended and accepted by the inner man. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, etc.

3. All that is essential in this teaching belongs to us, as professedly a Christian people. We have the form of saving truth and knowledge as well as they; and we are in the same danger of resting in that form, and then making it an excuse for sin and a cloak to our unrighteousness. Baptism stands in the place of circumcision. Do we not need, then, to be taught that he is not a Christian who is one outwardly only (1Pe_3:2).

4. This doctrine was, indeed, taught in the Old Testament, and the prophets severely rebuked their contemporaries for resting in the outward law, and thereby causing the name of Jehovah to be evil spoken of among the heathen, who, of course, judged of Him and His requirements by the conduct of His professing people (Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6; Eze_36:16-21; Eze_36:25-27).

II. The inward, true, and spiritual religion, on which the apostle so forcibly insists.

1. Its seat is in the heart. There is an outward form which is not to be despised; for wherever there is the power of godliness there will also be its appropriate expression, because a good tree must bring forth good fruit, and a pure fountain send forth pure streams. A piety which consists wholly of frames and feelings, and articles of belief, is a delusion and a snare. Yet, on the other hand, there may be an imitation of the form of godliness where its power is entirely absent. Sometimes there is a consciousness of hypocrisy, and a man puts on the livery of religion with the deliberate purpose of imposing on the world; but more frequently the error is the result of self-delusion. People observe the external proprieties of Christianity, while their hearts are utterly dark and dead. The difference between a formal Christian and a real one is that the one is an artificial tree, made of dead wood and wire, on whose branches oranges and apples are mechanically hung; while the other is a tree which bringeth forth his fruit in due season. The one is a painted fire, while the other is an altar on whose sacred hearth the flame truly burns.

2. It is not ours by nature, but it is the gift of God. By nature we have no religion, but we can, even if left to ourselves, easily acquire one. That which is outward is within the compass of our natural powers; but that which is inward and spiritual is like the flames which licked up Elijahs altar, which only Jehovah could flash forth. It is not enough that you read the Bible, say your prayers, etc. Are you the subject of a direct Divine working, changing your inward character? Is your circumcision, your consecration to God, that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter: whose praise is not of men but of God?

3. Let us delineate it. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant with Israel. God pledged Himself to be their King and Father. They, on the other hand, were to be willing to obey and serve Him. Our consecration is to be substantially of the same order. Let us view it as relating to--

(1) The will. As Gods creatures, we ought to be subject to His will. Nor should this be a hardship when we reflect on His perfect wisdom, goodness, and righteousness. Yet, man is a self-willed creature. This tendency reveals itself in earliest childhood. And then, afterwards, when our thoughts are directed to a higher quarter, when we become aware of a God whom it is our duty to honour and obey, the guilty struggle is renewed. Or, perhaps, we try to put Him off with a half-hearted and pretended service. The necessity of religion and the triumph of grace is to subdue this mutinous spirit, and make us willing and ready to say, Father, not my will, but Thine be done. Now, this subjection of the will to God shows itself in submission to His dealings with us, and obedience to His requirements of us.

(2) The motives follow the will. It is true that the will is influenced by motives; but it is also true that the will has a prior power of choosing its own motives. Now, ordinarily, men are constrained by a love of money, pleasure, power, etc. The man of God may be the subject of the same tendencies and incentives so far as they are in themselves lawful and right; but then he will not yield himself up to them blindly or absolutely; he will subordinate the whole to the supreme principle of seeking first the Divine glory and being actuated by love to God (Corinthians 10:31).

(3) The affections participate in the effects of inward holiness.

(a) Love is an acknowledged necessity of our existence. If carnally minded, our love will be impure, misleading, dangerous; but if spiritually minded, its great and all-satisfying object will be God Himself.

(b) Closely allied to love is fear; for what we love we fear to lose. And if we love God we shall fear to offend or displease Him; and having that we need have no fear beside.

(c) Where our love and fear centre thither will our desires ascend.

(d) From this feeling will spring both trust and hope. We shall confide with unfaltering affiance in Him whom our soul loveth. We shall have boldness before His presence, and know that, as He liveth, we shall live also. We shall not be dismayed by the prospect of death, or tremble when we think of judgment. Conclusion: Such is spiritual religion, the circumcision of the heart. It is produced within us by the Holy Ghost. The instrument is the Word of truth. And especially does He employ and apply to our hearts those doctrines which relate to the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to Gods readiness to be a Father to us and acknowledge us as His children, and to the dread realities of the world to come. Let us again ask ourselves if we possess real, inward, and spiritual religion? If not, a mere form and profession will be found in vain. (T. G. Horton.)

The nominal Christian

I. What he boasts (Rom_2:17-20).

II. What he does (verses 21-21).

III. What is the result. He is condemned--

1. By his own principles.

2. By the upright heathen.

3. By the gospel law. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The professor

1. His exalted privileges.

2. His honourable calling.

3. His faithless conduct. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

And approvest the things that are more excellent.

Sensitiveness of moral sense

The phrase is explained by Alford as provest (in the sense of sifting and coming to a conclusion on) things which differ; and by Vaughan as--

1. Discernest things that differ; art able to discriminate, as by an infallible test, things true and false, right and wrong.

2. Approvest things that excel (cf. Php_1:10; Rom_12:2)

. The boast, here, clearly refers to accuracy of judgment and to the sensitiveness of the moral sense. As the wild huntsman can hear a footfall at incredible distances; as the Indian of the prairie can track a trail, which to a dull-eyed European is invisible; as the connoisseur can distinguish the slightest shades of flavour in food and in wines of various vintages; as the artist can at a glance decide if a picture be that of a master or not; so the Jew boasted he could discern the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and unloose all kind of casuistical knots of morality. (C. Neil, M. A.)

And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind.--

Jewish treatment of Gentiles

Four terms set forth the moral treatment to which the Jew, as the born physician of mankind, subjects his patients, the Gentiles, to their complete cure. Thou art confident describes his pretentious assurance. And, first, he takes the poor Gentile by the hand as one does a blind man, offering to guide him; then he opens his eyes, dissipating his darkness by the light of revelation; then he rears him, as one who would bring up a being yet without reason; finally, when through all this care he has come to the stage of the little child (one who cannot speak--a designation of proselytes), he initiates him into the full knowledge of the truth, by becoming his teacher. (Prof. Godet.)

Unsaved workers

Now, I should like to ask a question of two or three classes, and then send you home. There are a great many of us here tonight who are teachers of others. Some of you are deacons, elders, Sunday school teachers, street preachers. I thank God that you are a busy people, and you are doing much for Christ. There is a question I want to ask of you and of myself: Are we who teach others sure that we have believed in Christ ourselves? It is well to ask that question; it is a very dangerous thing indeed for an unsaved man to begin to work for Christ, for the probabilities are that he will take for granted what he ought diligently to have proved. In many cases he never will seek to be saved; but go on, on, on, never pausing to examine himself, and so, while professing to work for God, he may be a stranger to the work of God on himself. There is an old story I recollect reading somewhere of a lunatic in an asylum, who one day saw a very lean cook. Accosting him, he said, Cook, do you make good food? Yes, said the cook. Are you sure? Yes. And does anybody get fat on it? Yes, again was the reply. Then, said the man, you had better mind what you are after, or else, when the governor comes round, he will put you in along with me, for if you make good food, and yet are so thin yourself, you must be mad, for you do not eat it, or else you would get fat too! There is some sense in that. You teach others, you say; you give them spiritual food; but why not feed on it yourselves? Master, what right hast thou to teach if thou wilt not first learn? Physician, physician, heal thyself! Brother, it will go hard with you and with me, if we are lost. What will become of us teachers of others, if, after having led others to the river, we never drink; after bringing others the heavenly food, we perish of spiritual famine ourselves? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes.--

The Sunday school teacher

I. His work and office. An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes.

1. In these words this is comprehensively described, both as respects the material upon which the teacher has to work, and the appliance which he brings to bear upon it. He has to deal with human nature in its ignorant and helpless condition: to make the naturally foolish wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

(1) The foolish! According to Scripture, the natural state of mankind is one of folly, and the way of sin the way of foolishness. And right reason agrees with this; for surely it is folly to neglect the great end of a mans being, and to come short of eternal happiness. Surely it is a gross infatuation to risk that precious jewel, the soul, in seeking to grasp the pomps of the world, or to grovel in the dust of its pollutions. And this foolishness, though not so exaggerated as in more advanced years, is incident to the years of childhood. It is bound in the heart of a child; childhood and youth are vanity (Pro_22:15; Ecc_11:10). It is so in the very nature of things. Impressible for good as the mind of a child unquestionably is, and free as it is from the prejudices of riper age, still when left to itself it will invariably take the wrong direction, and by degrees develop its sinful tendencies. The soil of the heart, if it be not cultured for the good seed of the Divine word, will be speedily sown with evil principles, and bring forth an abundant measure of foolish and evil habits.

(2) Thus foolish, the young are mere babes as far as regards spiritual health and strength. This designation sufficiently expresses mens natural inability to recover themselves out of the way of folly, and advance in the true life of God (Jer_10:23). And, if this is true of man in mature life, how much truer must it be of his childhood. But the Sunday school teacher has to deal literally with babes, and needing as much care, in a moral point of view, as the very babe which hangs upon its mothers breast. They are the lambs of the flock, the young and tender, who stand in need of kind assistance, of gentle leading, of suitable provision. They are those of whom the good Shepherd spake (Joh_21:15).

2. The office must be of the last importance. It is to train the little ones in the way they should go; to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The Sunday school is a nursery for heaven. It is true that it has afforded a means of education to many a poor child; but its grand object is to make scholars in the school of Christ, This may be done now with greater ease than at any other time. The young plant may be trained to assume almost any shape, if bent and turned while it is yet flexible, To preoccupy and cultivate the ground should be the aim of the Christian philanthropist: it will not long lie fallow; for Satan and his agents will be assiduous enough in their endeavours to plant it with tares. If we do not train the foolish and helpless for God, Satan will train them for himself (Deu_6:6-7; Psa_78:3-7; Eph_6:4; Pro_22:6).

II. The spirit in which he should engage in his work.

1. Sincere desire to promote the spiritual well-being of the children. What we want is to Christianise our people, and when is this so likely to be brought about as in youth? Do not think, then, that you have done enough when you have taught them to read the letter of the Bible: you must seek to imbue them with its spirit. But here an inquiry will naturally be suggested, are you competent for this, i.e., are you a converted character, or only a professor. Here is your test. Thus, only as you are led by the Spirit of God are you fit to be an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes.

2. Self-denial, patience, and perseverance. There will always be much to try and discourage you: the waywardness of some, the dulness of others, and the uncertainty of not a few. There is much call for gentle and cautious treatment: the variety of dispositions and capacities must be noted, and dealt with in various ways; and the difficulty of so doing will often occasion discouragement. Some require to be urged on, while others must rather be restrained (Gen_33:13). You are sorely tried on account of the little impression which seems to be made upon your children; but little is manifest as the result of your teaching; do not despair, the seed often remains a long time in the soil before it begins to fructify: if you work in a proper spirit, your labour shall not be in vain in the Lord (Ecc_11:1). You cannot expect to do everything at once.

3. Unwavering dependence upon Divine aid. While on the one hand the inquiry may be made, Who is sufficient for these things? on the other hand, it may be confidently, though humbly, urged, I can do all things through Christ, which strengtheneth me. He whom we serve has all hearts and all things at His disposal: He can overturn or remove this or that obstacle, and make our way smooth before us, and so interpose as to leave us without excuse, if we grow weary or faint in our duty. Hence we must fervently pray for Divine enlightenment and teaching. We want wisdom as well as strength. And in seeking for the guidance of the Spirit, we are not to despise or pass by all proper human aids. We may the more confidently crave the teaching of the Spirit, when we have duly sought after available knowledge; for the Divine blessing is invariably given in the use of means.

4. A single eye to the Divine glory. When the Christian sets this before him as the end of his life, he will not regard ordinary difficulties. This will lead him to strive after the conversion of souls.

III. The encouragements.

1. The general assurance of success. Enough is said to encourage every labourer to prosecute his work with assiduity. And not a few instances might here be recorded of pleasing results. Not only have children been instructed and converted to God, but they have proved the means of instruction and conversion to their parents and others. How many who now occupy stations of eminence and usefulness owe their all, under God, to Sunday schools.

2. Personal benefit. In many cases the instructor has been savingly taught himself, while teaching others. And where he has been truly pious, when engaged in the work, the graces of the Christians life have been called into exercise, and their growth promoted.

3. The final reward (Mat_25:40). (J. S. Broad, M. A.)

Ineffectual opinions

Opinions may play upon the surface of a mans soul, like the moonbeams on the silver sea, without raising its temperature one degree or sending a single beam into its dark caverns. And that is the sort of Christianity that satisfies a great many of you, a Christianity of opinion, a Christianity of surface creed, a Christianity which at the best slightly modifies some of your outward actions, but leaves the whole inner man unchanged. (A. Maclaren.)

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?--

The teacher taught

In His conversation with Nicodemus our Saviour enunciated the principle to which all Christian usefulness must eventually be referred (Joh_3:11). The model Pharisee asserted for himself the most edifying orthodoxy, flawless morality and eminent devotion; he claimed extraordinary keenness in discrimination, approving only what was excellent; he could inform the ignorant, illumine the darkened, give counsel to illumined adults, and help forward untaught children. Yet with all these assumptions the apostle seems to have discovered that which led him to rate such a creature as a mere spiritual quack. This man, so earnest against thieving, had a touch of dishonesty; so stern in pressing the penalties of the seventh commandment, had some sins which would look ill under scrutiny. In a word, he was instructing others with no word for himself. And so St. Paul reiterates the grand principle of the gospel: religious instruction is to be indorsed by the living experience of the instructor. Consider:--

I. The great common need under which humanity lies. It has pleased God to make men instruments of good to each other. Hence the proclamation of the gospel is necessarily experimental. Come all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul. Naaman was just the person to tell lepers of the prophet who had bidden him go wash in the Jordan. Bartimeus was just the right one to lead blind men to Jesus, who had opened his eyes. Hence, it is perfectly natural that we demand of him who teaches that he should first have felt the truth he proffers. Otherwise he lays himself open to the taunt, Physician, heal thyself!

II. The aim of all religious instruction. The conscience must be reached, and through its monitions the entire life must be influenced, or else all teaching is wasted. Nothing is so mysterious as the forms of operation which this inner monitor chooses. Sometimes it seems to render a man harder and more violent; and yet at that very wildest moment he is nearer yielding than ever before. Sometimes it melts a man into deep emotion; and yet we painfully discover afterward that this has been mere ebullition of excited feeling. Now, we cannot grow skilful in distinguishing these external shows, without diligent study of our own experience. Conscience must be watched in its working within our hearts. As in water, face answereth to face; so the heart of man to man. That truth is most effective which, having proved itself forceful in reaching our own consciences, goes from its success there upon the intrenchments of another.

III. The variety of forms employed in Scripture instruction. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, etc. But then, how much there is of it! and what room for skill in discriminating what doctrine, principle, or precept to apply in each given case. Now, many of our Sunday school teachers are at a loss here. When the tossed vessel is drifting, and a passenger lies at the point of death, are there none who hurry to the Bible, as a sailor to the medicine chest; and yet stand appalled at the formidable array of spiritual drugs, any one of which possibly might be helpful or hurtful, if only they could know which? How can we learn what phases of truth to present? Let the Scriptures be studied experimentally. Let the Christian teacher rework every principle he offers to others, first into his own mind, and outwork it into his own life.

IV. The power of a godly example. Men are imitative, and in nothing so much as religious observance. Moreover, they insist upon identifying a moral teacher with what he teaches. They will not suffer a limping man to propose an effective cure for lameness. Hence there can be no failure more ridiculous in the eyes of the world than that of a man who urges a truth and lives a lie. But, on the other hand, whenever fully possessed of the power of the gospel, and radiant with its light, a grand life goes about doing good, that life has a majestic driving force to it almost unlimited.

V. The law of the Holy Spirits action. Truth is propagated not by transmission through mere symbols, but by radiation through conductors in contact. The lens of a burning glass will not only suffer the free passage of the suns rays, but will concentrate them, until what they fall upon bursts into flame; meanwhile the lens itself will remain perfectly cool. Wonderful experiments of this sort have been performed with even a lens of ice, which kindled a fire and continued unmelted. You can find nothing, however, in religious matters to which this phenomenon would answer. The torch, not the burning glass, is the emblem of spiritual life; it flames while it illumines, and is warmed as it sets on fire. He influences others most who has been nearest in contact with Christ. No religious teacher can give more than he gets. Conclusion: Whichever way we look, then, we reach the same conclusion. The heart lies behind the hand which proffers religious truth.

1. We learn here the proper use to make of the Scriptures. All religious instruction must be received experimentally. Thus the Bible becomes personal in every one of its utterances. How is it now (see Isa_29:11-12)? What renders the learned and the unlearned together so at fault is not want of education, but want of experience. It may be worth knowing, as a geographical fact, that there is no water in the Kidron valley save after a shower: it may be important to learn, as a historic fact, that Capernaum was located at Khan Minyeh; but this is not what is going to save souls. We must embody truth in life, and reduce vague information to vital and available help.

2. We learn to distinguish between gift and grace. Mere intellectual gift sometimes even hinders grace. Christ, said Legh Richmond, may be crucified between classics and mathematics. It is not our want of aptitudes for doing good which stands in our way, half so much as it is our want of communion with God. The rule is, Oh! taste and see that the Lord is good! Out of this experimental acquaintance with truth grows our power fitly to offer it. Scholarship is only a means to an end. The gospel light is much like the solar light; its beauty is not its efficiency. You may divide the sunbeam into seven beautiful colours, and not one alone nor all together will imprint an image on a daguerreotype plate. Just outside the spectrum, in the dark, there is one entirely invisible ray, called the chemical ray, which does all the work. No man ever saw it, no man every felt it; and yet this it is which bleaches and blackens a dull surface into figures of loveliness and life. I care not how luminous a mans personal or intellectual qualities may be; if he lacks, amid the showy beams that are shining, this one which is viewless--this efficient but inconspicuous beam of spiritual experience--all his endeavours will surely prove inoperative for good.

3. We learn here the advantage of seasons of discipline. In all the round of Gods dealing with His children, there is nothing like suffering as an educator. Anything that loosens the hold of the soul on earthly things, and shuts it up to God, is valuable; but, as a preparation for usefulness, is priceless. Any man expert in sea life could have said all that the apostle said when he came forth to quiet the sailors in the midst of a shipwreck. The force of his counsel lay not so much in the prudence of what he suggested, as in the experience which was embodied in it--that long abstinence in which he had received his vision. One mysterious but remembered hour there was which gave his speech all its efficiency (Act_17:22-25). It is just this which is the element of power in any counsel. The angel of experience is sent to one, and then he is ready to say, I believe God!

4. We learn the secret of all success, and the explanation of all failure. It would seem at first sight that truth is efficient in itself. But now we understand that first it must pass through the teachers experience. When the plague was raging in Ireland, the priests gave out that if any man would take from his own fire a piece of burning peat and light his neighbours fire with it, he would deliver the family from an attack of the disease. The whole region was instantly alive with brands passing to and fro. Oh! if superstition could do this much, ought not zeal to do more? But the kindling was to come from ones own hearthstone then; and the kindling must come from ones own heart now. Calvins seal motto was a hand holding a heart on fire, with the legend, I give thee all, I hold back nothing! What we need is to have our entire level of Christian experience lifted. We are too busy about appliances and places and theories.

5. We learn the last essential of preparation for teaching. We must have the presence of the Holy Ghost. You see this most evidently in the case of Paul. They called him Paullus, because he was little. He had a distemper in his sight. His bodily presence was said to be weak, and his speech contemptible. But no man ever equalled him in power as a religious teacher. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

The teacher animated and urged to duty

I. Let us attempt to produce animation by an appeal to you as teachers of others. Be not weary in well-doing; implies that in well-doing we may be weary--though sinners are not often weary in ill-doing.

1. Fill your minds with the magnitude and importance of your work.

(1) When you look upon your little charge, you are not merely to regard them as beauteous shells scattered on the shore of the ocean, but as each a pearl of incalculable value. When you are called to be teachers of babes, you are not called to play with toys.

(2) But, as an incalculable value is impressed upon them, so they are exposed to imminent danger. Though naturally depraved, this depravity is increased by indulgence, and rivetted by practice; and, if you interpose in time, you may rescue many.

(3) Recollect that God calls the greater part of His people in early life.

2. Let me charge on your consciences your obligations to attend to the work.

(1) Think that you are all now listening to Him who says, Lovest thou Me?--feed My lambs. The Saviour takes a little child in His arms, and He says, Suffer little children to come unto Me, etc. He that receiveth one such little child in My name, receiveth Me. While others look at the Saviour, as He issues His command, and say, Is this all? our imaginations are filled with something greater, we would be preachers, writers, missionaries, martyrs--anything but teachers of babes:--you say, What! disdain to stoop to babes, when Christ takes the little ones up in His arms.

(2) And while Christ thus aims to bind you by a sense of obligation, let me remind you what He has done for you. Has He not, as it were, washed your feet? and should you not wash the feet of His meanest disciples?

3. Recall to your grateful recollection the blessings with which God has crowned this work. Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. Some may say that they have turned out ill who were brought up well; but we may say, Be of good cheer; for I believe God that it shall be even as it was told me. Let us then look round, and see what blessings have attended the instruction of the rising race; and, while we look around, let us inquire, What hath God wrought?

(1) Take this school and all the children who have been instructed in it--add to them all in the metropolis--in the kingdom--in the world.

(2) And such being the numbers of those collected in Sabbath schools, think how many blessings have been carried into families. Consider how the first tidings of salvation have been thus conveyed.

4. Tremble at the thought of neglecting this work. Woe to us if Sunday schools should expire! We have waked up the world so completely that it will not soon go to sleep again. We have taught this generation that they must teach the next. We must go on: we have advanced too far to recede. The great enemy of man is at work to ruin the world, by the very same means which we employ to benefit the world.

II. Attend to the expostulation which is contained in the second part of the text, Teachest thou not thyself? I would expostulate with you.

1. With regard to over-enlisting. Sabbath schools are at once our glory and our shame. We should earnestly wish their extinction; it is a disgrace to us that they are needed. When the children of pious and instructed parents are sent to a Sunday school, it is a perversion of things. There should be a Sunday school in every house. There are but two exceptions to this--the first is where the parents are so ignorant that they need instruction themselves; the children of these you ought to take and instruct. The other is where the parents have small families, and can take their children with them to a Sunday school: thus they may instruct the children of the poor and their own children at the same time. No mortal living has a right to transfer the care of his children to others, while he can take care of them himself.

2. Against overworking. Overdoing is often undoing. All should be anxious to do as much as possible; but you must remember that the Lords day was intended to be a day for the rest and edification of your own souls. Let there be no long singing, long prayers, long lessons. For the childrens sakes, as well as for your own, avoid overworking. As long as you can keep the attention judiciously awake, you do good; but when you see the spirits flagging you may be certain very little will be done.

3. Beware of over-valuing. Nothing is more common than for persons to think highly of that in which they are engaged.

4. Beware of undervaluing. Do not suppose that because a man is wise to his own salvation he is therefore wise enough to teach others.

(1) You should know much; you should have some time for study; and all your knowledge should be made subservient to your grand design.

(2) And then there must be, also, the art of teaching. This must be acquired, or, with all your knowledge, you will not be wise to win souls.

(3) There must be the art of ruling: if you have not the ability to hold sway over your own spirits, the children will soon perceive it, and will soon manage you. (J. Bennett, D. D.)

Teaching and example

He that giveth good precepts, and follows them by a bad example, is like a foolish man who should take great pains to kindle a fire, and, when it is kindled, throws cold water upon it to quench it. (Abp. Secker.)

Teaching and practice

The contradiction between the two is--

1. Common.

2. Inexcusable.

3. Damnable. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The responsibility of the teacher

A misplaced switch or a wrong signal may send hundreds into eternity unprepared.

Truths best taught by life

In how quick a time a man can take round the hands of a watch when he has the key! But who can tell the hour from that? It is a different thing when slowly, moment by moment, the machinery within works them round so that every hour and every minute is marked correctly. So a man may run the whole round of Christian doctrines in speech, but it is not half so effective as when he lives and shows them forth day by day, and as events arise, in this difficult life of ours.

The teacher must make the truth part of his inner experience

I am afraid that very often the truth which we deliver from the pulpit--and doubtless it is much the same in your classes--is a thing which is extraneous and out of ourselves, like the staff which we hold in our hand but which is not a part of ourselves. We take doctrinal or practical truth as Gehazi did the staff, and we lay it upon the face of the child, but we ourselves do not agonise for its soul. We try this doctrine and that truth, this anecdote and the other illustration, this way of teaching a lesson and that manner of delivering an address; but so long as ever the truth which we deliver is a matter apart from ourselves and unconnected with our innermost being, so long it will have no more effect upon a dead soul than Elishas staff had upon the dead Child. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?--

Sacrilege

That the Jew of Pauls time, and for generations long before, abhorred idols there can be no question. In the Babylonish captivity, the nation became so disgusted with idolatry that the hatred of it then engendered was left as a legacy to all time. But did the Jew at the same time commit sacrilege? To answer this question we must first clearly understand what we mean by sacrilege.

1. We may take the alternative reading, Dost thou rob temples? And then the inference would be that this hater of idolatry was none the less sometimes profiting by it, stealing the gifts of Pagans from their altars, and turning them to his own account; as we may suppose in our own time one who should inveigh fiercely against the liquor traffic, and derive a part of his income from the rental of a spirits vault.

2. Leaving this, however, and accepting the text as it stands, our idea of sacrilege is that of the profanation of sacred things. Uzziah, e.g., assuming priestly functions, or Belshazzar using the sacred vessels in the orgies of a bacchanalian revel. To speak more generally, sacrilege is diverting from its Divine purpose anything that God has given us. The undue exaltation of sacred things may be sacrilege, and herein the Jew might commit idolatry in the spirit while he vehemently protested against it in the letter. A superstitious reverence for sacred things, such as, e.g., the worship of the brazen serpent in Hezekiahs time.

3. Herein we think the integrity of the antithesis that runs through the questions from the 21st verse is sustained, Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?…Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou--by thy foolish superstitions, by using and exalting some of thy sacred things in a way never intended by the Lord as well as in degrading them to common purposes--dost thou commit sacrilege, and so in spirit fall into that sin of idolatry against which thou criest out so loudly? And now to turn this question to good account. Is it possible for us who have renounced idolatry to commit sacrilege in the sense of becoming idolaters in spirit, while in the letter we denounce it? I think it is--

I. We may commit sacrilege with Divine ordinances, with baptism and the Lords Supper, e.g., by investing them with a mechanical efficacy never intended by their Author.

II. Selfishness is sacrilege, self-worship being one of the worst and most subtle forms idolatry can take.

1. Know ye not, brethren, that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, that you are not your own, but bought with a price, and, if this be so, what greater sacrilege or idolatry can any man commit than to use his God-given powers and faculties as if they were his own? Selfishness, self-worship, is a kind of sacrilege that brings with it its own most certain retribution. No leprosy may break out upon our persons as in the case of Uzziah; no handwriting may appear upon the wall as in the case of Belshazzar; but, none the less, the retribution will surely come.

2. Selfishness is sacrilege in relation to others as well as to ourselves, for what right have we to use our fellows for our own selfish ends and purposes? How dare we make capital out of others weaknesses? Every mans person is sacred; he is an image of God. Wherefore let us honour all men, recognise the sacred uses and possibilities that are in them, lest losing reverence for the human we lose it also for the Divine.

3. Selfishness is sacrilege against God, too, for in His great house we are all of us vessels of gold, or of silver, of wood, or of stone, and if we use ourselves as for ourselves, forgetful of His sacred service, we are like servants that waste their masters goods, like priests who desecrate all sacred things, and abuse their solemn functions.

III. The love of others, where it leaves in the soul no room for love to God, is sacrilege. We may degrade them, and so fall into this sin, but we may also so exalt them as to fall into the same. When we hear it said that a woman is devoted to her child, or that she idolises her husband, if we were to adhere to the letter we should say that this is sacrilege. We do not think upon the whole that we are in very much danger of loving our dear ones either unwisely or too well. We can love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and also yet love our husbands, our wives, our children, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it. We are more likely on the whole, I think, to become sacrilegious by loving them too little than too much. Yet if it should be so with any of us that these relationships come between us and our God, then indeed do we commit sacrilege against them as certainly as against Him.

IV. Worldliness of spirit, the excessive love of this worlds goods is sacrilege and idolatry. If we are the devotees of fashion or of pleasure, if the shows of this world so engross us as to leave no time nor heart for the spiritual, then we are committing sacrilege. The most common gifts, the most earthly things are amongst the all things that work together for our good, but they work together for our harm when, instead of using them for God, we use them for mean purposes. The silver and the gold are the Lords, and we may be sacrilegious if we discern not this and use them not for Him. Whether we waste our money or hoard it, we are committing sacrilege with it, for money answereth all things, even the ends of grace as well as the means of ruin. Let us reverently handle even our money, using it as God Himself would have us use it, and so in things sacred or in things secular, it will be consecrated to Him in a true life service.

V. The love of nature to the exclusion of the love of God, the worship of mere material forms, is sacrilege. The earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof; the heavens declare His glory, etc., and to see nothing beyond this state of things is to commit sacrilege. For these do as truly reveal Him as does the Bible. But just as we may be bibliolatrous, so there is a nature-worship which, while it seems to elevate, does but desecrate and degrade. (J. W. Lance.)

Sacrilege

I.e., temple robbery.

I. The Jews were guilty of it.

1. In reference to heathen temples (Act_19:37).

2. In withholding or misappropriating tithes and offerings (Mal_3:8).

II. In not giving God the glory which is His due. They made the temple a den of thieves (Jer_7:11; Mat_21:13), and were charged with offering the blind and lame for sacrifice (Mal_1:8). Thus they abhorred false gods, but robbed and dishonoured the true God.

II. We may commit sacrilege by--

1. Withholding what is Gods.

2. Appropriating to our own use what properly belongs to God in regard--

(1) To property: a portion claimed for His service (Mal_3:10).

(2) To time: the whole of the weekly Sabbath claimed as His own (Exo_20:8). It is sacrilege, therefore, to appropriate any part of it to business or pleasure (Isa_58:13).

Conclusion:

1. Sacrilege the climax denoting intense coveteousness.

2. Unrenewed men only substitute one idol for another. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

For the name of God is blasphemed among the heathen through you.--

Nominal Christians, the occasion of blasphemy to the heathen

If the fifth commandment be the first with promise, the third is the first with threatening. In no point is the Almighty so sensitive as the honour of His name. Hence His Son has taught us to pray, Hallowed be Thy name. And in no sin is God more provoked than in that which brings dishonour upon His name. Hence this charge, which we shall illustrate--

I. In its application to Israel.

1. It is essential to remember that Israel were Gods chosen, peculiar, separate people, whom He had called forth in order that He might make them the lamp into which He would introduce the light of revelation for a lost world. To them He committed all the institutions of His holy worship, and all the laws of His Divine will. To the world at large, they were as Goshen in the midst of the land of Egypt in the plague of darkness. So that the whole earth borrowed what little light streaked its dark horizon from the solitary lamp lighted upon Zion; and just in proportion as that lamp east forth its beams was the moral darkness relieved, and the Gentile nations came to the brightness of the hope that was in Zion.

2. We must remember, further, that for a lengthened period the people of God were not missionaries, sent abroad to communicate their prophecies, laws, and ordinances to the Gentile lands; but rather the people from afar, hearing the fame of what God had done for Israel, came up to Jerusalem to inquire and worship, even as the Ethiopian eunuch came. And many were the proselytes that were led to join themselves to the people of the God of Israel. But in process of time God lifted up His hand to scatter them among the nations, so that long ere their final dispersion at the destruction of Jerusalem, there was scarcely a known spot where some of the wanderers of Zion were not to be found. And how did they go? They went still as the people of God. And consequently the heathen could not but regard them with deep curiosity and attention, in order that they might trace in them the character of their faith.

3. And what was the consequence? When the heathen saw that their vices were dark as their own, whilst they were puffed up with pride, because of their privileges, then it came to pass that the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles through the people of God (Eze_36:19, etc.). And the apostles had to encounter no obstacle in the progress of the truth that was more fatal than the dark misconduct of the scattered Israelites.

II. In its application to our own favoured land.

1. Englishmen undoubtedly stand nearest to the condition of the ancient people of God. If Israel stood in the relation of a covenant people to God, so do we. We are a baptized, as they were a circumcised, people; and if all their rebellion and inconsistency did not loose the bond of the covenant, but God spoke of them as His people, is it not so with ourselves? However deeply we may disgrace the name of Christians, that name is fastened upon us. He has taken this nation into peculiar union with His truth and His faith; He has identified us with His cause. And have not other lands looked to us as their example, and sought us for light and holy knowledge? And then God has brought us into contact with all nations. As of old the Jews were everywhere intermingled, so has it come to pass with the English. But Israel was scattered by the sword; they were exiles and wanderers, despised and cruelly entreated. But our sons are abroad through the richness of the blessing of God given to their mother land; so that her merchants visit every shore, her travellers explore every waste, her mariners are on every sea and in every haven--and over the whole world an Englishmans name constitutes a passport. And everywhere, too, our land has a mighty influence, and an empire so vast, that the sun never sets upon its limits. One fourth of the whole family of the earth acknowledges the sway of our Queen, and the other three-fourths are more or less influenced, and mightily too, by our land.

2. What ought to have been the results of such unexampled influence? It ought to have been that wherever Britons sons went they should have carried the blessed savour of Britains truth; and wherever they planted their feet, they should be recognised at once as witnesses for Christ. Alas! the charge brought against Israel may with equal emphasis be brought against ourselves. The name of God hath been blasphemed among the Gentiles through us. What has been our colonisation but, to a terrific extent, an annihilation of the tribes whose lands we have usurped, and whose homes we have ravaged? Our missionaries, one and all, concur in telling us that the most fatal and formidable obstacle in the way of the reception of Christs gospel among the Gentiles is the blasphemy occasioned to the name of our Redeemer by those who bear it but to defile it. And until this great stumbling block be removed, the gradual progress of Divine truth must be retarded; that we could only have our mariners, merchantmen, travellers, and colonial settlers going forth as living epistles, known and read of all the heathen lands through which they pass, then indeed would there go forth from Britains shore a voice which would come home to every heart--the voice of a godly life.

3. Then, if such be the application of this solemn charge against our own favoured land, it follows that there is not a more pressing or urgent claim upon Christian restitution, Christian justice as well as Christian sympathy and Christian zeal, than that every means should be used to redeem our title to the Christian name. (Canon Stowell.)

Inconsistency: its evil effects

How many sinners every year are driven away from all thought of religion by the inconsistency of professors! And have you ever noticed how the world always delights to chronicle the inconsistency of a professor! I saw only yesterday an account in the paper of a wretch who had committed lust, and it was said that he had a very sanctified appearance. Ay, I thought, that is the way the press always likes to speak: but I very much question whether there are many editors who know what a sanctified appearance means! at least they will have to look a long time among their own class before they find many that have any excess of sanctification. However, the reporter put it down that the man had a sanctified appearance; and of course it was intended as a fling against all those who make a profession of religion, by making others believe that this man was a professor too. And really the world has had some grave cause for it, for we have seen professing Christians in these days who are an utter disgrace to Christianity, and there are things done in the name of Jesus Christ which it would be a shame to do in the name of Beelzebub. There are things done, too, by those who are accounted members of the Church of our Lord Jesus, so shameful that, methinks, Pandemonium itself would scarcely own them. The world has had much cause to complain of the Church. O children of God be careful. The world has a lynx eye: it will see your faults, it will be impossible to hide them; and it will magnify your faults, making much of little, and of much a boundless mass. It will slander you if you have no open faults; give it, at least, no ground to work upon; let your garments be always white; walk in the fear of the Lord, and let this be your daily prayer, Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Inconsistency hinders the spread of Christianity

When Brainerd was among the American Indians, he stopped at a place where he offered to instruct them in Christianity. He was met by the retort, Why should you desire the Indians to become Christians, seeing that the Christians are so much worse than the Indians? The Christians lie, steal, and drink worse than the Indians. They first taught the Indians to be drunk. They steal to so great a degree, that their rulers are obliged to hang them for it; and even that is not enough to deter others from the practice. We mill not consent, therefore, to become Christians, lest we should be as bad as they. We will live as our fathers lived, and go where our fathers are when we die. By no influence could he change their decision.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 2:17-20. Behold — Here he applies the matter he had discussed in the preceding verses more closely to the Jews, and proves, that, notwithstanding all their pretences and privileges, they were transgressors of the law, and so could not be justified by works, any more than the Gentiles. And here therefore he refutes the highest point of Jewish glorying, after a further description of it, interposed Rom 2:17-20, and refuted Rom 2:21-24. The description consists of twice five articles; of which the former five, Rom 2:17-18, show what he boasts of in himself; the other five, (Rom 2:19-20,) what he glories in with respect to others. The first particular of the former five answers to the first of the latter; the second to the second, and so on. Thou art called a Jew — A professor of the true religion, and a worshipper of the true God. Dr. Macknight is of opinion that in this and the following verses, the apostle intended to address chiefly the men of rank and learning among the Jews; a supposition to which he thinks it is no objection that probably there were no doctors of the law, nor Jewish scribes and priests at Rome, when this letter was written; because, “as the apostle was reasoning against the whole body of the nation, his argument required that he should address the teachers of every denomination, to whom the things written in this and the following verses best agree. Besides, as he had addressed the heathen legislators, philosophers, and priests, in the first chapter, for the purpose of showing them the bad use they had made of the knowledge they derived from the works of creation, it was natural for him in this to address the Jewish scribes, priests, and doctors, to show them how little they had profited by the knowledge which they had derived from revelation. Of the Jewish common people the apostle speaks, Rom 3:20, &c., where he proves that they also were extremely vicious.” And restest in the law — Dependest on it alone, and on the having of it, for justification and salvation, though it can only condemn thee. And makest thy boast of God — As thy God; as belonging only to you Jews, and being yours in a peculiar manner; the founder of your commonwealth; your lawgiver, protector, and Saviour. And knowest his will — By special revelation, and more fully than the Gentiles. And approvest the things that are more excellent — Hast attained to a considerable degree of understanding in the law, so as to place a proper value upon things according to their worth, and to distinguish between things lawful and unlawful. The original words, δοκιμαζεις τα διαφεροντα, may be rendered, and triest, or, approvest on trial, the things that differ. Being instructed, &c. — Or, as Beza interprets κατηχουμενος εκ τον νομου, Being educated, or instructed from thy childhood, out of the law, 2Ti 3:15. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind — Vainly presumest that thou hast knowledge enough to teach others. The Jewish doctors, in contempt of the Gentiles, were wont to speak of them as blind — in darkness — ignorant — babes — and boasted of themselves as guides, to whose direction the Gentiles, in matters of religion, ought implicitly to submit. This boasting of the Jews the apostle introduced here, to show that their sins were greatly aggravated by the revelation of which they boasted. Who hast the form of knowledge — A system, body, or model of that knowledge, which is scattered up and down in the law, and of the truths which are there delivered. For the original word, μορφωσις, seems to bear this meaning: and the apostle may be considered as comparing the law to a looking-glass, which exhibits exact images of things, as the Apostle James likewise does, Jas 1:25. This implies that they not only considered themselves as having a sketch, or the outlines, of the truth contained in the law, but the most accurate knowledge of it. And this they counted sufficient to save them, though they lived in a loose and ungodly manner.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(a.) The Jew, under the law, breaking the law, Rom_2:17-29.

With great skill the apostle prefaces his attack by calling over the roll of the Jew’s titles to honour, 17-20; but he exalts him only to plunge him down more deeply, 21-24.

17. Behold—This is a spirited and direct address, as is the first appeal to the moralized Gentile in Rom_2:1. But the best authorities decide that the true reading is, “But if than art called a Jew.” The consequent corresponding to this if is nowhere affirmatively stated, but is conveyed in the necessary reply of the questions following.

Restest in—Reposest or reliest upon.

Boast of God—The very word Jew had assumed a religious signification, implying a believer in the one Supreme God, a monotheist in noble distinction from the polytheists. To his own view it was a divine appellation.

2. Condition of the Jewish Race, Rom_2:17 to Rom_3:20.

The case of the Jew (17-24) with the written law is essentially parallel with that of the Gentile with the unwritten law, 12-15. Yet the apostle treats with a more careful deference. By a series of interrogations, more delicate yet more forcible than affirmations, he exhibits the wide discrepancies between their boasting of the law and their persistent breaking it. Gradually and carefully he approaches the conclusion that the case of the Jew is no better at best than that of the Gentile.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_2:18.—κατηχούμενος, being orally instructed.

Rom_2:21.—This verse may be illustrated out of the Jewish writings, for they say, “He who teacheth others what he doth not himself is like a blind man who hath a candle in his hand to give light to others, whilst he himself doth walk in darkness.” And again, “How can a man say in the congregation, Do not steal, when he steals?”

Rom_2:22.—A crime among the Jews. Talmud accuses some of the most celebrated Rabbis of the vice of sacrilege.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_2:17-24

The vain boaster.—The Jews are nationally a separate people. It is astonishing how they have preserved their nationality through all the centuries. Though scattered through all lands, they have never assimilated. But the Jews are human, and the faults of humanity they often exemplify. Jews and Christians are brought together by their failings. Jews boasted of their titles, and were often indifferent to their characters. So it often is with Christians. The name and not the thing, the profession and not the practice, is the stumbling-block of the Christian as of the Jew. Therefore, when the Christian reads of the faults of the Jews, let him ask, Is not the record written of myself? am I resting in a mere name? Notice for our instruction, for our warning, and for our direction:—

I. The claims of the boaster.—What is man that he should boast? A drop in the ocean of being! One atom in the mass of matter! An ant on the molehills of time! The sport of the winds! Swept like a feather by the tempest! Crushed like a moth by the hand of nature’s forces! A creature of an hour to boast! An ephemeron to glory! A man whose light, knowledge, and services have all been bestowed to boast! It seems useless to heap up epithets, for the boaster is not easily killed. The Jew boasts:

1. Of God. David sings, “My soul shall make her boast in the Lord.” And this boasting was to be of such a character that the humble should hear thereof and be glad. Notice the difference—of God and in God: the proud boast of God, the humble in God. Let him that glorieth not glory of God as if He were an inferior, but glory in God as the superior.

2. Of superior knowledge. A man of light and of leading—a man of light and sweetness in his own esteem. We have men of light and of leading, whose leadership is found in the word “go,” and not in the word “come.” Doctors do not take their own medicines; preachers do not practise their own doctrine. This Jew has penetrated the inner mysteries, and knows the divine will. How many followers among Christians! With what repellent dogmatism many will speak and write of divine plans and purposes! This Jew approves of the things that are more excellent. He has fine tastes, and an elevated moral nature. Are not some of our Christians too fastidious? They soar in the region of abstractions, where the excellent things of their own fancies dwell, but neglect the common duties. They are instructed out of the law and competent to be teachers. The pulpit has lost its day and its power, is the modern cry. We are all taught, and want no prosy sermons.

3. Of wondrous gifts. He is a worker of miracles. He is not only a guide to the blind, but a restorer of sight. How great his pretensions—a light of them which are in darkness! Such recuperative power is in this light that, falling upon the sightless eyeballs, it will restore the power of vision. Wonderful Jew! We need thee in our blind moral world. Oh, believe it not! Christ, the Good Physician, can alone touch with restoring power the visual organ, and on the sightless eyeballs pour the gracious light of heaven. The Holy Spirit must work if the sons of darkness are to become the children of light. This Jew is not merely a teacher of babes, but boasts formative power. He develops the moral nature. He eliminates the evil and fosters the good. He might not be elected as a teacher in a board school, but if his abilities were equal to his pretensions he would be priceless as a modern educator. In our times we need instructors of the foolish as well as teachers of babes. We want the fourth “R” of religion added to the three “R’s.” Oh, if the Jew could do as well as he can boast, we would not join in persecuting and maligning and banishing him from our land!

II. The disparagement of the boaster.—The Jew has suffered from the hands of Shakespeare. The Jew does not appear to advantage on the modern stage. But has the Jew ever had reason to complain more bitterly of the treatment he has received from men of other nationalities than he has of the treatment received from one of his own nation? What sublime irony, what biting sarcasm, what withering epithets are hurled against the Jew by the Jewish Paul! He shows the Jew the estimate he forms of himself, and then places in contrast the just estimate. Here is the great moral teacher and reformer, the son of light and of sweetness, the favourite of heaven, accused of things condemned both by God’s moral laws and man’s civil codes, where man has any pretension to advanced civilisation. The accusation is not without some foundation, according to the testimony of history. The Jews were given to robbery. Are the modern Jews free? What about exorbitant usury? Are modern Christians free? What about the rage for gambling? What about our sweating system? What about our cotton corners, our commercial and literary syndicates? These men, if not preachers, are sometimes the great supporters of modern preachers. They occupy the chief seats at ecclesiastical feasts, not to speak of civil banquets, Lord Mayors’ banquets, etc. The sin of adultery had been increasing amongst the Jews just before Paul’s days. Are we not mourning nowaday that in Christian England the race is not rising in purity? The Jews were given to sacrilege. They robbed temples. They kept back tithes and offerings. Sacrilege is a word banished from some ecclesiastical dictionaries. Some there are who ruthlessly touch sacred things with unholy hands. Thou that abhorrest idols, thou that teachest a man should not steal, thou that dost advocate the sacred rights of property, thou that dost hold hard by thine own investments, dost thou commit sacrilege, dost thou seek the spoliation of any Church, dost thou lend a helping hand to the reduction of the material power of any part of Christ’s kingdom? The question should be seriously pondered by us all, to whatever part of the Church of Christ we belong; so that, while we make our boast of the law, we may not through breaking the law dishonour God and cause His name to be blasphemed.

III. Learn that high profession and low practice is harmful.—We know not how far-reaching is the evil influence of our inconsistency. We may exhort men to judge by principles, and not by persons. Still, one bad example may do more harm than a number of good sermons will confer spiritual benefit. How is the name of God blasphemed both at home and abroad! Let us pray and work that we may be able to live as we teach. Oh for the eloquent sermon of pure lives!

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_2:17-24

Self-exaltation of the Jew.—A second flight of steps in the self-exaltation of the Jew. Having attained the position described in Rom_2:18, he confidently aspires to something higher. While he can see all things clearly in the light of the law others are in darkness. And he is fully persuaded that he is a “guide” of those who wish to walk in the path of morality, but have not eyes to see the way. He can give the “blind men” not only guidance but sight. For he is “a light of those in darkness.” He will undertake the moral training of those who have not the wisdom which he has received from the law. He looks upon them as “babes,” and offers to be their “teacher,” for he has “the law,” in which “knowledge” and “truth” are presented in tangible shape to the mind of man. “Instructor” differs from “teacher” by including whatever belongs to moral training and direction. The “form” of an object differs from its essence as the outside from the inside. It is the sum-total of that by means of which the inward character presents itself to our senses, and thus makes itself known to us. It is that by which we distinguish one object from another. Whatever we can see, feel, or hear is the form of a material object. Whatever we can conceive is the form of a mental object. The revealed will of God is “truth,” because it exactly corresponds with an eternal reality; it is “knowledge” when grasped by the mind of man. It is pre-eminently “the truth,” for it sets forth the one great reality. It is when received into the mind pre-eminently “the knowledge,” for it claims to be the one chief object-matter of man’s intelligence. “Truth” and “knowledge” represent the contents of “the law” in their relation to the great reality and to the mind of man. This man claims to be a “teacher” because by his acquaintance with the sacred books his mind grasps that which is the chief object-matter of intellectual effort and a correct delineation of the eternal realities. The same eternal reality and the same true matter of human knowledge has in a still higher degree assumed form and presented itself to the mind in the gospel.—Beet.

Jewish depravity leads to Gentile degeneracy.—The absurdity of his position is evident to all. With solemn earnestness Paul paints a still darker picture, the direct result of the man’s inconsistency. Though the possession of the lawfills you with exultation you trample it under your feet, and thus bring contempt on Him who gave it. By choosing your nation to be His people God made you the guardians of His name and honour. That glorious and fearful name, which to know and to honour is life eternal, you have moved the heathen to mention with derision. They have seen and ridiculed the contrast of the words and works of their own teachers. (See Lucian, lxix. 19.) They see the same contrast in you. From your bold profession they suppose that you possess the favour of the God of Israel; and they treat with contempt a deity who as they think smiles on you. By your deep depravity, as your fathers by their far-off bondage, you have led the Gentiles to blaspheme. Observe that Paul’s argument strikes with equal force against all conduct of Jews or Christians which is inconsistent with profession, and which thus brings dishonour to God.—Beet.

The universality of the law.—The natural law under which we are placed, according to the apostle’s view of it, is a knowledge and feeling of right and wrong, resulting from that reasonable nature which our Creator has given us. It is independent of any special revelation, and essentially inherent in the soul of man; and in as far as it goes it coincides, when duly enlightened, with the moral dictates of the revealed law of God. It may be and often is sadly perverted, so as to sanction actions of the deepest immorality; but when enlightened and duly applied, it enforces the duties of piety, justice, and benevolence, and many of the other virtues commanded in divine revelation—though, generally speaking, it enforces them only feebly and ineffectually, as appears by its imperfect influence on the conduct. Its authority extends to all nations, and it places those who have no more perfect rule, and who listen to and obey its impartial dictates, on the same footing, in respect of divine favour, with those who show the same respect and obedience to a divine revelation; for it proceeds from the same source with the written revelation of God’s will. It is intended by its Author to answer the same end to those who have no more precise rule; and consequently it would appear plainly incompatible with the absolute impartiality of the sovereign Judge if it had not the same effect in recommending to His favour those who conscientiously seek to obey its dictates. The reality and also the universal extent of this law are shown by the apostle from the heathen, who have no other law, doing under its guidance the things contained in the revealed will of God, from the sense of right and wrong written in their heart, and the testimony borne by their conscience to the obligation of doing good and abstaining from evil, and from their mutual reasonings when they either accuse one another of transgressing this law, or approve of those things that are in conformity to it—all of which plainly imply the existence and obligation of this natural law. Nothing can be conceived more pointed than the apostle’s questions, or more unavoidable than the conclusion to which they lead; for how could the Jews believe that the law, which binds all other men to avoid sin, lays no such obligation on them, or flatter themselves that they might commit with safety those transgressions which they owned will subject all others who are guilty of them to the displeasure of God? Of this almost incredible self-delusion the folly is still further exposed in the twenty-third verse: “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?” This seems to be a general inference from the preceding interrogations. By acting in this manner thou who makest thy boast of the law, as a proof of God’s favour towards thee, dishonourest God by violating that law in which thou gloriest. Men may be said to dishonour God when they misapply the privileges which He has given them. Yet we do not think that the essential glory of the all-perfect Jehovah depends in any degree on men’s conduct. But, according to our usual mode of conceiving human actions, it appears to reflect some dishonour on a man when he bestows favour on those who are altogether unworthy, and who, of consequence, make a wrong use of them. And this analogy we are apt, as in a multitude of other cases, to extend to the dispensations of the supreme Ruler.—Ritchie.

“Behold, thou art surnamed a Jew.”—After the returning of the Israelites from the Babylonish captivity they were all called Judœi, Jews, because Judah was the principal and almost the only tribe then existing, and because to that tribe the others joined themselves. And as the Jews differed from all nations in point of religion, the name “Jew” and “Israelite” at length signified the “profession of a religion.” When therefore it is said, “Behold, thou art surnamed a Jew,” the meaning is, “Thou art a worshipper of the true God, and enjoyest the benefit of a revelation of His will.” In this and the following verses, if I mistake not, the apostle addressed the men of rank and learning among the Jews. It is no objection to that supposition that probably there were no doctors of the law nor Jewish scribes and priests at Rome when this letter was written; for as the apostle was reasoning against the whole body of the nation, his argument required that he should address the teachers of every denomination to whom the things written in this and the following verses best agree. Besides, as he had addressed the heathen legislators, philosophers, and priests in the first chapter for the purpose of showing them the bad improvement they had made of the knowledge they derived from the works of creation, it was natural for him in this to address the Jewish scribes, priests, and doctors, to show them how little they had profited by the knowledge which they had derived from revelation. Of the Jewish common people the apostle speaks (Rom_3:20), where he proves that they also were extremely vicious.—Macknight.

“Thou that gloriest in the law through transgression of the law, dishonourest thou God?”—He next replies to the second prerogative, and shows their boasting in God and in the law vain from their own conduct—viz., their transgression of the third commandment; for by transgressing the whole law they brought disgrace upon the law and upon God—that is, “exposed at the same time both God and His law to be blasphemed by others,” which was tantamount to blaspheming the name of God and violating the third commandment themselves. Hence the apostle supplies us with two notable things for the right understanding of the third commandment: first, that he who gives occasion to others to blaspheme is guilty of blasphemy himself; and secondly, that an occasion is given to the ungodly to blaspheme by the transgression of any one of the commandments, and consequently, whatever be the commandment transgressed, that the transgression of it is also a violation of the third commandment (see 2Sa_12:14).—Ferme and Melville.

Responsibility for light.—The heathen have abused but one talent, “the light of nature,” but we thousands—even as many thousands as we have slighted the tenders of offered grace. What a fearful aggravation it puts upon our sin and misery! We must certainly be accountable to God at the great day, not only for all the light we have had, but for all we might have had in the gospel day, and especially for the light we have sinned under and rebelled against.—Burkitt.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2

Rom_2:24. Christians injurious to Christianity.—It is a melancholy fact that Christians—at least, professing Christians—are themselves the greatest obstacle to the spread of the gospel and the power of the gospel of Christ. Some time ago commissioners were sent over here from Japan to report on the condition of things here—for the Japanese were anxious to progress, and to adopt whatever was good in this country—and what was their report and advice? Adopt this and that in English trade and politics, but not the English religion. Ah! it was just this: the fruits of the professed religion were not such as to commend the religion itself. At least, the “supposed” fruits; for what the Japanese saw were not the fruits of the Christian religion at all. A Brahmin recently said to a Christian, “I have found you out. You are not as good as your book. If you Christians were as good as your book, you would in five years conquer India for Christ.” No wonder if the Chinese when they see us forcing opium upon them, and the Africans when they see us deluging them with rum, do not want the religion of the men who do this. Alas! in our own small spheres, how often have we been hinderers of the doctrine of our book? Have we not hindered it in our neighbourhood and family, and amongst those with whom we mingle in daily life? God give us more consistency for the future, and make the man and the book harmonise better together. People often say, “Well, if I’m not altogether what I ought to be, I am no one’s enemy except my own. I may not be good, but at least I do no harm.” No man, however, either liveth or dieth to himself. No sin was ever committed whose consequences rested on the head of the sinner alone. What would be thought of a passenger who should cut a hole in the ship’s side underneath his berth, and say, when expostulated with, that he was only his own enemy, and that he was injuring no one but himself?—Quiver, “Short Arrows.”

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Fourth Section.—The aggravated corruption of the Jew in his false zeal for the law (a side-piece to the corruption of the Gentile in his idolatrous worship of symbols). The fanatical and wicked method of the Jews in administering the law with legal pride, and in corrupting it by false application and treachery—an occasion for the blasphemy of God’s name among the Gentiles.

Rom_2:17-24

17Behold,27 [But if] thou art called [named, denominated, ἐπονομάζῃ] a Jew, and restest in [upon] the law,28 and makest thy boast of God [boastest in God], 18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent [provest, or, discernest the things that differ],29 being instructed out of the law; 19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which 20[those who] are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast [having] the form [the representation, model, pattern, τὴν μόρφωσιν] of knowledge and of the truth in the law. [,—] 21Thou therefore which [Thou, then, who] teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege [literally, robbery of temples]?30 23Thou that makest thy boast of [in] the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? [through the transgression of the law thou dishonourest God.]31 “24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,” as it is written [Isa_52:5; Eze_36:20].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The connection with the foregoing is explained by Tholuck [p. 110] thus: “The Jew was already humbled by the proof that the Gentile was also in possession of the law. But it is further charged upon him that his possession of the law has become a dishonor to Him who gave it to him.” We have seen already that the connection consists in a sharp antithesis: a Gentile who is a Jew at heart; a Jew who, according to the spirit of the law, is the most wanton Gentile. [Estius justly calls the following apostrophe, “oratio splendida ac vehemens.”]

Rom_2:17. But if thou art named a Jew. There seems to be an anacoluthon in the following verses, which it was probably intended to remove by the reading ἰδέ. Tholuck: “The apodosis appears to be wanting to the protasis, Rom_2:17-20.” But we may explain without an anacoluthon (Meyer): “But if thou art called a Jew, &c. thou therefore (οὖν, Rom_2:21, in consequence of what has been said, who teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” We would find an easier solution, if we could read the verbs ἐπονομάζῃ and ἐπαναπαύῃ as conjunctives for the formation of a hypothetical protasis; the following indicatives would then constitute the apodosis. But the ἄν is wanting to the εἰ. [See Textual Note1.]—Named. Jew was the designation of the Hebrew according to his religion; therefore the theocratic name of honor, which is also contained in the etymology of the word itself.32 Ἐπονομάζ ῃ is translated cognominaris by the Vulgate and Bengel. [Wordsworth: ἐπ—ονομάζῃ, thou hast a title in addition to (ἐπί) that which other men possess.—P. S.] But the compound verb is also used in the sense of the Simple ὀνομάζειν, and the name ̓Ιουδαῖος was not a surname, although it might become a surname for the false Jew. Tholuck [Meyer, Philippi, Hodge; comp. LXX. Gen_4:17; Gen_4:25-26, and the classical quotations of Meyer in loc.—P. S.].—And restest. Intimation of Jewish pride. Strictly: Thou liest on it for rest. Thus the Jew abused his privilege; Psa_147:19-20.—Israel perverted into a false trust its ideal destination for the nations, according to Isa_42:6-7, and other passages; and it so caricatured the single elements (which are designated in the following verses) of this destination, that the most glaring moral contradiction took place in its character.—Thou makest thy boast33 in God, as thy [exclusive] guardian God; Isa_45:25; Jer_31:33. [To boast or glory in God, or in Christ (Gal_6:14), is right, if it proceeds from a sense of our weakness and unworthiness, and a corresponding sense of the goodness of God, as our sure refuge and strength; but it is wrong if it arises from religious bigotry and conceit, which would monopolize the favor of God to the exclusion of others. Calvin: “Hœc igitur non cordis gloriatio, sed linguœ jactantia fuit.” The false Jewish boasting in God amounted to a boasting in the flesh, against which we are warned, Gal_6:13; 2Co_10:15; Php_3:3. Ἰουδαῑος ἐπανομάζῃ—χαὶ ἐπαναπαύσῂ νόμῳ—χαὶ χαυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ, form a rising climax.—P. S.]

Rom_2:18. And knowest his will [τὸ θέλημα is emphatic.—P. S.] That is, His will as the inward part of the law; Eph_3:18, &c.; or rather, the absolute will which has become manifest in the law.—And discernest the things that differ [δοχιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα]. Three explanations of this expression: 1. The difference between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, &c., Tholuck, Philippi, and others); 2. what is at variance with the will of God, sinful (Clericus, Glöckler); 3. thou-approvest the excellent (Vulgate: probas utiliora, Bengel, Meyer [Hodge]). According to the meaning of διαφέρειν (to be prominent; to be distinguished; to excel), and διαφέροντα (the distinctions; the excellent), these different explanations are equally allowable; and the connection must therefore determine which is the best one. But the explanation: thou approvest the excellent, is not strong enough; although Meyer sees in it the completion of a climax.34 The Jew was, as פָּרוּשׁ,35 the distinguishing, the sharply deciding between what was allowed and disallowed; he was skilled in the διάχρισις χαλοῦ τε χαὶ χαχοῦ, Heb_5:14; the διαστολὴ ἁγίων χαί βεβήλων [a term frequently used by Philo]. This explanation passes over into a fourth: τὰ διαφέροντα, the controversies (De Dieu, Wolf).—Being instructed. After his fashion he lives in the law, χατηΧούμενος, not χατηΧηθείς. [Being instructed, not only catechetically in youth, but didactically and continually by the reading and exposition of the Scriptures in the synagogue on the Sabbath day.—P. S.]

Rom_2:19. And art confident. He should be every thing that follows, according to Old Testament intimations; see Isa_42:6-7, and other passages. So much less is there a reason why Reiche should find here reminiscences from the Gospels (Mat_15:14; Luk_20:32). The corruption of Judaism consisted throughout in perverting the Old Testament attributes of the people, and of its future, into the literal and the carnal. From this arose also its proselytism (Mat_23:15), which is here described.—Guide of the blind. The Jew called the Gentiles blind; σχότος, in Isa_60:2, means, therefore, the Gentiles; and φῶς εἰς ἀποχάλυψιν ἐθνῶν, in Isa_49:6, means the Jews; νήπιοι, the proselytes (see Tholuck).

Rom_2:20. Form (pattern) of knowledge. μόρφωσις—classically, μόρφωμα; Hesychius: αχηματισμός. [In the New Testament it occurs only once more—2Ti_2:5—where it is opposed to δύναμις, and means the mere outward form or appearance. Here, on the contrary, it is the real representation or expression, exemplar, effigies Grotius: forma quœ rem exprimit.—P. S.] According to Meyer, the doctrines and commandments of the law itself are the form of knowledge and truth. We are nearer right when we remember the didactic impression of the Old Testament revelation of the law in the rabbinical tradition from which the Talmud subsequently arose; for the Apostle speaks of a μόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως, which should be indirectly μόρφ. τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. Œcumenius and Olshausen, without cause, think of the typical character of the Old Testament; others (with Theophylact) of the mere phantom of truth. The question is concerning an object of which the Jew boasts. His μόρφωσις. is indeed the gloomy antitype of the personal incarnation of the truth in Christ, as in Sir_24:25 (23) we read of the σοφία becoming a book in the Thora. All these are now the characteristics of the Jew’s pretensions. There now follow the proofs of the contradiction in which he stands to himself.

Ver 21. Thou, then, that teachest another. [The virtual apodosis of Rom_2:17. The several clauses are more lively and forcible if read interrogatively, so as to challenge the Jew to deny the charge, if he dare.—P. S.] The analogy of the following charges to the Apostle’s judgment on the Gentiles lies herein: the Jews, by their pride of the law and by their legal orthodoxy, were led into the way of ruin, just as, the Gentiles had been by their intellectual conceit indulging in symbols and myths. The first charge is general: Teachest thou not thyself? Psa_50:16. After this, three specific charges follow in strong gradation. Meyer: “The following infinitives [μὴ χλέπτειν, μὴ μοιχεύειν] do not include in themselves the idea of δεῖν or ἐξεῖναι, but are explained by the idea of command which is implied in the finite verbs” [viz., χλέπτεις, The verba jubendi here are χηρύσσων and λέγων.—P. S.] In the charge of stealing, there was undoubtedly special reference to the passionate and treacherous method of transacting business adopted by the Jews (Jam_4:2-13); in the charge of adultery, to the, loose practice or divorces (Mat_19:8-9; Jam_4:4).—[Μοιχεύεις. The Talmud charges adultery upon some of the most celebrated Rabbins, as Akiba, Meir, Eleasar.—P. S.] The strongest charge is the third:

Rom_2:22. Thou that abhorrest idols, &c. Βδελύσσομαι, from βδελύσσω, to excite disgust by a loathsome odor. In the religious sense, to abhor. The Jew called the idols βδελύγματα (1Ma_6:7; 2Ki_23:13, תּוֹעֵכוֹת). Explanations: 1. By plundering the temples of idols (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others; Meyer, Philippi [Alford, Conybeare and Howson] ). Tholuck: “The law, in Deu_7:25, forbids the appropriation of the gold and silver ornaments of the images of gods; and in the paraphrase of this prohibition in Josephus (Antiq. iv. 8, 10), express reference is made to the robbing of heathen temples. Act_19:36-37, shows that the Jews had the name of committing such an offence. [The objection to this view is” that the Jew, attaching no sacredness to the temples of idols, regarded the despoiling of heathen temples as no sacrilege, but simply as robbery, which might be justified under certain circumstances.—P. S.]. 2. ἱροσυλεῖν in the figurative sense: profanatio majestatis divinœ (Calvin, Luther, Bengel, Köllner).36 3. Embezzlement of taxes [tithes and offerings] for their own temple (Pelagius, Grotius [Ewald, Wordsworth, and others; comp. Mal_1:8; Mal_1:12; Mal_1:14; Mal_3:8-10]). To the charge of robbing heathen temples, the idea of pollution—which this robbery carries with it—may also be added, as is done by Meyer. But it seems strange that the Apostle should have established, on isolated occurrences of such robbery, so general and fearful a charge. As in the charges: “Thou stealest, thou committest adultery,” he had not merely in mind occasional great transgressions, but also the universal exhibitions of Jewish avarice and concupiscence, so we must also here accept a more general and spiritual significance of his accusation. We must indeed suppose here transgressions that were an occasion of offence to the Gentiles; and Luther goes much too far in spiritualizing the charge: “Thou art a robber of God; for it is God’s honor that all those who rely on good works would take from Him.” But the worst outrage on the temple, according to Joh_2:19, consisted in the crucifixion of Christ (comp. Jam_5:6). It was therefore as a sign of judgment that the temple in Jerusalem itself was desecrated by the Jews in every possible way before its destruction. In a wider sense, the transgression of the Jews consisted in their causing, by their, fanaticism, not only the downfall of the temple, but in frivolously abusing and insulting the sanctuaries of Gentiles, and, where occasion offered, in converting their treasures into spoils and articles of commerce.

Rom_2:23. Thou that makest thy boast in the law. Since this judgment is the result of the foregoing question, Meyer has good reason for reading this verse not as a question, but as a categorical impeachment. This is supported by the γάρ in Rom_2:24.

Rom_2:24. For the name of God. That is, the Gentiles judged the religion of the Jews by the scandalous conduct of the Jews themselves, and thus were led to blaspheme their God, Jehovah. The Jews boasted of the law (which, Bar_4:3, is termed ἡ δόξα τοῦ ̓ Ιαχώβ), and reflected disgrace on the lawgiver. For the Jews, the Apostle here seals again his declaration, by concluding with a quotation from the Old Testament—Isa_52:5 : “My name continually every day is blasphemed” [in the Septuagint: δἰ ὑμᾶς διαπαντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι]. Comp. Eze_36:23 : “I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them.”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Apostle now passes over from his indirect representation of the corruption in Judaism, which he had given from a general point of view, Rom_2:10-16, to paint its life-picture from experience. In Rom_3:10-19, he proves that the Old Testament had already testified to the corruption of the Jewish people. But this, description of the actual corruption must be distinguished from the sketch of the original transgression, Rom_5:12 ff., and from the development in part of the judgment of hard-heartedness, chaps. 9 and 10.

2. The description of the corruption in Judaism presents only legalistic features, as the account of Gentile corruption presents Antinomian features. In the former case, the disfiguration of religion proceeded from legal conceit, while in the latter it arose from the conceit of wisdom; the root of pride is therefore common to both lines of corruption. The self-contradiction of the Gentiles was developed thus: he, the pretended wise man, becomes a fool by disfiguring his symbolical religion of nature; with all his self-glory, he becomes a worshipper of the creature, and loses the dignity of his human body; with all his deification of nature, he sinks thereby into abominable unnaturalness; with all his efforts for vigor of life and enthusiasm, he sinks more and more into the degradation of wicked characters; and finally, with all his better knowledge, he ornaments and varnishes sin theoretically and æsthetically. The self-contradiction of the Jew, on the other hand, developed itself thus: he, the pretended teacher of the nations, becomes an Antinomian blasphemer, by the perversion of his religion of revelation and law, while he teaches others, and not himself, and, by a succession of transgressions of the law, goes so far as to profane sacred things, by abusing and robbing the temples (see Mat_21:13). To the profanation of the temple was added that of the high-priesthood, which reached its climax in Caiaphas. Likewise the ministry of the Jew was thoroughly profaned by proselytism and falsification of the law, and his religiousness was converted into a cloak for hypocrisy.

3. The fanatic grows ever more profane by the consistency of his course of conduct—a despiser of the substantial possessions of religion. Church history furnishes numerous examples, how fanatics of the churchly as well as unchurchly type become at last, out of pretended saints, profaners and robbers of the temple.

4. Priests and preachers have certainly corrupted religion as often as philosophers have corrupted wisdom, politicians the State, jurists the law, &c.

5. The dogmatic and legalistic spirit of the Middle Ages, too, which, in a better form, was really a “teacher of the blind,” has finally gone so far as to present the greatest variety of religious and moral hindrances to modern Gentiles. It is not without serious significance, therefore, that the Epistle to the Romans contains this very section.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The false zeal for the law practised by the Jews as occasion for blaspheming the name of God by the Gentiles: so far as, 1. such false zeal knows God’s will; but, 2. wantonly transgresses it (Rom_2:17-24).—The mere name of Christianity goes no further than the name of Judaism (Rom_2:17-24).—Do not depend upon your orthodoxy, if you do not act right by faith (Rom_2:17-24).—Notwithstanding brilliant knowledge, one is a bad teacher if he does not do what he knows (Rom_2:17-24).—Blasphemy of the name of God (Rom_2:24).—God’s name has already been often blasphemed among the heathen (and Mohammedans) because of Christians. Proof: 1. From the outrages of persons professing Christianity in the Middle Ages (Charlemagne, and the Saxons, the Brethren of the Sword, the Spaniards in America, &c.); 2. from the abuses in trade in the present time (the slave trade, opium trade, sandal-wood trade).

Starke: When one does any thing which has ever so good appearance, it is sin if it does not come from faith (Rom_2:18).—Theological learning is by no means enough for a teacher, when he is not taught in the school of the Holy Spirit (Rom_2:20).—That teacher cannot be an example of good works who can only say of himself: “Judge according to my words, and not according to my deeds” (Rom_2:21).—Boasting and vain-glory—the manner, alas, of many Christians! (Rom_2:23.)—Cramer: The titles and names of honor that we may possess should be to us a continual reminder to conduct ourselves in harmony with such titles (Rom_2:17).—Nova Bibl. Tub.: Oh, how many external privileges a soul can have! Communion in the true Church, knowledge of God and His word, of His will and His works, the best instruction, a skilful sense of the difference between good and evil; and yet, in spite of all this, it can be at fault, and quite removed from the inner fellowship with God (Rom_2:17).—Look, teacher! You must commence with yourself; you must, first be your own teacher, guide, and chastiser; first preach to your own self, first break your own will, and perform what you preach. But to desire to guide, discipline, and control others, and yet steal and commit adultery yourself, &c.—that will enter in judgment against you. Oh, how great is this corruption! (Rom_2:20.)—Quesnel: Oh, how rare a thing it is to be learned without being proud! (Rom_2:19).

Heubner: There is a false and a true boasting on the part of a believer in revelation. He does it falsely when he imagines, 1. that he thereby makes himself more acceptable to God; 2. that merely having and knowing are sufficient, without practice; 3. when, at the same time, he despises others. He boasts properly when, 1. he gives God all the glory; 2. makes use of the revealed truth; 3. does not despise others (Rom_2:17).—It is a great grace when God gives a tender conscience (Rom_2:18).—To know the right, is in the power of every Christian; and sin does not consist in ignorance or misunderstanding, but has its root in the will (Rom_2:19).—Melancholy contradiction between knowledge and deeds (Rom_2:21-23).—The honor of Christianity is dependent upon us.—A holy life is the final vindication of faith (Rom_2:24).

Besser: Legalists, who would be righteous by their works, deprive the law of its spiritual clearness (Rom_2:17).

Lange: The internal self-contradiction between knowledge and disposition extends to external life: 1. As self-contradiction between word and deed; 2. between the vocation and the discharge of it; 3. between destination to the welfare of the world, and degeneration, on the contrary, to the misery of the world.—The teacher of the law in olden times, and the (religious) teacher of the law in recent days—the offence of modern Gentiles.

[Burkitt: Rom_2:17-20. Learn: 1. That persons are very prone to be proud of church privileges, glorying in the letter of the law, but not conformed to its spirituality either in heart or life; and 2. that gifts, duties and supposed graces, are the stay and staff which hypocrites lean on. The duties which Christ has appointed, are the trust and rest of the hypocrite; but Christ Himself is the trust and rest of the upright.

Rom_2:21-24. 1. It is much easier to instruct and teach others, than to be instructed ourselves; 2. it is both sinful and shameful to teach others the right way, and to go in the wrong ourselves. While this is a double fault in a private person, it is inexcusable in the teacher; 3. the name of God suffers by none so much as by those who preach and press the duties of Christianity upon others, but do not practise them themselves. The sins of teachers are teaching sins. Lord, let all that administer unto Thee in holy things consider that they have not only their own sins to account for, but also the sins of their people, if committed by their profligate example.—Matthew Henry: The greatest obstructors of the success of the Word, are those whose bad lives contradict their good doctrine; who in the pulpit preach so well, that it is a pity they should ever come out; and out of the pulpit live so ill, that it is a pity they should ever come in.—Doddridge: We pity the Gentiles, and we have reason to do it; for they are lamentably blind and dissolute: but let us take heed lest those appearances of virtue which are to be found among some of them condemn us, who, with the letter of the law and the gospel, and with the solemn tokens of a covenant relation to God, transgress His precepts, and violate our engagements to Him, so turning the means of goodness and happiness into the occasion of more aggravated guilt and misery.—Clarke: Rom_2:17. It is the highest honor to be called to know God’s name, and be employed in His service.—Hodge (condensed): The sins of the professing people of God are peculiarly offensive to Him, and injurious to our fellow-men.—The sins and refuges of men are alike in all ages.—Were it ever so certain that the church to which we belong is the true, apostolic, universal Church, it remains no less certain, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.—Barnes: It matters little what a man’s speculative opinions may be; his practice may do far more to disgrace religion, than his profession does to honor it.—J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

[27]Rom_2:17.—[Instead of the text. rec., ἰδέ, behold, which is not sufficiently sustained, read εἰδέ, but if, with א. A. B. D*. K., Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bloomfield, Alford, and nearly all the recent commentators. The reading ἰδέ is either a mistake, or a change for the purpose of avoiding the anacoluthon, which, however, is more apparent than real. The apodosis must he supplied (why dost thou not act accordingly, or, how great is thy responsibility), or it may be found in Rom_2:21, by simply omitting the οὖν, which is often epanaleptic, resuming the thread of the sentence. So Meyer, who regards Rom_2:17-28 as the protasis, and 21, 22 as the apodosis.—P. S.]

[28]Rom_2:17.—[ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ, without the article, א. A. B.D1.The later MSS. and the text. rec. insert τῳ before νόμῳ, because it here clearly applies to the written law of Moses as representing the whole Mosaic system, the civil and religious polity of the Jews. νόμος has here as in Rom_2:14 the force of a proper name. Alford: “The article is omitted, because ‘the law’ is not here distributed—it is not the law itself in its entirety which is meant, but the fact of having or of knowing the law:—the strict way of expressing it would perhaps be, ‘in the fact of possessing a law,’ which, condensed into our less accurate English, would be in one word, in the law: viz., ‘which thou possessest.”—P. S.]

[29]Rom_2:18.—[On the different interpretations of δοκιμάζεις τὰ διφεάροντα, see the Exeg. Notes. Lange (with Tholuck, Fritzsche, Reiche, Rückert, Philippi, Alford) translates: Du beurtheilest die widerstreitenden Dinge. Tholuck: Du piüfst das Unterschiedene. Tyndale: Hast experience of good and bad. Conybeare and Howson: Givest judgment upon good or evil. Robert Young, too literally: Dost approve the distinctions. But the versions of Cranmer, Geneva, James, Rheims, and Am. Bible Union agree substantially with the Latin Vulg.: Probas utiliora. So also Meyer, who translates: Du billigst das Vorzügliche. Wordsworth: Thou discernest the things that are more excellent. The same phrase occurs, Php_1:10, where the E. V. renders it in the same way. Grammatically, both interpretations are correct, and hence the connection must decide. δοκιμάζειν means first to examine, to try. to prove (1Co_3:13; 1Pe_1:7); and then, as the result of examination and trial, to discern, to distinguish, and to approve (1Co_16:3; Rom_14:22). διαφέρειν is: (1) To differ; (2) to differ to advantage, to excel. Hence τὰ διαφέροντα: (1) The difference between right and wrong, good and bad; (2) the excellent things, utilia.—P. S.]

[30]Rom_2:22.—[Alford translates: Thou who abhorrest idols, dost thou rob their temples To maintain the contrast, he refers (with Chrysostom, Meyer, Tholuck, and others) ἱεροσυλεῖς to the robbing of idol temples (εἴδωλα); but this was no sacrilege in the eyes of the Jew; and hence others refer it to the temple of God in Jerusalem. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[31]Rom_2:23.—[Lange and Meyer take this verse as a categorical charge, resulting from the preceding questions which the Jew could not deny. This view is supported by the following γάρ. παράβασις, in the six other passages of the N. T. where it occurs, is uniformly translated transgression in the E. V.—P. S.]

[32][יְהוּדָה is the verbal noun from the future hophal of יָדָה, to praise, and means praised, sc. Jah, God (Gottlob); see Fürst, Dict., sub יָהּ, vol. 1:491; Gen_29:35 (where Leah, after the birth of Judah, says: “Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah”); Gen_49:8; Rev_2:9. To be a Jew in this proper sense was to belong to the covenant people of God selected for His praise.—P. S.]

[33][Καυχᾶσαι (also in 1Co_4:7), like κατακαυχᾶσαι, Rom_11:18, δύνασαι (for δύνη). Mat_5:36, ὀδυνᾶσαι, Luk_16:25, is the original uncontracted form for κανχᾷ. in use with the poets and later prose-writers, see Winer, Gram., p. 73, 7th ed. The ἐν signifies the sphere in which the boasting moves, or the object of boasting, as χαίρειν ἐν.—P. S.]

[34][So does Hodge: “To approve of what is right, is a higher attainment than merely to discriminate between good and evil.” But there is a difference between an instinctive and an intelligent approval of what is right. The latter is the result of reflection and discrimination, resting on superior knowledge, which was the peculiar advantage of the Jew having the touchstone of the written law and the continual instruction of the Scriptures. What immediately follows agrees better with the interpretation of Lange. Comp. Textual Note3.—P. S.]

[35][פָּרַשׁ, to distinguish, clearly to discern, also to separate. From this the term Pharisee Perishin, the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Parushim, “separated”) is derived.—P. S.]

[36][So Hodge: “The essence of idolatry was profanation of God; of this the Jews were in a high degree guilty. They had made His house a den of thieves.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (Rom 2:17-29; Rom 3:1-20.)

Accusation of the Jew by the law in which he confides.

The apostle turns now, therefore, to the Jew, to show that he too comes under the universal sentence. The one who has sinned without law perishes without law; the one who has sinned under law is judged by the law: will the law then be favorable to him? will he be able to stand while the other is condemned? Here the apostle shows, what the Lord had before declared to them, that the very one who accused the Jews was that Moses in whom they trusted. They knew Cod’s will indeed, only the more defiantly to set it aside: for as the people of God His Name was blasphemed among the Gentiles through their misconduct. In comparison with them, circumcision and uncircumcision must often be accounted the reverse, if the heart were what God valued. After guarding which from the abuse that might be made of such an assertion, Paul goes on to produce the very sentence against them of the law they claimed as theirs; which proved indeed the whole world under sin. Moreover, this was not the failure of the law, but its entire success in what it came to do: for by the law was to be the recognition of sin.

1. The Jew with his knowledge of the will of God did no better than the moralist among the Gentiles. Very far from being outwardly a rebel, he yet completely misunderstood his own condition, and therefore the character of that law on which he "rested," -where no true rest was possible. So too in God he gloried, as One who had made the Jew the depositary of all the light and knowledge in the world. God and His law were owned by him, but not in subjection of heart to render Him the obedience due, but as contributing to the loftiness of his position in comparison with all other men. The Gentiles were but for him the blind, walking in darkness, foolish as undeveloped babes. The Jew was the full treasury of all that the Gentile lacked. In fact, he had the form of knowledge and of the truth as the law gave it; but the breath of life was absent from the form: in morals he contradicted his own teaching, glorying in law and transgressing it, so that the light he held but the more clearly showed his misdeeds, and dishonored the name of his God among the Gentiles, as He Himself by His prophets had declared (Isa 52:5).

2. What was the necessary result in His estimate who could not be content with the mere outside of things, but looks upon the heart? Was circumcision of no use because of the dishonor put upon it? No, but that could not be counted such which was united with the transgression of that which it pledged one to keep. And the uncircumcised person keeping the commandments of the law would before Him be counted as circumcised. Israel, in fact, never contained all the sheep of the Lord’s flock, as we know; and the apostle will presently remind us that Abraham himself was an example of the faith that might be in one uncircumcised. How indeed would the obedience of the uncircumcised condemn the man who, having both the letter of the law and circumcision also, yet violated the law! Plainly then, one must place what is internal and spiritual before what is external in the flesh. The true circumcision is spiritual and of the heart, and constitutes the true Jew, whose "praise"* is found with Him who sees the heart.

{*"Judah" means "praise"; and this is, no doubt, an allusion to it.}

3. All this to us seems simplicity itself; but it was not so simple to those whom it seemed to strip of all their special, divinely-bestowed privileges. The apostle therefore here notes the objections that might be raised to it -objections which purported to be founded on God’s own character: for if there were indeed, as this appeared to say, no superiority in the position of the Jew, what then did all that He had done for them amount to? for why had God separated him from the nations, and guarded this separation in so many ways? The apostle asks therefore the question on his own part, What is the superiority of the Jew? and what is the advantage of circumcision? Truly a strange question, which would argue how little, save material for self-importance, the questioner had found in it. But Paul answers with his whole soul that there was "much everyway"; but he mentions emphatically one chief advantage that the Jews had, and that was a trust committed to them, and not for their own sake only, -"the oracles of God," His own words uttered by a human mouth-piece. The mass of men had wandered off into those various forms of idolatry which were continually tempting Israel also, and from which nothing but divine power and goodness preserved them too. Thus the divine Word, if it were to be preserved for the blessing of men, must be kept apart from these destructive influences, there whence its virtue might flow out around, and yet it might be secured from the prevalent corruption. Israel was in the place where these oracles were heard: how could any one ask, Where was the profit?

Faith, alas, did not prevail among the professing people of God: it was a matter of public history that it did not. But what then? Would that make of no effect the faith that was found? Would God be untrue to those who counted on Him, because of the lack of faith in others? Such questions scarcely merit answer. No; "let God be true, if every man were to be accounted false;" for so David wrote of his own sin, that God was only justified by it in His words, and man, so prone to judge Him, would be overcome by Him in judgment. In fact God permits sin to appear in this way to bring men low, and make them own His righteousness in whatsoever He may bring upon them.

But this only starts another question: if our unrighteousness so commends the righteousness of God, does this then make Him unable to execute judgment for that which has glorified Him? Nay, surely; for if that were so, since He makes all sins to glorify Him, restraining that which will not, no judgment could be executed on the world at all. Nay, if this were so, the principle would be just, of which Christians through their magnifying of grace were slanderously accused, that they might then do evil, so that good might come; but the just judgment of God would be in fact on those who could adopt so terrible a lie as truth. It is merely noticed here to show the folly and wickedness of what would involve such a consequence as this.

4. The apostle returns to the comparison of the Jew with the Gentile: could the Jew boast of any moral superiority to the Gentile? No, for the charge against both alike was that all were under sin. For this their own Scriptures, written under a dispensation of law, and addressed to those under it, were in unmistakable evidence. In them what the law could not do was seen; and the passages quoted give a survey, as wide as minute, of the facts of the case. The first passage, from the fourteenth psalm is connected with the statement that "the Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God." The result is what the apostle quotes: "They are all gone aside; they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good." The previous words plainly are an adaptation from those which speak of the search itself, changed to a declaration of the result; "there is none righteous" being again an equivalent for "there is none that doeth good," which is repeated later. In other quotations the apostle gives the detail of a corruption manifesting itself in every point. Throat, lips, mouth, feet, are all the instruments of various wickedness. In the whole path are ruin and misery; -nowhere peace: before their eyes there is no fear of God. What a picture of man in nature and practice! Of course it is not meant that in every one of the children of men there is an exact similarity; or that they will necessarily be all found in any one: and God has many ways of restraint, so that what is in any of us should not all come out; but this is the race to which we belong, and any of these marks are sufficient to make plain our lineage. It is not of the Jew simply that such passages speak; it is among the children of men that the Lord is looking and making investigation, and one cannot plead that he is no child of man. The law which he has got has no plea to make in his favor, but the very contrary. It is to the people under law that all this is said; and in the Psalms and the Prophets the voice of the law is still heard, and what things so-ever the law saith it saith to them that are under the law: for this very purpose also, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be guilty before God. If the Jew, after all that God has done for him, can yet plead no righteousness that will avail before the Judge of men, then all the world is surely guilty.

A poor end, you may say, to all this long education upon God’s part, -all this painstaking discipline, -all these interventions and miracles! Yes, as the apostle says elsewhere, it is all a ministration of death and of condemnation (2Co 3:7; 2Co 3:9). But poor as the result may seem, it is to issue in that which will display the riches of God’s grace to all eternity. The truth as to man’s condition must come out, and he must be made to realize and accept it. Guilty and with his mouth stopped before Him, he will then find what God can be for him in so desperate an extremity. The law has not failed in its purpose when it has brought him to this: that "by works of law shall no flesh be justified before Him: for by law is the recognition of sin."

Alas, in all this, man is completely at issue with God. All natural religion so called is the attempt in some way, with various modifications, to make good one’s righteousness in whole or in part, before Him. Justification by works, by moralities or by ritual observances, is all that the mind of man is able to conceive as of efficacy to accomplish a salvation which God has wrought out and offers freely to him. This struggle on man’s part, ignorant of the righteousness of God, to establish his own righteousness is the history of the 4000 years preceding Christ’s coming, and the secret of the long delay. With the recognition of sin as the law is competent to declare it to him, the struggle is over, the old covenant has done its work, and we are ready for the gospel of "the glory of God, which is in the face of Jesus Christ," and not of Moses (2Co 4:6).

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 7

JEWISH RESPONSIBILITY AND GUILT

Rom_2:17-29

"THE Jew, first, and also the Greek"; this has been the burthen of the Apostles thought thus far upon the whole. He has had the Jew for some while in his chief thought, but he has recurred again and again in passing to the Gentile. Now he faces the Pharisee explicitly and on open ground, before he passes from this long exposure of human sin to the revelation of the glorious Remedy.

But if you, you emphatically, the reader or hearer now in view, you who perhaps have excused yourself from considering your own case by this last mention of the responsibility of the non-Jewish world: if you bear the name of Jew, whether or no you possess the corresponding spiritual reality; and repose yourself upon the Law, as if the possession of that awful revelation of duty was your protection, not your sentence; and glory in God, as if He were your private property, the decoration of your national position, whereas the knowledge of Him is given you in trust for the world; and know the Will, His Will, the Will supreme; and put the touchstone to things which differ, like a casuist skilled in moral problems, schooled out of the Law, under continuous training (so the Greek present participle bids us explain) by principles and precepts which the Law supplies; - (if) you are sure that you, yourself, whoever else, are a leader of blind men, a light of those who are in the dark, an educator of the thoughtless, a teacher of beginners, possessing, in the Law, the outline, the system, of real knowledge and truth (the outline indeed, but not the power and life related to it):-if this is your estimate of your position and capacities, I turn it upon yourself. Think, and answer-You therefore, your neighbours teacher, do you not teach yourself? You, who proclaim, Thou shalt not steal, do you steal? You, who say, Thou shalt not commit adultery, do you commit it? You, who abominate the idols, affecting to loathe their, very neighbourhood, do you plunder temples, entering the polluted precints readily enough for purposes at least equally polluting? You who glory in the Law, as the palladium of your race, do you, by your violation of the Law, disgrace your God? "For the name of our God is, because of you, railed at among the heathen," as it stands written, in Ezekiels message {Eze_36:20} to the ungodly Israel of the ancient Dispersion-a message true of the Dispersion of the later day.

We need not overstrain the emphasis of the Apostles stern invective. Not every non-Christian Jew of the first century, certainly, was an adulterer, a thief, a plunderer. When a few years later {Act_28:17} St. Paul gathered round him the Jews of Rome, and spent a long day in discussing the prophecies with them, he appealed to them with a noble frankness which in some sense evidently expected a response in kind. But it is certain that the Jews of the Roman Dispersion bore a poor general character for truth and honour. And anywise St. Paul knew well that there is a deeply natural connection between unhallowed religious bigotry and that innermost failure of self-control which leaves man only too open to the worst temptations. Whatever feeds gross personal pride promotes a swift and deadly decay of moral fibre. Did this man pride himself on Abrahams blood, and his own Rabbinic lore and skill, and scorn both the Gentile "sinner" and the am-haaretz, "the people of the land," the rank and file of his own race? Then he was the very man to be led helpless by the Tempter. As a fact, there are maxims of the later Rabbinism, which represent beyond reasonable doubt the spirit if not the letter of the worst watchwords of "the circumcision" of St. pauls time: "Circumcision is equivalent to all the commandments of the Law"; "To live in Palestine is equal to the Commandments"; "He that hath his abode in Palestine is sure of life eternal." The man who could even for an hour entertain such a creed was ready (however deep below his consciousness the readiness lay) for anything-under fitting circumstances of temptation.

So it is now, very far beyond the limits of the Jewish Dispersion of our time. Now as then, and for the Christian "outwardly" as for the Jew "outwardly," there is no surer path to spiritual degeneracy than spiritual pride. What are the watchwords which have succeeded to those of the Rabbinists who encountered St. Paul? Are they words, or thoughts, of self-applause because of the historic orthodoxy of your creed? Because of the Scriptural purity of your theory of salvation? Because of the illustrious annals of your national Church, older than the nation which it has so largely welded and developed? Because of the patient courage, under contempt and exclusion, of the community which some call your denomination, your sect, but which is to you indeed your Church? Because of your loyalty to order? Because of your loyalty to liberty? Take heed! The best, corrupted, becomes inevitably the worst. In religion, there is only one altogether safe "glorying." It is-when the man can say from the soul, with open eyes, and therefore with a deeply humbled heart, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world". {Gal_6:14} All other "glorying is not good." Be thankful for every genuine privilege. But for Christs sake, and for your own souls sake, do not, even in the inmost secret of your soul, "value yourself" upon them. It is disease, it is disaster, to do so.

And shall not we of the Christian Dispersion take home also what Ezekiel and St. Paul say about the blasphemies, the miserable railings at our God, caused by the sins of those who bear His Name? Who does not know that, in every region of heathendom, the missionarys plea for Christ is always best listened to where the pagan, or the Mussulman, has not before his eyes the Christianity of "treaty ports," and other places where European life is to be seen lived without restraint? The stumbling block may be the drunken sailor, or the unchaste merchant, or civilian, or soldier, or traveller. Or it may be just the man who, belonging to a race reputed Christian, merely ignores the Christians holy Book, and Day, and House, and avoids all semblance of fellowship with his countrymen who have come to live beside him that they may preach Christ where He is not known. Or it may be the government, reputed Christian, which, amidst all its noble benefits to the vast races it holds in sway, allows them to know, to think, at least to suspect, that there are cases where it cares more for revenue than for righteousness. In all these cases the Christian Dispersion gives occasion for railing at the Christians God: and the reckoning will be a grave matter "in that Day."

But shall the Christians of the Christendom at home stand exempt from the charge? Ah! let us who name the blessed Name with even the least emphasis of faith, and loyalty, dwelling amongst the masses who only passively, so to speak, are Christian, who "profess nothing," though they are, or are supposed to be, baptised-let us, amidst "the world" which understands not a little of what we ought to be, and watches us so keenly, and so legitimately-let us take home this message, sent first to the old inconsistent Israel. Do we, professing godliness, show the mind of Christ in our secular intercourse? Do we, on the whole, give the average "world" cause to expect that "a Christian," as such, is a man to trust in business, in friendship? Is the conviction quietly forced upon them that a Christians temper, and tongue, are not as other mens? That the Christian minister habitually lives high above self-seeking? That the Christian tradesman faithfully remembers his customers just interests, and is true in all his dealings? That the Christian servant, and the Christian master, are alike exceptionally mindful of each others rights, and facile about their own? That the Christians time, and his money, are to a remarkable degree applied to the good of others, for Christs sake? This is what the members of the Christian Society, in the inner sense of the word Christian, are expected to be in what we all understand by "the world." If they are so, God be thanked. If they are not so-who shall weigh the guilt? Who shall adequately estimate the dishonour so done to the blessed Name? And "the Day" is coming.

But he has more to say about the position of the Jew. He would not even seem to forget the greatness of the God-given privilege of Israel; and he will use that privilege once more as a cry to conscience.

For circumcision indeed profits you, if you carry law into practice; in that case circumcision is for you Gods seal upon Gods own promises to the true sons of Abrahams blood and faith. Are you indeed a practiser of the holy Code whose summary and essence is love to God and love to man? Can you look your Lord in the face and say-not, "I have satisfied all Thy demands; pay me that Thou owest," but, "Thou knowest that I love Thee, and therefore oh how I love Thy law"? Then you are indeed a child of the covenant, through His grace; and the seal of the covenant speaks to you the certainties of its blessing. But if you are a transgressor of law, your circumcision is turned uncircumcision; the divine seal is to you nothing, for you are not the rightful holder of the deed of covenant which it seals. If therefore the uncircumcision, the Gentile world, in some individual instance, carefully keeps the ordinances of the Law, reverently remembers the love owed to God and to man, shall not his uncircumcision, the uncircumcision of the man supposed, be counted as if circumcision? Shall he not be treated as a lawful recipient of covenant blessings even though the seal upon the document of promise is, not at all by his fault, missing? And thus shall not this hereditary uncircumcision, this Gentile born and bred, fulfilling the law of love and duty, judge you, who by means of letter and circumcision are-laws transgressor, using as you practically do use the terms, the letter, of the covenant, and the rite which is its seal, as means to violate its inmost import, and claiming, in the pride of privilege, blessings promised only to self-forgetting love? For not the (Jew) in the visible sphere is a Jew; nor is circumcision in the visible sphere, in the flesh, circumcision. No, but the Jew in the hidden sphere; and circumcision of heart, in Spirit, not letter; circumcision in the sense of a work on the soul, wrought by Gods Spirit, not in that of a legal claim supposed to rest upon a routine of prescribed observances. His praise, the praise of such a Jew, the Jew in this hidden sense, thus circumcised in heart, does not come from men, but does come from God. Men may, and very likely will, give Him anything but praise; they will not like him the better for his deep divergence from their standard, and from their spirit. But the Lord knows him, and loves him, and prepares for him His own welcome; "Well done, good and faithful."

Here is a passage, far-reaching, like the paragraphs which have gone before it. Its immediate bearing needs only brief comment, certainly brief explanation. We need do little more than wonder at the moral miracle of words like these written by one who, a few years before, was spending the whole energy of his mighty will upon the defence of ultra-Judaism. The miracle resides not only in the vastness of the mans change of view, but in the manner of it. It is not only that he denounces Pharisaism, but he denounces it in a tone entirely free from its spirit, which he might easily have carried into the opposite camp. What he meets it with is the assertion of truths as pure and peaceable as they are eternal; the truths of the supreme and ultimate importance of the right attitude of mans heart towards God, and of the inexorable connection between such an attitude and a life of unselfish love towards man. Here is one great instance of that large spiritual phenomenon, the transfiguration of the first followers of the Lord Jesus from what they had been to what under His risen power they became. We see in them men whose convictions and hopes have undergone an incalculable revolution; yet it is a revolution which disorders nothing. Rather, it has taken fanaticism forever out of their thoughts and purposes. It has softened their whole souls towards man, as well as drawn them into an unimagined intimacy with God. It has taught them to live above the world; yet it has brought them into the most practical and affectionate relations with every claim upon them in the world around them. "Your life is hid with Christ in God"; "Honour all men"; "He that loveth not, knoweth not God."

But the significance of this particular passage is indeed far-reaching, permanent, universal. As before, so here, the Apostle warns us (not only the Jew of that distant day) against the fatal but easy error of perverting privilege into pride, forgetting that every gift of God is "a talent" with which the man is to trade for his Lord, and for his Lord alone. But also, more explicitly here, he warns us against that subtle tendency of mans heart to substitute, in religion, the outward for the inward, the mechanical for the spiritual, the symbol for the thing. Who can read this passage without reflections on the privileges, and on the seals of membership, of the Christian Church? Who may not take from it a warning not to put in the wrong place the sacred gifts, as sacred as they can be, because divine, of Order, and of Sacrament? Here is a great Hebrew doctor dealing with that primary Sacrament of the Elder Church of which such high and urgent things are said in the Hebrew Scriptures; a rite of which even mediaeval theologians have asserted that it was the Sacrament of the same grace as that which is the grace of Baptism now. But when he has to consider the case of one who has received the physical ordinance apart from the right attitude of soul, he speaks of the ordinance in terms which a hasty reader might think slighting. He does not slight it. He says it "profits," and he is going soon to say more to that purpose. For him it is nothing less than Gods own Seal on Gods own Word, assuring the individual, as with a literal touch divine, that all is true for him, as he claims grace in humble faith. But then he contemplates the case of one who, by no contempt but by force of circumstance, has. never received the holy seal, yet believes, and loves, and obeys. And he lays it down that the Lord of the Covenant will honour that mans, humble claim as surely as if he brought the covenant document ready sealed in his hand. Not that even for him the seal, if it may be had, will be nothing; it will assuredly be divine still, and will be sought as Gods own gift, His seal ex post facto. But the principle remains that the ritual seal and the spiritual reality are separable; and that the greater thing, the thing of absolute and ultimate necessity between the soul and God, is the spiritual reality; and that where that is present there God accepts.

It was the temptation of Israel of old to put Circumcision in the place of faith, love, and holiness, instead of in its right place, as the divine imperial seal upon the covenant of grace, the covenant to be claimed and used by faith. It is the temptation of some Christians now to put the sacred order of the Church, and particularly its divine Sacraments, the holy Bath and the holy Meal, in the place of spiritual regeneration, and spiritual communion, rather than in their right place as divine imperial seals, on the covenant which guarantees both to faith. For us, as for our elder brethren, this paragraph of the great argument is therefore altogether to the purpose. "Faith is greater than water," says even Peter Lombard, the Magister of the mediaeval Schools. So it is. And the thought is in perfect unison with St. Pauls principle of reasoning here. Let it be ours to reverence, to prize, to use the ordinances of our Master, with a devotion such as we might seem sure we should feel if we saw Him dip His hand in the Font, or stretch it out to break the Bread, and hallow it, and give it, at the Table. But let us be quite certain, for our own souls warning, that it is true all the while-in the sense of this passage-that "he is not a Christian which is one outwardly, neither is that Baptism, or Communion, which is outward; but he is a Christian which is one inwardly, and Baptism and Communion are those of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter."

Sacred indeed are the God-given externals of Christian order and ordinance. But there are degrees of greatness in the world of sacred things. And the moral work of God direct upon the soul of man is greater than His sacramental work done through mans body.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:17-20 The boasting of the Jews reflects Old Testament and Jewish teaching about the privileges and responsibilities God gave to Israel. God gave his law to Israel, entered into a special relationship with them, and commissioned them to be a light to the Gentiles (see Isa 42:6-7). Jews were not wrong to enjoy these blessings; their error was in failing to live up to their privileged position.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 2:17. Εἰ δὲ, but if) If—comp. when, Rom 2:14—has some resemblance to an Anaphora,[30] with the exception that ὅταν, when, having reference to the Gentiles, asserts more; εἰ, if, used with respect to the Jews, concedes less. After if, οὖν, therefore [Rom 2:21], follows, like ἀλλὰ, but, (ch. Rom 6:5)[31] and ΔῈ, truly Act 11:17.[32]—Comp. Mat 25:27. Moreover, the ΟὐΝ, therefore, in a subsequent verse (Rom 2:21), brings to a conclusion the somewhat long protasis, which begins with εἰ, if.—Ἰουδαῖος, a Jew) This, the highest point of Jewish boasting (a farther description of it being interposed at Rom 2:17-20, and its refutation being added, Rom 2:21-24), is itself refuted at the 25th and following verses. Moreover, the description of his boasting consists of twice five clauses, of which the first five, from thou restest (Rom 2:17), to, out of the law (Rom 2:18), show what the Jew assumes to himself; the rest, as many in number as the former, thou art confident (Rom 2:19), to, in the law (Rom 2:20), show, what more the Jew, from this circumstance, arrogates to himself, in reference to others. On both sides [in both series], the first clause of one corresponds to the first of the other, the second to the second, and so on in succession; and as the fifth clause in the former series, instructed, Rom 2:18, so the fifth in the latter, having, Rom 2:20 [the form of knowledge] denotes a cause: because thou art instructed, [answering to] because thou hast.—ἐπονομάζῃ) in the middle voice: thou callest thyself by this name, and delightest to be so called.—ἐπαναπαύῃ) thou restest in that, which threatens to put thee in a strait; thou hast in the law a schoolmaster, instead of a father [as you fancy the law to be].—Τῷ νόμῳ, in the law) Paul purposely [knowingly] makes frequent use of this name.—ἐν Θεῷ, in God), as though He were One, who is peculiarly thy God.

[30] See Appendix.

[31] ABCΛ read ἀλλά there. Gfg Vulg. read ἅμα, simul.

[32] EGe Rec. Text, Theb. Vers. read δέ, who truly was I, etc. ABCd Vulg. omit δέ.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_2:17-20 contain the protasis, whose tenor of censure (called in question without ground by Th. Schott and Hofmann) reveals itself at first gently, but afterwards, Rom_2:19 f., with greater force.

Ἱουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ] if thou art named Jew. This was the theocratic title of honour opposed to heathenism (יודה יה, see Philo, Alleg. I. p. 55 B, de plant. Noë, p. 233 A). Comp Rev_2:9. So much the less therefore is ἐπονομάζ. to be here understood of a surname (Bengel). Full effect is given to the compound in classic writers also by the notion of name-giving, imposing the name. See Plat. Crat. p. 397 E, p. 406 A; Phaedr. p. 238 A al[683]; Xen. Oec. 6, 17; Thuc. ii. 29, 3; Polyb. i. 29, 2; comp Gen_4:17; Gen_4:25 f. Van Hengel arbitrarily imports the idea: pro veteri nomine (Israelitarum) novum substituens.

ἐπαναπαύη τῷ νόμῳ] acquiescis, thou reliest (Mic_3:11; 1Ma_8:12; see Wetstein) on the law, comp Joh_5:45, as if the possession and knowledge of it were to thee the guarantee of salvation. The rest, of not being obliged first of all to seek what Gods will is (Hofmann), cannot be meant; since such a seeking cannot be separated from the possession of the law, but is on the contrary directed to that very law (see Rom_2:18). But in the law the Jew saw the magna charta of his assurance of salvation. He relied upon it.

ἐν Θεῷ] As being the exclusive Father and Protector of the nation. Comp Gen_17:7; Isa_45:25; Jer_31:33. Observe the climax of the three points in Rom_2:17. The ἐν with καυχ. (2Co_10:15; Gal_6:13), a verb which in Greek authors is joined with ἐπί or εἰς or the accusative, denotes that, wherein the καυχ. rests, according to the analogy of χαίρειν, τέρπεσθαι ἐν (Bernhardy, p. 211; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403).

Rom_2:18, τὸ θέλημα] κατʼ ἐξοχήν. Whose will it was, that was to be obeyed on the part of man, was obvious of itself. Comp on ὄνομα Act_5:41.

δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέρ.] Thou approvest the excellent. Respecting the lexical correctness of this rendering comp on Php_1:10. Its correctness in accordance with the connection is plain from the climactic relation, in which the two elements of Rom_2:18 must stand to each other. Thou knowest the will of God and approvest (theoretically) the excellenttherewith Paul has conceded to the Jews all possible theory of the ethical, up to the limit of practice. Others, taking δοκιμάζειν as to prove, explain τὰ διαφέροντα as meaning that which is different; and this either (comp Heb_5:14) of the distinction between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Grotius and others, including Reiche, Rückert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Krehl, Philippi, van Hengel, Th. Schott), or that which is different from the will of God, i.e. what is wrong, sinful (Clericus, Glöckler, Mehring, Hofmann; compare Beza). But, after γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα, how tame and destructive of the climax is either explanation! The Vulgate rightly renders: probas utiliora. Compare Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald.

κατηχούμ. ἐκ τ. νόμου] Being instructed out of the law (through the public reading and exposition of it in the synagogues, comp ἀκροάται, Rom_2:13), namely as to the will of God, and as to that which is excellent.

Rom_2:19-20 now describe, with a reference not to be mistaken (in opposition to Th. Schott and Hofmann) to the Jewish presumption and disposition to proselytize (Mat_23:15), the influence which the Jews, in virtue of their theoretic insight, fancied that they exercised over the Gentiles. The accumulated asyndetic designations of the same thing lend lively force to the description. They are not to be regarded with Reiche as reminiscences from the Gospels (Mat_15:14; Luk_20:32; Luk_2:32); for apart from the fact that at least no canonical Gospel had at that time been written, the figurative expressions themselves which are here used were very current among the Jews and elsewhere. See, e.g. Wetstein on Mat_15:14. Observe, further, that Paul does not continue here with the conjunctive καί, but with the adjunctive τέ, because what follows contains the conduct determined by and dependent on the elements of Rom_2:18, and not something independent. Comp Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 790.

σεαυτὸν ὁδηγ. κ.τ.λ[692]] that thou thyself for thy part, in virtue of this aptitude received from the law, etc. πέποιθα, accompanied by the accusative with the infinitive, occurs only here in the N. T., and rarely in Greek authors (Aesch. Sept. 444).

παιδευτὴν Κ.Τ.Λ[693]] trainer of the foolish, teacher of those in nonage. Comp Plat. Pol. x. p. 598 C: παῖδάς τε καὶ ἄφρονας.

τὴν μόρφωσιν τ. γνώσ. κ. τ. ἀλήθ.] the form of knowledge and of the truth. In the doctrines and precepts of the law religious knowledge and divine truth, both in the objective sense, attain the conformation and exhibition (Ewald: embodiment) proper to them, i.e. corresponding to their nature (hence τὴν μόρφ.), so that we possess in the law those lineaments which, taken collectively, compose the σχηματισμὸς (Hesychius) of knowledge and truth and thus bring them to adequate intellectual cognizance. Truth and knowledge have become in the law ἔμμορφος (Plut. Numbers 8, Mor. p. 428 F), or μορφοειδής (Plut. Mor. p. 735 A). Paul adds this ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφ. τ. γν. κ. τ. ἀλ. as an illustrative definition (ut qui habeas, etc.) to all the points previously adduced; and in doing so he places himself entirely at the Jewish point of view (comp Wis_14:31 ff.), and speaks according to their mode of conception; hence the view which takes μόρφ. here as the mere appearance (2Ti_3:5), in contrast to the reality, is quite erroneous (in opposition to τινές in Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pareus, Olshausen). Even Paul himself could not possibly find in the law merely the appearance of truth (Rom_3:21; Rom_3:31). On μόρφωσις compare Theophrastus, h. pl. iii. 7, 4, and διαμόρφωσις in Plut. Mor. p. 1023 C.

[683] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[692] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[693] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Rom_2:17-24. The logical connection of this oratio splendida ac vehemens (Estius), introduced once more in lively apostrophe,[679] with what precedes is to be taken thus: Paul has expressed in Rom_2:13-16 the rule of judgment, that not the hearers but the doers of the law shall in the judgment be justified. He wishes now vividly to bring home the fact, that the conduct of the Jews, with all their conceit as to the possession and knowledge of the law, is in sharp contradiction to that standard of judgment. The δέ and the emphatic σύ are to be explained from the conception of the contrast, which the conduct of the Jews showed, to the proposition that only the doers δικαιωθήσονται. As to the construction of Rom_2:17-23, the common assumption of an anakoluthon, by which Paul in Rom_2:21 abandons the plan of the discourse started with εἰ, and introduces another turn by means of οὖν (see Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 712], Buttmann, p. 331) is quite unnecessary. The discourse, on the contrary, is formed with regular and logically accurate connection as protasis (Rom_2:17-20) and apodosis, namely thus: But if thou art called a Jew, and supportest thyself on the law, etc., down to Rom_2:20, dost thou (interrogative apodosis, Rom_2:21-22), who accordingly (οὖν, in accordance with what is specified in Rom_2:17-20) teachest others, not teach thyself? Stealest thou, who preachest against stealing? Committest thou adultery, who forbiddest adultery? Plunderest thou temples, who abhorrest idols? These questions present the contrast to the contents of the protasis as in the highest degree surprising, as something that one is at a loss how to characteriseand then follows in Rom_2:23, with trenchant precision, the explanation and decision regarding them in the categorical utterance: Thou, who boastest thyself of the law, dishonourest God by the transgression, of the law, a result which is then in Rom_2:24 further confirmed by a testimony from the O. T. Rom_2:23 also might indeed (as commonly explained) be taken as a question; but, when taken as declaratory, the discourse presents a form far more finished, weighty and severe. Paul himself, by abandoning the participial expression uniformly employed four times previously, seems to indicate the cessation of the course hitherto pursued. According to this exposition of the connection, in which it must not be overlooked that the force of the οὖν in Rom_2:21 is limited solely to the relation of the ὁ διδάσκων ἕτερον and the following participles to what has been said before,[680] we must reject the view of Benecke, Glöckler, and Hofmann that the apodosis only begins with Rom_2:23, but in Rom_2:21 f. there is a continuation of the hypothetical protasisan idea which cannot be tolerated, especially at the beginning of the new form of discourse (the antithetical), without repetition of the εἰ. Paul would have written ΕἸ ΟὖΝ Ὁ ΔΙΔΆΣΚΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[681] (compare Baeumlein, Partik. p. 178). Th. Schott erroneously finds in ἐπαναπαύῃ and καυχᾶσαι the apodosis, which is then explained.

[679] To the Jews, not to the Jewish-Christians. Respecting the composition and character of the Roman congregation nothing can be inferred from this rhetorical form of expression. Comp. Th. Schott, p. 188 f.

[680] This is the well-known epanaleptic οὖν, gathering up and resuming what had been said previously. Regarding the frequency of its use also in Greek writers to introduce the apodosis, especially after a lengthened protasis, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 718. Comp. Bengel on ver. 17.

[681] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 2:17 . Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ : bearest the name of “Jew”. The ἐπὶ in the compound verb does not denote addition, but direction: Ἰουδαῖος is not conceived as a surname, but a name which has been imposed. Of course it is implied in the context that the name is an honourable one. It is not found in the LXX, and in other places where Paul wishes to indicate the same distinction, and the same pride in it, he says Ἰσραηλεῖται (Rom 9:4 , 2Co 11:22 ). The terms must have had a tendency to coalesce in import, though Ἰουδαῖος is national, and Ἰσραηλείτης religious; for the religion was national. ἐπαναπαύη νόμῳ : grammatically νόμῳ is law; really, it is the Mosaic law. The Jew said, We have a law, and the mere possession of it gave him confidence. Cf. Mic 3:11 , ἐπὶ τὸν Κύριον ἐπανεπαύοντο . καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ : boastest in God, as the covenant God of the Jews, who are His peculiar people. καυχᾶσαι = καυχᾷ : the longer form is the usual one in the κοινή .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17–3:20. The Gospel is needed by Jews, who have also failed through ignoring the one condition of righteousness.

17. Under the same principle comes the Jew, who has full and privileged opportunities (21) and yet makes ill use of them by open unrighteousness (25) from the consequences of which no privilege can deliver him in face of a judgment which considers character and not privilege, (Rom 3:1) His advantage was an exceptional trust given by GOD, which his failure does not impair, as on GOD’S part, though it justifies his punishment, but not himself. (9) He is, therefore, as sinning against knowledge, a state foreseen in O.T., under the same condemnation as the Gentile, law having given to him the knowledge which makes wrongdoing into sin.

This section shows explicitly that the Jew belongs to the class τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων. They possess the truth, Rom 2:17-20, ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, 21 ff. Here, as there is no dispute as to fact, the Jew obviously possessing the truth, the main argument is directed to his supposed plea, that his specially privileged position exempts him from condemnation (Rom 3:1-20).

It is important to realise that the whole stress is laid on acting upon knowledge, whether embodied in human consciousness or in an external law; it is this duty of obedience which is the characteristic demand of the pre-Christian dispensation; and its exposition leads to the conclusion that all have sinned and are amenable to judgment, as all have failed to obey law, in one form or another. cf. S.H., p. 58, Lft, Gal 4:11, Hort, R. & E. p. 25.

17. εἰ δὲ. Apodosis Rom 2:21; on the construction cf. Winer-M., p. 711 (who keeps. εἰ δὲ) Blass, p. 284 (who prefers ἴδε; so Field ad loc.). If we read εἰ δὲ it is a case of anacoluthon, of a quite intelligible kind. The nexus supports εἰ δὲ. He is passing from the case of the Gentile to the case of the Jew with his special conditions; and the particle of contrast is required.

Ἰουδαῖος )[91] Ἔλλην marks nationality, but suggests too all that the distinctive nationality meant to the Jew; cf. Gal 2:4.

[91] )( opposed to

ἐπονομάζῃ. Only here in N.T. The ἐπί gives the force of a specific name, differentiating a part in a wider class. So here = not ἄνθρωπος only, but Ἰουδαῖος. cf. Plato, Protag. 349 A, σοφιστὴν ἐπονομάζεις σεαυτόν.

ἐπαναπαύῃ κ.τ.λ. These clauses enumerate the details of the true prerogatives of the Jew, as called by GOD; so

καυχᾶσαι, in a good sense; all your boasting is in GOD and His dealings with you; cf. Rom 5:11, 2Co 11:7.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The second part of the chapter, Rom 2:17-29, contains the application of the principles laid down in the first. After expressing himself in a general and more or less abstract way, Paul addresses himself directly to the person whom he had in view from Rom 2:1, and finally designates him by name. Yet he still proceeds with the utmost caution; for he knows that he is giving a shock to inveterate prejudices, prejudices which he long shared himself. The way is slowly paved for the conclusion which he wishes to reach; hence the length of the following sentence, which contains as it were the preamble of the judgment to be pronounced.

Vv. 17-20. “Now if thou who art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and canst discern the things that differ, being instructed out of the law; and esteemest thyself to be the guide of the blind, the light of them which are in darkness, the instructor of the foolish, the teacher of babes, because thou hast the formula of knowledge and of the truth in the law”...

Instead of ἱδέ, behold, which the T. R. reads, with a single Mj., we must certainly read εἰ δέ, now if; this is the natural form of transition from principles to their application; the other reading seems to be a consequence of itacism (pronouncing ει as ι).

Where are we to find the principal clause to which this now if is subordinate? Some, Winer for example, think that the same construction continues as far as the beginning of Rom 2:21, where it is abandoned on account of the length of the sentence, and where an entirely new proposition begins. But we must at least meet again somewhere in the sequel with the idea which was in the apostle’s mind when he began with the words now if. Meyer regards Rom 2:21 itself as the principal clause; he understands the οὖν, therefore, as a particle of recapitulation. But, in an argument like this (now if, Rom 2:17), this meaning of therefore is unnatural. It is better than, with Hofmann, to hold that the series of propositions dependent on now if is prolonged to the end of Rom 2:24, where the principal proposition resulting from all these considerations is understood as a self-evident consequence: what good in this case (that of such sins, Rom 2:21-24) will accrue to thee from all those advantages (Rom 2:17-20)? It is to this understood conclusion, which we would replace with lacuna-points (...), that the for of Rom 2:25 very naturally refers. By this figure of rhetoric (aposiopesis) the apostle dispenses with expressing a conclusion himself, which must spring spontaneously from the conscience of every reader.

The propositions dependent on “now if,” taken together, embrace two series of four verses each; the one, that from Rom 2:17-20, is intended to enumerate all the advantages of which the Jew boasts; the other, from Rom 2:21-24, contrasts the iniquities of his conduct with those advantages.

The advantages are distributed into three categories. 1. The gifts of God, Rom 2:17. 2. The superior capabilities which these gifts confer on the Jew, Rom 2:18. 3. The part which he somewhat pretentiously thinks himself thereby called to play toward other nations, Rom 2:19-20. There is something slightly ironical in this accumulation of titles on which the Jew bases the satisfaction which he feels as he surveys himself.

Vv. 17. The name Jew, ᾿Ιουδαῖος, is probably not used without allusion to its etymological meaning: Jehoudah, the praised one. The preposition ἐπί, which enters into the composition of the verb, converts this name into a real title. But Israel possesses more than a glorious name; it has in its hands a real gift: the law. Here is a manifest sign of the divine favor on which it may consequently rest. Finally, this token of special favor makes God its God, to the exclusion of all other nations. It has therefore whereof to glory in God. To the gradation of the three substantives: Jew, law, God, that of the three verbs perfectly corresponds: to call oneself, to rest, to glory.

Hence there result (Rom 2:18) two capabilities which distinguished the Jew from every other man. He knows God’s will, and so succeeds in discerning what to others is confused. One is always entitled to be proud of knowing; but when that knowing is of the will, that is to say, the absolute and perfect will which ordains all, and judges of all sovereignly, such a knowledge is an incomparable advantage. By this knowledge of the divine will the Jew can discern and appreciate (δοκιμάζειν) the most delicate shades of the moral life—Τὰ διαφέροντα might signify the things that are better (meliora probare), from the meaning of surpass, which is often that of the verb διαφέρειν. But here it is better to translate: the things that differ (from the sense of differing, which is also that of διαφέρειν); for the apostle seems to be alluding to those discussions of legal casuistry in which the Jewish schools excelled, as when the two eminent doctors Hillel and Schammai gravely debated the question, whether it was lawful to eat an egg laid by a hen on the Sabbath day.

The last words of the verse: instructed out of the law, indicate the source of that higher faculty of appreciation. The term κατηχούμενος, from κατηχεῖδθαι, to be penetrated by a sound, makes each Jew law personified.

From this knowledge and faculty of appreciation flows the part which the Jew claims in regard to other men, and which is described in Rom 2:19-20 with a slight touch of ridicule. The first four terms set forth the moral treatment to which the Jew, as the born physician of mankind, subjects his patients, the Gentiles, to their complete cure. The term πέποιθας, thou art confident, describes his pretentious assurance. And first, he takes the poor Gentile by the hand as one does a blind man, offering to guide him; then he opens his eyes, dissipating his darkness by the light of revelation; then he rears him, as one would bring up a being yet without reason; finally, when through all this care he has come to the stage of the little child, νήπιος (who cannot speak; this was the term used by the Jews to designate proselytes; see Tholuck), he initiates him into the full knowledge of the truth, by becoming his teacher.

The end of the verse serves to explain the reason of this ministry to the Gentile world which the Jew exercises. He possesses in the law the precise sketch (μόρφωσις), the exact outline, the rigorous formula of the knowledge of things which men should have (the idea which every one should form of them), and of the truth, that is to say, the moral reality or substance of goodness. Knowledge is the subjective possession of truth in itself. The Jew possesses in the law not only the truth itself, but its exact formula besides, by means of which he can convey this truth to others. We need not then, with Oltramare, make these last words an appendix, intended to disparage the teaching of the Jew: “though thou hast but the shadow of knowledge.” The drift of the passage demands the opposite sense: “as possessing the truth in its precise formula.”

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_2:17-29

Analysis

This section consists properly of two parts. The first, Rom_2:17-24, contains an application of the principles laid down in the former section, to the case of the Jews. The second, Rom_2:25-29, is an exhibition of the nature and design of circumcision. The principal grounds of dependence on the part of the Jews were,

1. Their covenant relation to God.

2. Their superior advantages as to divine knowledge.

3. Their circumcision.

Now if it is true that God will judge every man, Jew or Gentile, according to his works, and by the law which he has enjoyed, what will it avail any to say, We are Jews, we have the law, Rom_2:17; we have superior knowledge, Rom_2:18; we can act as guides and instructors to others? Rom_2:19. This may all be very true; but are you less a thief, merely because you condemn stealing? less an adulterer, because you condemn adultery? or less a blasphemer, because you abhor sacrilege? Rom_2:21, Rom_2:22. This superior knowledge, instead of extenuating, only aggravates your guilt. While boasting of your advantages, you by your sins bring a reproach on God, Rom_2:23, Rom_2:24. According to the first principles of justice, therefore, your condemnation will be no less certain, and far more severe than that of the Gentiles. As to circumcision, to which the Jews attached so much importance, the apostle shows that it could avail nothing, except on condition of obedience to the law or covenant to which it belonged, Rom_2:25. If the law be broken, circumcision is worthless, Rom_2:25, latter clause. On the other hand, if the law is obeyed, the want of circumcision will not prevent a blessing, Rom_2:26. More than this, if those less favorably situated than the Jews are found obedient, they will rise up in judgment against the disobedient, though favored people of God, Rom_2:27. All this proves that an external rite can, in itself, have no saving power; because God is a Spirit, and requires and regards spiritual obedience alone. This principle is stated, first negatively, he is not a Jew who is such in profession merely, Rom_2:28; and then affirmatively, he is a Jew who is one inwardly, Rom_2:29.

Commentary

Rom_2:17

Instead of ἰδέ, behold, which is in the common text, most of the ancient manuscripts, many of the versions, and of the Fathers, read εἰ δέ, but if; which reading is adopted by Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, and Lachmann, and is followed by almost all the recent commentators. We have then the protasis of a sentence of which the apodosis does not follow: But if thou art called a Jew, and hast the law, thou shouldest act according to it; comp. 2Pe_2:4. Or the answering clause may be found in Rom_2:21, If thou art called a Jew, etc., teachest thou then (ουν) not thyself? Winer, §63, 1:1. Art called, ἐπονομάζῃ, called after, or in addition to; a sense insisted on here by Theodoret, who says, οὐκ εἶπεν ὁνομάζῃ, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπονομάζῃ. Bengel, Köllner, Meyer, and others, take the same view of the meaning of the word: Besides your proper name, you call yourself a Jew. But as the compound word is used for the simple one in Gen_4:17, Gen_4:25, Gen_4:26, and elsewhere, and as Jew was then the common name of the people, it is better rendered, thou art called. Ἰουδαῖος, a Jew, a descendant of Judah, in the New Testament applied to all the Israelites, as inhabitants of Judea. It was considered a title of honor, not only on account of its etymology, יְהודָה, meaning praised, Gen_49:8 but because it designated the people of God. Comp. Gen_49:28, Gen_49:29, and Rev_2:9 : I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews, and are not. To be a Jew in this sense was to be one of the covenant people of God, a member of the theocracy, or of the true Church. As this was the principal ground of the false confidence of the Jews, the apostle mentions it before all others. It was not enough that they were the children of Abraham; if they sinned, they were exposed to the displeasure of that God who will render to every man according to his works, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. And restest on the law. That is, Thou placest thy confidence upon the law. In the Septuagint, the word occurs in Mic_3:11, a passage illustrative of the one before us, The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. The law here means the whole Mosaic system, the civil and religious polity of the Jews. This they relied upon; the fact that they were within the Church, were partakers of its sacraments and rites; that they had a divinely appointed priesthood, continued in unbroken succession from Aaron, and invested with the power to make atonement for sin, was the ground on which they rested their hope of acceptance with God. Within that pale they considered all safe; out of it there was no salvation. Such was the false confidence of the Jews; such has been and is the false confidence of thousands of Christians. And makest thy boast of God. See Winer, §13:2, on the form of the word καυχᾶσαι. To boast, or glory in any person or thing, is to rejoice in him or it as a source of honor, happiness, or profit to ourselves. We are forbidden thus to glory in ourselves, or any creature, as the ground of our confidence and source of our blessedness. Let no man glory in men; but he that glories, let him glory in the Lord. This glorying in God may be right or wrong, according to the reasons of it. If it proceeds from a sense of our own emptiness, and from right apprehensions of the excellence of God, and from faith in his promises, then it is that glorying which is so often commanded. But if it arises from false notions of our relation to him, as his peculiar favorites, then it is vain and wicked. The Jews regarded themselves in such a sense the people of God, as to be secure of his favor, let their personal character be what it might. They boasted that he was their God, that they monopolized his favor, all other nations being his enemies.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He proveth by the testimony of David, and the other Prophets, that God bestowed greatest benefits upon the Jews, in giving them also the Law, but that they are the most unthankful and unkindest of all men.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Behold--"But if" is, beyond doubt, the true reading here. (It differs but in a single letter from the received reading, and the sense is the same).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 17. Behold, thou art called a Jew] What the apostle had said in the preceding verses being sufficient to enforce conviction on the conscience of the Jew, he now throws off the cover, and openly argues with him in the most plain and nervous manner; asserting that his superior knowledge, privileges, and profession, served only to aggravate his condemnation. And that, in fact, he who, under all his greater advantages, transgressed the law of God, stood condemned by the honest Gentile, who, to the best of his knowledge obeyed it. Dr. Taylor.

And restest in the law] Thou trustest in it for thy endless salvation. The word επαναπαυη, implies the strongest confidence of safety and security. Thou reposest thy whole trust and confidence in this law.

And makest thy boast of God] That thou knowest his nature and attributes, which are not known to the Gentiles. The word, καυχασαι, implies the idea of exulting in any thing, as being a proper object of hope and dependence: and, when referred to GOD, it points out that HE is the sure cause of hope, dependence, joy, and happiness; and that it is the highest honour to be called to know his name, and be employed in his service. As if the apostle had said: You rejoice in God as the object of your hope and dependence; you praise and magnify him; you account it your greatest honour that HE is your God, and that you worship him.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17. Behold, thou art named a Jew, etc. Some old copies read εἰ δὲ, though indeed; which, were it generally received, would meet my approbation; but as the greater part of the manuscripts is opposed to it, and the sense is not unsuitable, I retain the old reading, especially as it is only a small difference of one letter.

Having now completed what he meant to say of the Gentiles, he returns to the Jews; and that he might, with greater force, beat down their great vanity, he allows them all those privileges, by which they were beyond measure transported and inflated: and then he shows how insufficient they were for the attainment of true glory, yea, how they turned to their reproach. Under the name Jew he includes all the privileges of the nation, which they vainly pretended were derived from the law and the prophets; and so he comprehends all the Israelites, all of whom were then, without any difference, called Jews.

But at what time this name first originated it is uncertain, except that it arose, no doubt, after the dispersion. Josephus, in the eleventh book of his Antiquities, thinks that it was taken from Judas Maccabæus, under whose auspices the liberty and honor of the people, after having for some time fallen, and been almost buried, revived again. Though I allow this opinion to be probable, yet, if there be some to whom it is not satisfactory, I will offer them a conjecture of my own. It seems, indeed, very likely, that after having been degraded and scattered through so many disasters, they were not able to retain any certain distinction as to their tribes; for a census could not have been made at that time, nor did there exist a regular government, which was necessary to preserve an order of this kind; and they dwelt scattered and in disorder; and having been worn out by adversities, they were no doubt less attentive to the records of their kindred. But though you may not grant these things to me, yet it cannot be denied but that a danger of this kind was connected with such disturbed state of things. Whether, then, they meant to provide for the future, or to remedy an evil already received, they all, I think assumed the name of that tribe, in which the purity of religion remained the longest, and which, by a peculiar privilege, excelled all the rest, as from it the Redeemer was expected to come; for it was their refuge in all extremities, to console themselves with the expectation of the Messiah. However this may be, by the name of Jews they avowed themselves to be the heirs of the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed.

And restest in the law, and gloriest in God, etc. He means not that they rested in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the end for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its observance, and were inflated on this account only, — because they were persuaded that the oracles of God belonged to them. In the same way they gloried in God, not as the Lord commands by his Prophet, — to humble ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone, (Jeremiah 9:24,) — but being without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they made him, of whom they were inwardly destitute, peculiarly their own, and assumed to be his people, for the purpose of vain ostentation before men. This, then, was not the glorying of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(17) Behold.—An interesting case of a corrupt reading which has found its way into the Authorised version. For “behold,” a decisive consensus of the best MSS. has “but if.” The corruption was very obvious and easy. Adopting “but if,” the answering clause of the sentence is to be found in the question, “Teachest thou not thyself?” Rom_2:21. The connecting particle “therefore” at the beginning of the same verse is merely resumptive, or, as it is technically called, “epanaleptic.”

Turning to the Jew, the Apostle breaks out into indignant and vehement apostrophe, “If you have the name of Jew, and repose upon the Law, and make your boast in God, and do all these other things—why then, while you profess to teach others, do you not teach yourself?” A fine specimen of the natural eloquence which the Apostle derives from intense feeling. The different features of the picture crowd into his mind to point the contrast between what the Jew claimed to be and what he was.

Restest in.—Reposest or reliest upon a law. A passive confidence in something external. “In the Law the Jew saw the Magna Charta which gave him his assurance of salvation” (Meyer).

Makest thy boast of God—i.e., of a peculiar and exclusive claim to His favour. (Comp. Deu_4:7; Psa_147:19-20.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17–29. Explicit exposure of Jewish responsibility, guilt, and peril

17. Behold] Better, But if. A single additional letter in the Gr. makes this difference; and it should certainly be so read. The framework of the sentence is thus somewhat altered: “But if thou art a Jew, and dost glory in the name and privilege,—say, dost thou act up to thy light?”

thou] Emphatic, “thou, my supposed hearer or reader.”

art called] Lit. art surnamed. Perhaps in the word “named” lies a slight reference to the contrast between external and internal “Judaism.” See Rom_2:28.

restest in] Lit. restest upon. The possession of the Law was the foundation-rock of the man’s peace and hope. On this he reposed himself, thanking God that he was “not as other men were.” The Divine exposure of his sin he perverted into a reason for self-righteousness!

makest thy boast of God] Lit. boastest, or gloriest, in God. A “boast” either most holy or most sinful according to the man’s view of God and of himself. See Isa_45:25, for the sacred promise perverted by Pharisaic pride.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And art confident that thou thyself,.... Being vainly puffed up in, their fleshly minds, they were strongly persuaded that they were very fit persons to be

a guide to the blind: all men are by nature blind, as to the knowledge of divine and spiritual things; the meaner sort of the people among the Jews seem to be intended here; or else the ignorant Gentiles, whom the Jews were very fond of making proselytes to their religion and laws; but miserable guides were they, whether to their own people, or others; blind guides of the blind. Gospel ministers best deserve this title:

a light of them that are in darkness; so Christ, John the Baptist, the disciples of Christ, and all Gospel ministers are; but these men, who arrogated such characters to themselves, were dim lights, and dark lanterns. The apostle seems to have respect to those very high and exalted characters the Jews give of their doctors, as when they call one, , "the lamp of light" (w); another, "the holy lamps" (x); and a third, , "the lamp of Israel" (y); with many others of the same kind; See Gill on Mat 5:14 and See Gill on Joh 5:35.

(w) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 17. 1. (x) Zohar passim. (y) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 28. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Ver. 17. Restest in the law] So spending thy time in a still dream, but thou shalt have sick waking, then when God shall send out summons for such sleepers. Men dream their Midianitish dreams, and tell them for law or gospel to their neighbours, Jdg 7:13.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Behold - Having thus stated the general principles on which God would judge the world; having shown how they condemned the Gentiles; and having removed all objections to them, he now proceeds to another part of his argument, to show how they applied to the Jews. By the use of the word “behold,” he calls their attention to it, as to an important subject; and with great skill and address, he states their privileges, before he shows them how those privileges might enhance their condemnation. He admits all their claims to pre-eminence in privileges, and then with great faithfulness proceeds to show how, if abused, these might deepen their final destruction. It should be observed, however, that the word rendered “behold” is in many manuscripts written in two words, ἔι δὲ ei de, instead of ἴδε ide. If this, as is probable, is the correct reading there, it should be rendered, “if now thou art,” etc. Thus, the Syriac, Latin, and Arabic read it.

Thou art called - Thou art named Jew, implying that this name was one of very high honor. This is the first thing mentioned on which the Jew would be likely to pride himself.

A Jew - This was the name by which the Hebrews were at that time generally known; and it is clear that they regarded it as a name of honor, and valued themselves much on it; see Gal 2:15; Rev 2:9. Its origin is not certainly known. They were called the children of Israel until the time of Rehoboam. When the ten tribes were carried into captivity, but two remained, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The name Jews was evidently given to denote those of the tribe of Judah. The reasons why the name of Benjamin was lost in that of Judah, were probably,

(1)Because the tribe of Benjamin was small, and comparatively without influence or importance.

The Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah Gen 49:10; and that tribe would therefore possess a consequence proportioned to their expectation of that event.

The name of Jews would therefore be one that would suggest the facts that they were preserved from captivity, that they had received remarkably the protection of God, and that the Messiah was to be sent to that people. Hence, it is not wonderful that they should regard it as a special favor to be a Jew, and particularly when they added to this the idea of all the other favors connected with their being the special people of God. The name “Jew” came thus to denote all the peculiarities and special favors of their religion.

And restest in the law - The word “rest” here is evidently used in the sense of trusting to, or leaning upon. The Jew leaned on, or relied on the Law for acceptance or favor; on the fact that he had the Law, and on his obedience to it. It does not mean that he relied on his own works, though that was true, but that he leaned on the fact that he had the Law, and was thus distinguished above others. The Law here means the entire Mosaic economy; or all the rules and regulations which Moses had given. Perhaps also it includes, as it sometimes does, the whole of the Old Testament.

Makest thy boast in God - Thou dost boast, or glory, that thou hast the knowledge of the true God, while other nations are in darkness. On this account the Jew felt himself far elevated above all other people, and despised them. It was true that they only had the true knowledge of God, and that he had declared himself to be their God, Deu 4:7; Psa 147:19-20; but this was not a ground for boasting, but for gratitude. This passage shows us that it is much more common to boast of privileges than to be thankful for them, and that it is no evidence of piety for a man to boast of his knowledge of God. An humble, ardent thankfulness that we have that knowledge a thankfulness which leads us not to despise others, but to desire that they may have the same privilege - is an evidence of piety.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But if thou art called a Jew. In the common Greek copies, we read, behold, thou art a Jew, &c. St. Paul here turns his discourse particularly to the Jews, who valued themselves so much upon their law, their temple, and their ceremonies; and therefore are said to rest on the law, as if it were enough to be by profession a Jew. (Witham) --- But many manuscripts, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Ambrose, Sedul., Theophylactus, &c. read it as in the Vulgate, Greek: ei su Ioudaios. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

He now comes to deal more particularly and expressly with the Jews, reciting their privileges, in which they trusted, and of which they boasted; and shows, that notwithstanding them, they stood in as much need of the righteousness of God as the Gentiles did.

Thou; he speaks in the singular number, that every one might make the readier application of what he said.

Art called a Jew; so called from Judah; as of old, Hebrews from Heber, and Israelites from Israel: the title was honourable in those days, and imported a confessor or worshipper of one God. Thou art so called, but art not so indeed: see Rom 2:28, and Rev 2:9.

Restest in the law; puttest thy trust in it.

Makest thy boast of God; that he is thy God, and in covenant with thee; and that thou hast a peculiar interest in him: see Joh 8:41. The phrase seems to be borrowed from Isa 45:25.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But if (the true reading being certainly ei de , not ide , as in the Textus Receptus) thou (su , emphatic) art named a Jew. The Israelites who had remained in Palestine, or who returned to it after the Captivity, seem thenceforth to have been designated Jews (Ioudaioi , though they included some of other tribes than that of Judah, notably that of Benjamin, of which St. Paul himself was, and of course of Levi. They are so called, whether resident in Palestine or elsewhere, throughout the New Testament, as well as by Roman writers. the term Ebraioi being applied in the New Testament (usually at least) to distinguish those Jews who adhered to the Hebrew language in public worship, and to national customs and traditions, from those who Hellenized (Ellhuistai). It was the name on which the people prided themselves at that time, as expressing their peculiar privileges. The apostle, having at the beginning of this chapter addressed himself generally to "whosoever thou art that judgest," now summons the Jew exclusively to the bar of judgment, whose claims to exemption from the general condemnation have come to the front in the preceding verses. By the emphatic su , he calls on him now to give an account of himself, and justify his pretensions if he can. The point of the argument is that the Jews were notoriously at that time no better than other nations in moral conduct nay, their national character was such as to bring their very religion into disrepute among the heathen and therefore doing, and not either privilege, knowledge, or profession, being according to the very Law on which they rested the test required, their whole ground for national exemption was taken away. And retest on law (nomw , here without the article, so as to emphasize the principle on which the Jew professed to rest for acceptance), and makest thy boast of God. The Jew gloried, as against the heathen, in his knowledge and worship of the one true God.

Vers. 17-27. Tu quoque!

Although himself a Jew, St. Paul shows no favor to his fellow-countrymen. No sooner has he characterized and condemned the sins of the heathen, than he turns upon the Israelites to include them in the same condemnation of sin and unbelief. In this passage, where close reasoning is combined with vigorous irony, he presses home upon those Jews who censure the flagitious crimes of heathenism the sentence which justice compels them to admit as their due.

I PRIVILEGE IS ADMITTED.

1. Hereditary advantages are undeniable. The Jew entered at birth into a heritage of favourable circumstances, belonging, as he did, to the nation distinguished by privileges at that age of the world unparalleled.

2. Acquired familiarity with the Law of God was a natural result of national privileges. From childhood, the Jew was trained to reverence God"s Name, to recite God"s Law, to listen to the teaching of God"s prophets.

3. There resulted a position of influence and responsibility in the discharge of the obvious duty of communicating and inculcating the Divine will. The Jew was the "guide of the blind," the "instructor of the foolish," the "tether of babes." He was the witness to the truth and to the commandments of the Eternal. Reflection may show us that we occupy, under the Christian dispensation, a similar position of privilege and responsibility.

II UNFAITHFULNESS IS IMPUTED.

1. The crimes condemned are committed by those who condemn them. The list is indeed appalling. Upon the religious Jew are charged offences which it can hardly be supposed were all committed by one person, in one human life. Yet there is no limit to the possibility of man"s hypocrisy. Theft, adultery, sacrilege, blasphemy, such are the awful crimes and sins which are charged upon the Jews, who professed so loudly their moral superiority to their Gentile neighbours.

2. The ungodly Jew not only commits the crimes he condemns; he hinders the cause it is his professed business to further and to advocate. To him is committed, as it were, the custody of monotheism; he is called upon to witness to the Divine nature and character, as contrasting with the conceptions of their deities cherished by the heathen. And lo! he becomes, by his immorality, the occasion of God being dishonored, of God"s Name being blasphemed among the Gentiles. The parallelism may be traced between the unfaithful Jew and the unfaithful Christian.

III CONDEMNATION IS PRONOUNCED.

1. Privilege avails not. It is in human nature to rely upon the enjoyment of great advantages. But the truth is, that the possession of privileges heightens responsibility. No man can be saved because he pleads that the light shone brightly round about him; the question must be Did he walk in the light while he had the light? Circumcision did not save the Jew; similarly, mere outward participation in the sacraments of Baptism and Lord"s Supper will not save the professing Christian. The possession of privileges is no proof of their due and proper use.

2. The less favoured may, in character and life, excel the more favoured. The uncircumcised may keep the Law which the circumcised allows himself to break. This fact was seen and stated by the Lord himself, who continually warned his fellow-countrymen that many should come from the east and the west, and should sit down in the kingdom of God, whilst they should be thrust out.

3. The highly privileged who are unfaithful to their trust shall, it is foretold, be judged by those whose advantages have been fewer, but who have made a good use of such as they enjoyed. It must have astonished the Jew of repute and standing to be told that he should be judged by those of the uncircumcision. Yet this was quite in harmony with, the warning of the Divine Saviour that the men of Tyre and Sidon should rise up in the judgment against the unfaithful of his generation.

Vers. 17-29. True religion.

Most men want to have a religion of some sort. If they do not want to have it while they live, yet, recognizing the importance of eternity and the judgment, they want to have it before they die. Hence men who never think of religion in their hours of health and activity, will send for the minister when they are on a bed of sickness. Hence you have such cases as that of the great Emperor Charles V of Germany, who had been a man of war and restless ambition almost all his days, retiring into a convent for the closing years of his life, and seeking within its cloistered walls that preparation for eternity which he had so long put off. But we want a religion not merely to die with, but to live by. After all, it is but a poor religion which a man puts on as if it were to be his shroud. What, then, is true religion? Where is it to be found? The answers are so various and so contradictory as to perplex the earnest seeker after truth. Old ecclesiastical systems contend that theirs, and theirs only, is the true religion, and in consequence of that belief, and in order to make others conform to it, they have persecuted, and imprisoned, and tortured, and burned those who differed from them. Then, in our own day, we have little companies of sincere and well-meaning people breaking away from all existing Churches, claiming for themselves that theirs only is the true religion, and excommunicating all others. But we come here as immortal souls, seeking after truth, and we turn from all human answers on the question of religion to the one infallible guide of faith and practice the Word of God. That Word is the lamp to our feet, and the light to our path. I come, then, to this Divine Word; I come to the Father of my spirit; I come to Jesus, the Saviour and the Teacher of the world; I come to the Spirit of truth; and, as a humble and unworthy sinner, I ask this questionWhat is true religion? The answer to that question is given by the apostle in the verses now before us.

I WHAT TRUE RELIGION IS NOT.

1. True religion is not observance of the sacraments. "What!" some one may say, "you tell us that the sacraments are of Divine appointment, that a sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, and yet you tell us that religion does not consist in the observance of the sacraments!" Even so. Christ instituted the sacraments. But what for? As a means to an end. As the symbols, the outward signs, of spiritual truths. They are helps to religion. They teach us the foundation of all true religion the death, the sufferings, the cross of Christ, as set forth in the Lord"s Supper. They teach us the meaning of true religion the cleansing and purity and change of heart, as set forth in the sacrament of baptism. But they are not in themselves true religion. If they were, would not more stress be laid upon them? St. Paul says here, "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law" (ver. 25); and again, "Neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh" (ver. 28). The outward ordinance, though it signified, did not create or cause a change of heart. Observe the attitude of our Saviour himself towards the sacraments. We read that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples". (Joh_4:2) If the sacrament of baptism had such regenerating power as is attributed to it, the Saviour would surely have used it on every possible occasion. We may notice also how St. Paul speaks of baptism in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains; lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." St. Paul did not think that religion consisted in the observance of the sacraments, or he would have put the sacraments in the very forefront of his work. Yet how many are resting entirely on the sacraments! They have been baptized. They have been regular communicants at the Lord"s table, and therefore they think they are Christians. Ah! religion is something more than this. The sacraments will not save our souls. We need something more than the observance of sacraments, if we are to enter into the kingdom of God.

2. Religion does not consist in the observance of any outward forms. "He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly" (ver. 28). In the verses from the seventeenth to the twenty-fourth, the apostle shows how many who are called Jews, and make their boast in the Law, are among the chief transgressors of the Law. Through breaking the Law they had dishonoured God; so much so, that the Name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles by reason of their conduct (vers. 23, 24). Although St. Paul was a Jew himself, he was a candid and impartial observer of human life, and he found that Jews, like other men, were guilty of dishonesty and impurity and other sins. They had the Law, but instead of living up to it, they trusted to the form of religion instead of the reality. Paul shows them the uselessness of this. The form is useful along with the reality. But without the reality the form is utterly useless. "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law: but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision" (ver. 25). It is just as if he said to a professing Christian, "Your profession of religion is right, is useful, if you show the spirit and obey the teachings of Christianity; but if your life is in opposition to that spirit and teaching, then your Christianity is no better than heathenism." "Faith without works is dead.

3. Religion is not to be regulated by the opinions of men. "Whose praise is not of men "(ver. 29). The religion which our Saviour found among the Jews in his time was very much a worship of human opinion. Their leaders taught for commandments the traditions of men. The Pharisees and scribes gave their alms and said their prayers to be seen of men. Their object was to have praise of men. And Christ tells us "they have their reward." Such a religion reaches its end in this life. It has no aim, and it certainly will have but poor results, in the life that is to come. It has always been an injury to true religion when it has been influenced too much by the opinions of men. It was so in the history of the Jewish religion, when the kings of Israel corrupted it by their desire of imitating heathen nations. It was so in the early Christian Church. The more the Church came under the control of the state, under the control of human authorities, the more worldly it became, the further it departed from the simplicity and spirituality of apostolic times. Thank God for the clear-headed, Christian-hearted men, who in all ages have resisted the intrusion of human authority and human opinion in matters of religion. Such men were the Waldenses in Italy, the Reformers in Germany and England, France and Spain, and the brave Covenanters of Scotland. It is a great principle, worth dying for, worth living for too, that religion is not to be regulated by the opinions of men. Human influence, human authority, human rank, are of little account in this matter. This is true as regards the Church of Christ, and it is true also as regards the individual.

II WHAT TRUE RELIGION IS.

1. Religion is a matter of the heart and spirit. "He is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter" (ver. 29). Religion, therefore, is a personal matter. The outward form is useless without the internal reality. We want inward Christians Christians in heart, Christians in spirit. All other Christians are useless, and worse than useless. They are deceiving others, and perhaps they are deceiving themselves. We want Christians whose everyday life is a song of praise, who meditate on God"s Law day and night, who walk not in the company of evil-doers, who sit not in the seat of the scornful, and who commune with God in silent but earnest prayer. As I stepped one day into the office of a leading man of business in New York, I noticed over his desk a portrait of a citizen who, as he afterwards told me, had been a dear friend of his own. Beneath the portrait were words so beautiful that I got the owner"s permission to copy them: "Whose face was a thanksgiving for his past life, and a love-letter to all mankind." It is Christians like that we want, who carry in their heart and on their face love and gratitude to God, and also love to men. Christians like that would soon transform the Church. Christians like that would soon transform the world. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

2. Religion is to be regulated by the commandments of God. There is no true religion where there is not obedience to the Law of God. "Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking the Law dishonourest thou God?" (ver. 23). Whether in doctrine, or worship, or practice, God"s Word is to be our guide, and to please God is to be our aim. "Whoso praise is not of men, but of God" (ver. 29). We are too much influenced, even in matters of religion, by the opinions of men. While our religion is to influence us in our dealings with our fellow-men, and while we are to influence them so far as we can by the power of true religion, we are not to permit men to dictate to our conscience, or to regulate our doctrines or our worship. That is a matter between God and our own souls. Whether men will praise us or whether they will blame us, matters very little, if we are serving God as his Word and our own conscience direct. From all the clash and conflict of human opinion, let us turn for light and guidance to him who is the Light of the world. "Some will hate thee, some will love thee, Some will flatter, some will slight. Cease from man, and look above thee; Trust in God, and do the right.

May we earnestly and diligently cultivate this true religion. "For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, who 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. C.H.I

Vers. 17-29. The Jewish world.

In our last section we saw how the apostle takes the Jewish critic through the leading principles of the Divine judgment. In doing so, he had a practical end in view. He meant to bring home to the Jewish heart the fact of sin and danger, and thereby to lead the censorious, self-righteous Jew to humiliation and salvation through Christ alone. The present section contains the pointed application of the principles to the Jewish ease. And here we have to notice

I THE POSITION ASSUMED BY THE JEWS AS THE DIVINELY ENLIGHTENED LEADERS OF MANKIND. (Vers. 17-20) The apostle states the Jewish assumption admirably. They were proud of their name: "Thou bearest the name of a Jew" (Revised Version). But this was because they had received the Law; and so they "rested in" or "upon the Law;" they made their possession of the Law the basis of their confidence and tranquility. Their notion was that men entrusted with such a literature had nothing in the world to fear. Moreover, it was from God, and why should they not regard themselves as his favourites, and "make their beast" about him? And the book did not remain unread; they sought from it a "knowledge of his will;" were able, consequently, to exercise judgment "regarding things that differed" (dokimazeiv ta diaferonta), and received a general enlightenment through the Law. Not only so, but they believed in their mission; they were to be guides of the blind, lights to those in darkness, correctors (paideuthn) of the foolish, teachers of babes, having at least the form (morfwsin) of knowledge and of truth in the Law. In short, the Jews set themselves at the head of humanity as the qualified leaders and instructors of mankind. Now, it is a great assumption for any men to make. Yet the Jews were not singular in their assumption. It is made daily by men with far less reason, perhaps, than they. The leaders of thought, "the men of light and leading," who profess to know how much is given us to master, and how much remains "unknowable and unknown," must accept of the reasonable judgment of their less pretentious fellows, and, as superior persons, must be amenable to morals. By their fruits we shall know them. By their lives we shall be able to estimate the value of their principles. If they are benefactors of their species, if they promote the real welfare of mankind, well and good. If they are hindrances, then they cannot resist being condemned. It is this line the apostle adopts in this passage.

II THE PRETENTIOUS TEACHERS WERE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE GREAT HINDRANCE TO THE DISSEMINATION OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE. (Vers. 21-24) The first fact Paul dwells on is that these Jews preached too little to themselves. They fell into the error of teaching others what they did not feel inclined to practise themselves. And so he catalogues certain sins of which he knew them to be guilty. It would seem that they stole, committed adultery, were guilty in heathen temples of sacrilege, and, in short, led such unworthy lives as to make God"s Name a reproach and ground of blasphemy among the Gentiles. The morality of the teachers thus became the great hindrance to the acceptance of Divine truth. Now, there can be little doubt that the crimes of professed Christians constitute in heathen lands today a chief obstacle to the reception of the gospel; missionaries meet this difficulty constantly. But we ought to apply the canon to the pretentious teachers of our time, and it will be found that their lives are morally defective when judged by the standard of the gospel they affect to despise. The morality of a George Eliot, a G. H. Lewes, or a J. S. Mill, who affected to be moral teachers of their time, will not bear any very close inspection; and even those of the same school, whose lives are outwardly blameless, fall far beneath the self-sacrificing enthusiasm which Christianity fosters, and in multitudes of cases secures. The test is sure and infallible. Men and women that are morally easy-going, that are practically selfish and indifferent in large degree to the circumstances and suffering of their fellows, are unfit to be the teachers of their generation. And their teaching is as sure to prove a failure in the end, as the teaching of Judaism was among the Gentiles.

III THE JEWS HAD A FALSE CONFIDENCE IN THE RITE OF CIRCUMCISION. (Ver. 25) Their notion was that circumcision constituted something like the" hall-mark" on real silver, and distinguished them from all the mere electro-plating of the Gentiles. They thought that immoral conduct could not obliterate the value of the fleshly rite. This is the mistake made by all who lay undue emphasis upon rites and ceremonies. They fancy they have a value altogether independent of moral states and moral living. The apostle has consequently to draw attention to the fact that circumcision only profited one who kept the Law. It was then a sign of the covenant, and was taken along with the perfect obedience to the Law which had been rendered. But if a circumcised person turned out a Law-breaker, the circumcision really passed into uncircumcision. In other words, the Jew could break the covenant seal by breaking the Law of the covenant. This is a very solemn and weighty truth. It has its application to the covenant signs of the Christian dispensation. It is perfectly possible for persons who have become members of the visible Church, by a course of reckless living to break their covenant sign, and to be in God"s sight disfranchised. Let no undue value be assigned to rites and ceremonies. They cannot be separated from moral states and conditions.

IV THE JEWS IGNORED THE POSSIBILITY AND EXISTENCE OF THE CIRCUMCISED IN HEART. (Vers. 26-29) If a circumcised person may forfeit his position as in covenant with God by breaking the Divine Law, on the other hand, an uncircumcised person, a Gentile, may so keep God"s Law as to be entitled to a position in covenant with him. His uncircumcision in such a case, Paul maintains, should be counted or "reckoned for circumcision." Here the apostle is contending for the admission of Gentiles to the visible Church without the necessity of circumcision. Many a Gentile, like Cornelius, or like the centurion in the Gospels, put to shame the less earnest and less devout Jews. The high morality of such men was a standing condemnation (krinei) of the pretentious Jew. Accordingly, Paul proceeds to affirm that the circumcision of the heart, not the mere circumcision of the flesh, is the all-important matter. There is a circumcision of the heart which checks the unholy tendencies within, and secures the reality, of which outward circumcision is but the type. Of it God, the Searcher of hearts, is the true Judge. He rejoices in it, and regards those who have submitted to it as his true people. The circumcised in flesh may secure praise from men, but the circumcised in heart look for approbation to God only. It is for us all to seek the inward and spiritual circumcision, the true sign of membership in God"s invisible kingdom. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if thou art called a Jew - This highest point of Jewish glorying, after a farther description of it interposed, ver. 17-20, and refuted, ver. 21-24, is itself refuted, ver. 25, &c. The description consists of twice five articles; of which the former five, ver. 17, 18, show what he boasts of in himself; the other five, ver. 19, 20, what he glories in with respect to others. The first particular of the former five answers to the first of the latter; the second, to the second, and so on. And restest in the law - Dependest on it, though it can only condemn thee. And gloriest in God - As thy God; and that, too, to the exclusion of others.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The guilt of the Jews:

v. 17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God,

v. 18. and knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law;

v. 19. and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

v. 20. an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law.

v. 21. Thou, therefore, which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

v. 22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

v. 23. Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking the Law dishonorest thou God?

v. 24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Here the apostle addresses himself directly to the Jews, whom he had evidently had in mind principally in the entire passage; he speaks to them as a nation. Instead of "behold" we read "but if," the entire passage showing the intense excitement under which the apostle was laboring: If a person is called a Jew, if he takes pride in applying this name to himself as a distinction above other nations, and rests upon, places his confidence upon, the Law, upon the entire Mosaic system, and makes his boast of God. These were real prerogatives of the Jews, for to them the true, living God had revealed Himself; to them He had given, not only the moral, but also the ceremonial law, and everything that the word embraced in its widest sense. And the Jews believed that these external advantages made their position safe under all circumstances. And they had also other advantages which resulted from their possession of the Law. They knew the will of God, the absolute will, since they had been instructed from the Law, and therefore they were able to make the proper distinction between right and wrong, between good and bad; they could approve the more excellent, decide what was consistent with the will of God. Every Jew also felt confident that he in his own person could be a leader of blind people, of heathen as well as of those that lacked the information possessed by the children of Israel, and thus a light of them that were in darkness. Furthermore, he trusted in himself that he could be an educator of those that lacked proper understanding and judgment, a teacher of young people, since he, with all his fellows in the Jewish nation, had the embodiment of knowledge and of truth in the Law. The Jews, in the Law of Moses, had the full and adequate expression of the divine will, while the natural law, written in the hearts of men, has become almost illegible on account of sin. And the Jews were more than conscious of their favored position, falsely arguing, however, that they held it on account of their own excellencies and therefore developing the typical form of Pharisaism as they showed it in the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Paul now, having established so much, continues in the form of a rhetorical question: Teaching now another, thyself teachest thou not? The possession of the written Law enabled the Jews to be the teachers of others; but their entire conduct was in glaring contrast to the demands of the Law. They themselves were in most decided need of true teaching on the basis of the Law. Preaching not to steal, thyself stealest? Stealing includes all the injustices, all the forms of cheating, of which the Jews became guilty in their commercial enterprises. Saying not to commit adultery, committest thou adultery? Laxness in the observance of matrimonial chastity had ever been a characteristic of the Jewish people. Detesting idols, dost thou become a temple-robber? The Jews showed the greatest horror of heathen idols and professed holy zeal for the Lord Jehovah, but they themselves had an irreverent disregard of God and holy things and withheld from God His due, a robbery and profanation which the prophet denounces in no uncertain terms, Mal 3:8. Thou that makest thy boast in the Law, through the transgression of the Law dishonorest thou God? A threefold accusation the apostle brings against the Jews: sin against their own bodies, harming their neighbor, and showing lack of reverence toward God. And the guilt of the Jews is even greater than that of the heathen, since they adorned their godlessness and unrighteousness with the Word and name of God. For the name of God was blasphemed on their account among the Gentiles, as it is written. St. Paul here has reference to Isa 52:5, adopting the Greek version for his purpose. The Gentiles, seeing such gross transgressions of the Law taking place among the Jews, very naturally drew the conclusion that the God of the Jews Himself taught them this behavior, that it agreed with the religion as it had been revealed to them. That is the severest form of guilt which involves a direct dishonoring and profaning of God. Note: The arraignment of Paul applies also to all hypocrites among the Christians, people that bear the Christian name and boast of the pure doctrine of the divine Word, but incidentally are guilty of dishonesty in business, of sins of unchastity, of irreverence toward God, of withholding their contributions toward the kingdom of God, etc.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here the apostle proceeds in his former argument; namely, to prove, That the Jews could no more rationally expect to be justified before God by the law of Moses, than the Gentiles by the law of nature; the apostle allows them all their privileges which they so much donated upon, boasted of, and gloried in; but withal assures them, that these, all these, yea, more than these, were insufficient to justify them before God.

As if the apostle had said, "Thou bearest thyself mightily upon this, that thou art called a Jew; that is a professor of the true religion, and a worshipper of the true God: Thou restest in the law: that is, either in the divineness and perfection of it, or in thy external obedience to it, and in the outward performances of it: Thou makest thy boast of God, as a God in covenant with thee above all the nations of the earth; and thou knowest his will, having his word and law in thy hands, the oracles of God committed to thee, and the writings of Moses and the prophets alone found with thee: And approvest things that are most excellent, being instructed out of the law; that is, thou thinkest that thou hast such a degree of knowledge of God’s word and will, that thou canst clearly discern between sin and duty, and compare one duty with another, preferring that which is most excellent: And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness; that is, thou hast a strong conceit that such are the measures of thy knowledge, that thou art able to be a guide to the blind Gentiles, who sit in darkness, and to be a teacher of babes; that is, such as have little or no knowledge in the matters of religion, conceiting, That thou hast the form and knowledge of the truth in the law; that is, such a method and measure of divine knowledge, as may enable thee to instruct others, whether Gentiles or Jews, which never reached to thy attainments." These external privileges the presumptuous Jew rested upon, and thought them sufficient to salvation, though he lived loosely, and his practice gave his profession the lie.

Hence learn, 1. That persons are exceeding prone to be proud of, and puffed up with, church-privileges, glorying in the letter of the law, whilst, neither in heart nor life, they are conformed to the spirituality of the law.

Learn, 2. That gifts, duties, and supposed graces, are the stay and staff which hypocrites rest upon, and repose their trust and confidence in: Thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law; that is, in the outward profession of the law, or in an external obedience to the law; the apostle speaks of this their resting in the law, not barely by way of narration, but by way of reproof, telling us not only what they did, but how ill they did in so doing.

The duties which Christ has appointed, are the trust and rest of the hypocrites; but Christ himself is the rest and trust of the upright; they desire to be ever acting graces, above duty; much in it in point of performance, much above it in regard of dependence.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. The Jew in Paul’s day stood precisely where all of the fallen churches do to-day. They were God’s normal people till they rejected Christ. So all the churches are right so long as they are true to the Holy Ghost, who is none other than the spiritual Christ on earth (Joh 14:16).

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God ,

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17–24. Behold, thou art called a Jew. Already, in the argument of verses 1–16, Paul has shown that all men, Jew or Gentile, will be judged according to their deeds, whether they have the law or not. Now he applies the argument directly to the Jew, in order to show his need of the gospel as well as the Gentile. Verses 17–20 state what the Jew claimed for himself. Called a Jew. To him the word “Jew” had a meaning much like “Christian” to us. It meant to him one of God's people. Rested upon law. There is no article before law in the Greek. The Jew had law, in this case the law, for his foundation. Makest thy boast of God. Boasted of God's favor to his race.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Here begins Paul's discussion that the law the Jews possess actually condemns them because they do not obey it.

if you call yourself a Jew

"since you call yourself a Jew"

rest upon the law

The phrase "rest upon the law" represents believing that they can become righteous by obeying the law. AT: "rely on the law of Moses" (See: Metaphor)

know his will

"and know God's will"

because you have been instructed from the law

This can be stated in active form. AT: "because people have taught you what is right from the law" or "because you have learned from the law" (See: Active or Passive)

that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness

Here "the blind" and "those who walk in darkness" represent people who do not understand the law. AT: "that because you teach the law, you yourself are like a guide to blind people, and you are like a light to people who are lost in the dark" (See: Parallelism and Metaphor)

a corrector of the foolish

"you correct those who do wrong"

a teacher of little children

Here Paul compares those who do not know anything about the law to very small children. AT: "and you teach those who do not know the law" (See: Metaphor)

and that you have in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth

The knowledge of the truth that is in the law comes from God. AT: "because you are sure you understand the truth that God has given in the law" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Jew

law

joy

will of God

darkness

fool

teacher

true

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

17-24.] The pride of the Jews in their law and their God contrasted with their disobedience to God and the law.

17. εἰ δέ] This has been in the later mss. changed into ἰδέ, apparently to avoid the anacoluthon, or perhaps merely by mistake originally. The anacoluthon, however, is more apparent than real. It is only produced by the resumption of the thread of the sentence with οὖν, ver. 21. Omit (in the sense) only that word, and all proceeds regularly—‘But if thou art denominated a Jew, and &c.…, thou that teachest thy neighbour, dost thou not teach thyself?’ &c. The εἰ δὲ σύ carries on the apostrophe from ver. 5, since when it has been broken off by reference to the great day of retribution and its rule of judgment; the σύ identifies the person addressed here as the same indicated by the σου and σεαυτῷ there, and by ὦ ἄνθρωπε in ver. 1. Thus the Apostle by degrees sets in his place as a Jew the somewhat indefinite object of his remonstrances hitherto,—and reasons with him as such.

ἐπον.] No stress on ἐπ-,—art named, ‘denominated,’—‘hast the name put on thee;’ see reff.

ἐπαναπ.] Used of false trust, see reff.

The τῷ of the rec. has been inserted in the later mss. before νόμῳ, because it here clearly applied to the ‘law of Moses,’ and the absence of the article gave offence. It is omitted, because ‘the law’ is not here distributed—it is not the law itself in its entirety, which is meant, but the fact of having or of knowing the law:—the strict way of expressing it would perhaps be, ‘in the fact of possessing a law,’ which condensed into our less accurate English, would be in one word, in the law: viz. ‘which thou possessest.’

καυχ. ἐν θ.] viz. ‘as thy Covenant God:’ ‘as being peculiarly thine.’

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. Εἰ δέ א A B D* al., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c.: Ἴδε Dc L al., Harcl., Chrys. al. The authorities for εἰ δέ include all the oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers: ἴδε is an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction slightly easier. Reading εἰ δέ the apodosis of the sentence begins at ver. 21.

Ἰουδαῖος: here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew it would have a tendency to do) to Ἰσραηλίτης, a member of the Chosen People, opposed to the heathen.

Strictly speaking, Ἑβραῖος, opp. Ἕλληνιστής, calls attention to language; Ἰουδαῖος, opp. Ἑλλην, calls attention to nationality; Ἰσραηλίτης = a member of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn. § xxxix, p. 132 ff.). The word Ἰουδαῖος does not occur in LXX (though Ἰουδαϊσμός is found four times in 2 Macc.), but at this date it is the common word; Ἑβραῖος and Ἰσραηλίτης are terms reserved by the Jews themselves, the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric status.

For the Jew’s pride in his privileges comp. 4 Ezra 6:55 f. haec autem omnia dixi coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, et quoniam salivae assimilatae sunt, et quasi stillicidium de vase similasti habundantiam corum.

ἐπονομάζῃ: ‘bearest the name’: ἐπονομάζειν = ‘to impose a name,’ pass. ‘to have a name imposed.’

ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ: ‘have a law to lean upon’: so (without art.) א A B D*; =; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should make the statement more definite, ‘lean upon the Law.’ For ἐπαν. (requiescis Vulg.) cf. Mic 3:11; Eze 29:7: the word implies at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour which resulted to the Jew from the possession of a law.

καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ: suggested by Jer 9:24 ‘let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord.’

καυχᾶσαι: for καυχᾷ, stopping at the first step in the process of contraction (καυχάεσαι, καυχᾶσαι, καυχᾷ). This is one of the forms which used to be called ‘Alexandrine,’ but which simply belong to the popular Greek current at the time (Hort, Introd. p. 304). καυχᾶσαι occurs also in 1Co 4:7, κατακαυχᾶσαι Rom 11:18; comp. ὀδυνᾶσαι Luk 16:25, and from uncontracted verbs, φάγεσαι … πίεσαι Luk 17:8, δύνασαι Mat 5:36 (but δύνῃ Mar 9:22); see Win. Gr. xiii. 2b (p. 90).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Behold [ιδε] . But the correct reading is eij de but if.

Thou art called [επονομαζη] . Rev., much better, bearest the name of, bringing out the value which attached to the name Jew, the theocratic title of honor. See on Hebrews, Act 6:1.

Restest in [επαναπαυη] . Rev., better, upon, giving the force of ejpi in the verb. The radical conception of the verb ajnapauw is relief. See Mt 11:28. Thou restest with a blind trust in God as thy Father and protector exclusively.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.