Romans 2:21

Rom 2:21-24. Thou therefore which teachest another — And valuest thyself upon thy ability to do it, trusting therein for acceptance with God; teachest thou not thyself? — He does not teach himself, who does not practise what he teaches. This, and what follows, is mentioned, to show that the knowledge, which the scribes and doctors pretended to derive from the law, had had no manner of influence on their spirit and conduct; so that their boasting in the law, and their claim to be the teachers of the Gentiles, were very little to be regarded by the Gentiles. Dost thou steal — commit adultery — commit sacrilege — Sin grievously against thy neighbour, thyself, God. St. Paul had shown the Gentiles, first, their sins against God, then against themselves, then against their neighbours. He now inverts the order, for sins against God are the most glaring in a heathen; but not in a Jew. Thou that abhorrest idols — Which all the Jews did, from the time of the Babylonish captivity: thou committest sacrilege — Dost what is still worse, robbing him, who is God over all, of the glory which is due to him. None of these charges were rashly advanced against the Jews of that age. For (as their own historian relates) some even of the priests lived by rapine, and others in gross uncleanness. And as for sacrilegiously robbing God and his altar, it had been complained of ever since Malachi. So that the instances are given with great propriety and judgment. Thou that makest thy boast of the law — As so excellent, and thinkest it such an honour to be acquainted with it, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? — Dost thou act as if thou wert studying the declaration of his will, only to show him in a more presumptuous and contumacious manner, that thou dost not regard it? For the name of God is blasphemed — Spoken evil of, as if it countenanced and encouraged such wickedness as that in which you live, and his holy religion is brought into contempt thereby; as it is written, in your own Scriptures, concerning your fathers, whose evil deeds you so generally imitate. See the margin. We find Josephus frequently accusing the Jews of what is here laid to their charge by the apostle, saying, “What wickedness do you conceal, or hide, which is not known to your enemies? You triumph in your wickedness, strive daily who shall be most vile, making a show of your wickedness as if it were virtue.” “And thinkest thou this, O man, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God, who punishes the Gentiles, when thou art as guilty as they of acting against thy conscience, and doing that for which thine own mouth condemns thee, or, which is as bad as that which thou condemnest in them, and which also causes them to blaspheme that holy name by which thou art called! Surely after these things, so scandalously done, it will be of no advantage to thee that thou art called a Jew, or hast received the sign of circumcision.” — Whitby.

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

2:21-22 Paul again uses the diatribe style to expose the inconsistency of Jewish claims (see study note on 2:1-5).

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

Rom 2:21. Οὐ διδάσκεις, dost thou not teach) a Metonymy for the consequent (that is, substituting the antecedent for the consequent), he, who doth not practise, doth not teach his own self.—κηρύσσων, preaching) loudly, clearly.

Rom 2:21-22. Κλέπτεις, μοιχεύεις, ἱεροσυλεῖς, dost thou commit theft, adultery, sacrilege?) Thou sinnest most heinously against thy neighbour, against thyself, and against God. Paul had shown to the Gentiles, that their sins were first against God, secondly against themselves, and thirdly against others; he now inverts the order; for sins against God are very openly practised among the Gentiles; not so, in the case of the Jew.—ὁ βδελυσσόμενος, thou that abhorrest) even in speaking.—τα εἴδωλα, idols) The Jews, from the Babylonish captivity even to the present day, abhor idolatry, to which they had been formerly addicted: nevertheless they even put Christ to death, and [still] oppose the Gospel and the glory of God.—ἱεροσυλεῖς, dost thou commit sacrilege?) because thou dost not give God the glory, which peculiarly belongs to God.

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

Rom_2:21-22. Apodosis interrogating with lively indignation. See generally, and respecting οὖν, above on Rom_2:17-24. The form of the questions is expressive of surprise at the existence of an incongruity so much at variance with the protases, Rom_2:17 f.; it must have been in fact impossible. So also in 1Co_6:2.

Dost thou, who teachest others accordingly, not teach thine own self? namely, a better way of thinking and living than thou showest by thy conduct. Analogous passages expressing this contrast (comp LXX. Psa_1:6 ff.; Ignat. Eph. 15) from Greek and Rabbinical authors may be seen in Wetstein.

The following infinitives do not include in themselves the idea of δεῖν or ἐξεῖναι (see Lobeck, a[697] Phryn. p. 753 f.), but find their explanation in the idea of commanding, which is implied in the finite verbs; see Kühner, a[698] Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 1, Anab. v. 7, 34; Heindorf, a[699] Plat. Prot. p. 346 B; Wunder, a[700] Soph. O. C. 837.

ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς] Thou, who abhorrest idols, dost thou plunder temples? This is necessarily to be understood of the plundering of idols temples, with Chrysostom, Theophylact,[701] Clericus, Wetstein, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Fritzsche, de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi; Mehring (Rückert indecisively); as is required by the antithetic relation in which ἹΕΡΟΣΥΛΕῖς stands to the ΒΔΕΛΥΣΣΌΜ. ΤᾺ ΕἼΔΩΛΑ. Thou who holdest all contact with idols as a detestable pollutiondost thou lay plundering hands on their temples? Abhorrence of idols and (not, it might be, temple-destruction, Deu_7:25, but greedy) temple-plundering[702]

Paul could not have placed at the close of his reproachful questions a contrast between theory and practice more incisively affecting Jewish feeling. That robbery of temples actually occurred among the Jews, may justly be inferred from Act_19:37, but especially from Josephus, Antt. iv. 8, 10. See also Rabbinical passages in Delitzschs Hebrew translation, p. 77. It is differently explained by Pelagius, Pareus, Toletus, Grotius, Heumann, Michaelis, Cramer, Reiche, Glöckler, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, and Hofmann, who understand it of robbing the Jewish temple by the embezzlement or curtailment of the temple-moneys and sacrifices (for proofs of this crime, see Josephus, Antt. viii. 3, 5 f.), by withholding the temple tribute, and the like. Compare Test. XII. Patr. p. 578. Luther, Calvin, Bengel, and others, including Morus, Flatt, Köllner, and Umbreit, interpret it, with still more deviation from the proper sense, as denoting the profanatio divinae majestatis (Calvin) generally.[703] Compare Luthers gloss, Thou art a robber of God; for it is Gods glory which all who would be holy through works take from Him. Such unjustifiable deviations from the literal sense would not have been resorted to, if attention had been directed on the one hand to the actual unity of the object in the whole of the antitheses, and on the other to the appropriate climax: theft, adultery, robbery of idols temples.

[697] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[698] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[699] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[700] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[701] Theophylact (whom Estius follows) very properly refers the ἱεροσυλεῖς to the temples of idols, but limits it to the taking away of the ἀναθήματα. His exposition, moreover, aptly brings out the practical bearing of the point: ἱεροσυλίαν λέγει τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν ἀνατιθεμένων τοῖς εἰδώλοις. καὶ γὰρ εἰ καὶ ἐβδελύσσοντο τὰ εἴδωλα, ἀλλʼ ὅμως τῇ φιλοχρηματίᾳ τυραννούμενοι ἥπτοντο τῶν εἰδωλικῶν ἀναθημάτων διʼ αἰσχροκερδίαν.

[702] The objection urged by Reiche and van Hengel, that ἱεροσυλεῖν always refers to temples which the speaker really looks upon as holy places, is irrelevant for this reason, that Paul was obliged to take the word, which he found existing in the Greek, in order to indicate temple-robbery, while he has already sufficiently excluded the idea that the temples themselves were sacred in his eyes by τὰ εἴδωλα.

[703] Olshausen thinks that avarice, as inward idolatry, is meant.

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 2:21 . Here the grammatical apodosis begins, the οὖν resuming all that has been said in Rom 2:17-20 . κηρύσσων and λέγων are virtually verbs of command: hence the infinitives. The rhetorical question implies that the Jew does not teach himself, and that he does break the law he would enforce on others.

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

Vv. 21-24. “And if, then, thou who teachest another, teachest not thyself, if preaching a man should not steal, thou stealest, if, while saying a man should not commit adultery, thou committest adultery, if, abhorring idols, thou robbest temples, if thou that makest thy boast of the law, dishonorest God through breaking the law; for the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, as it is written”...

On the one side, then, the Jews are proud of the possession of their law; but, on the other, how do they put it in practice? it is to set forth this contradiction that the second series of propositions is devoted, Rom 2:21-24. The οὖν, then, ironically contrasts the real practical fruit produced in the Jews by their knowledge of the law, and that which such an advantage should have produced. The term teach includes all the honorable functions toward the rest of the world which the Jew has just been arrogating. ῾Ο διδάσκων: Thou, the so great teacher!

The apostle chooses two examples in the second table of the law, theft and adultery: and two in the first, sacrilege and dishonor done to God. Theft comprehends all the injustices and deceptions which the Jews allowed themselves in commercial affairs. Adultery is a crime which the Talmud brings home to the three most illustrious Rabbins, Akiba, Mehir, and Eleazar. Sensuality is one of the prominent features of the Semitic character. The pillage of sacred objects cannot refer to anything connected with the worship celebrated at Jerusalem; such, for example, as refusal to pay the temple tribute, or the offering of maimed victims. The subject of the proposition: thou who abhorrest idols, proves clearly that the apostle has in view the pillage of idol temples. The meaning is: “Thy horror of idolatry does not go the length of preventing thee from hailing as a good prize the precious objects which have been used in idolatrous worship, when thou canst make them thine own.” The Jews probably did not pillage the Gentile temples themselves; but they filled the place of receivers; comp. besides, Act 19:37. The dishonor done to God arises from their greed of gain, their deceits and hypocrisy, which were thoroughly known to the Gentile populations among whom they lived. Paul weaves the prophetic rebuke into the tissue of his own language, but by the as it is written he reminds his readers that he is borrowing it from the inspired Scriptures. His allusion is to Isa 52:5 (which resembles our verse more in the letter than the sense), and to Eze 36:18-24 (which resembles it more in the sense than in the letter).

We have regarded the whole passage, Rom 2:17-24, as dependent on the conjunction εἰ δέ, now if, Rom 2:17: “Now if thou callest thyself...(Rom 2:17-20); and if teaching so and so, thou...(Rom 2:21-24).” Thereafter, the principal clause is easily expressed as a proposition to be understood between Rom 2:24-25 : “What advantage will this law be to thee, of which thou makest thy boast before others, and which thou dost violate thyself with such effrontery?” For, in fine, according to the principle laid down, Rom 2:13, it is not those who know the law, but those who do it, who shall be pronounced righteous by the judgment of God. The idea understood, which we have just expressed, is that to which the for of Rom 2:25 refers: “For it is wholly in vain for thee, if thou art disobedient, to reckon on circumcision to exculpate thee. A disobedient Jew is no better before God than a Gentile, and an obedient Gentile becomes in God’s sight a true Jew.” Such is the meaning of the following passage, Rom 2:25-29.

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_2:21, Rom_2:22

Thou therefore that teachest another. We have here the virtual apodosis of Rom_2:17. If thou, although a Jew, and related to God as one of his peculiar people, and well instructed out of the law, violate the law, and do the things thou condemnest in others, how canst thou escape the judgment of that God who will render to every man according to his works. It is evident the apostle means to assert that the Jews were guilty of the crimes here specified; and it matters little whether the several classes be read interrogatively or affirmatively. The former, as the more forcible is generally preferred. To set ourselves up as instructors, and yet not to apply our principles to ourselves, is not only an inconsistency, but offensive arrogance and hypocrisy. To steal and to commit adultery are great sins, but for those who preach against them and condemn them in others, to commit them, is to quadruple their guilt. The Jews, therefore, who committed the sins which they so loudly condemned in the heathen, were more guilty in the sight of God than the heathen themselves. While flattering themselves that they were secure from the divine wrath, in the enclosure of the theocracy, they were the special objects of Gods displeasure; so that publicans and harlots were nearer to the kingdom of God than they. Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples? That the Jews, subsequently to the captivity, did abhor idols, is a well known fact; that they robbed the temples of idols is not known, besides, robbing the temples of idols was not sacrilege; for in the mind of the Jew there was no sacredness in those temples. It was to him robbery, and nothing more; probably something less. The objurgatory character of these several clauses requires that the thing here charged should be of the same name with idolatry, not its opposite. The Jew taught that men should not steal, yet he stole himself; he said, Commit not adultery, yet he was guilty of that crime; he abhorred idols, yet was guilty of idolatry. It is something analogous to idolatry that is here charged, not the despoiling of heathen temples, which would be the natural expression of the abhorrence of idols. 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. Instead, therefore, of taking the word ἱεροσυλεῖς literally, which the context forbids, it should be understood in a secondary sense. It expresses the sin of irreverence in its higher forms; either as manifested in withholding from God his due, which the prophet denounces as robbery Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings, Mal_3:8; or it may be taken in the still more general sense of profanation, the irreverent disregard of God and holy things. This is all the context requires: You profess great reverence for God, in eschewing idolatry; and yet, in other forms, you are guilty of the greatest irreverence.

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

Verse 21. Thou therefore] Dr. Taylor has paraphrased this and the three following verses thus: "What signify your pretensions to knowledge, and the office of teaching others, if you have no regard to your own doctrine? What are you the better for preaching against theft, if you are a thief yourself? Or for declaring adultery unlawful, if you live in the practice of it? Or for representing idolatry abominable, if you are guilty of sacrilege? What honours or singular favours do you deserve, if, while you glory in the law and your religious privileges, you dishonour God, and discredit his religion, by transgressing his law, and living in open contradiction to your profession? And this is more than supposition; notorious instances might be produced of the forementioned crimes, whereby the Jews of the present age have brought a reproach upon religion among the Gentiles; as well as those Jews of former times, of whom the Prophet Ezekiel speaks, Eze 36:23: And I will sanctify my great name, which was PROFANED among the HEATHEN, which ye have PROFANED in the midst of them."

That the Jewish priesthood was exceedingly corrupt in the time of the apostle, and that they were so long before, is fully evident from the sacred writings and from Josephus. The high-priesthood was a matter of commerce, and was bought and sold like other commodities. Of this Josephus gives many instances. The rapine of Eli's sons descended to several generations. Dr. Whitby well observes that of all these things mentioned by the apostle the Jewish doctors were notoriously guilty; and of most of them they were accused by our Lord.

1. They said and did not; and laid heavy burdens upon others, which they would not touch with their own fingers, Mt 23:3, Mt 23:4.

2. They made the house of God a den of thieves, Mt 21:13; Joh 2:16.

3. They were guilty of adultery by unjust divorces, Mt 19:9.

4. Their polygamy was scandalous: even their rabbins, when they came to any place, would exclaim, Who will be my wife for a day?

As to idolatry, they were perfectly saved from it ever since the Babylonish captivity but to this succeeded sacrilege, as is most evident in the profanation of the temple, by their commerce transacted even within its courts; and their teaching the people that even their aged parents might be left to starve, provided the children made a present to the temple of that which should have gone for their support. According to Josephus, Bell. Jud. l. vi. c. 26, They were guilty of theft, treachery, adultery, sacrilege, rapine, and murder. And he adds, that new ways of wickedness were invented by them; and that of all their abominations the temple was the receptacle. In his Antiquities of the Jews, lib. xx. c. 8, he says: The servants of the high priests took away, by violence, the tithes of the priests, so that many of them perished for want of food. Even their own writers acknowledge that there were great irregularities and abominations among the rabbins.

So Bereshith rabba, sect. 55, fol. 54:

"Rabbi Abun proposed a parable concerning a master who taught his disciples not to pervert justice, and yet did it himself; not to show respect of persons, and yet did it himself; not to receive bribes, and yet received them himself; not to take usury, and yet took it himself. The disciple replied:-Rabbi, thou teachest me not to take usury, and yet thou takest it thyself! Can that be lawful to thee which is forbidden to me?"

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

21. Thou, who then teachest another, teachest not thyself, etc. Though the excellencies (encomia — commendations) which he has hitherto stated respecting the Jews, were such as might have justly adorned them, provided the higher ornaments were not wanting; yet as they included qualifications of a neutral kind, which may be possessed even by the ungodly and corrupted by abuse, they are by no means sufficient to constitute true glory. And hence Paul, not satisfied with merely reproving and taunting their arrogance in trusting in these things alone, employs them for the purpose of enhancing their disgraceful conduct; for he exposes himself to no ordinary measure of reproach, who not only renders useless the gifts of God, which are otherwise valuable and excellent, but by his wickedness vitiates and contaminates them. And a strange counselor is he, who consults not for his own good, and is wise only for the benefit of others. He shows then that the praise which they appropriated to themselves, turned out to their own disgrace.

Thou who preachest, steal not, etc. He seems to have alluded to a passage in Psalm 50:16, where God says to the wicked,

“Why dost thou declare my statutes, and takest my covenant in thy mouth? And thou hatest reform, and hast cast my words behind thee: when thou seest a thief, thou joinest him, and with adulterers is thy portion.”

And as this reproof was suitable to the Jews in old time, who, relying on the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way better than if they had no law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned against us at this day: and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting of some extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind of uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not then so heedlessly trifle with the Lord, let us remember what sort of judgment impends over such prattlers, (logodœdalis — word-artificers,) who make a show of God’s word by mere garrulity.

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.

(21) Therefore.—See above on Rom_2:17.

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

21. Thou therefore, &c.] In this and the following verses St Paul does not charge every individual Rabbinist with immorality. He exposes the spirit and principles of Rabbinism, as evinced and proved only too abundantly in multitudes of lives. Not every unconverted Rabbinist was a thief or adulterer; but in one aspect or another he did not “teach himself;” allowing in his own heart principles of self-righteousness and formalism which really cut at the root of his moral teaching of others. Meantime, the Jewish malpractices of that age were terribly real, frequent, and notorious.

preachest] Lit. proclaimest: e.g. in synagogue-discourses.

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.

Thou that makest thy boast of the law,.... Of their having it, which other nations had not; of their knowledge of it, which many of their own people were without, or had but a small share of; and of their keeping of it even to perfection:

through breaking of the law dishonourest thou God? sin sometimes is expressed by a word which signifies a "fall"; sometimes by another, which signifies missing of the mark, or straying from it; sometimes by another, which signifies a "contrariety to the law" of God; and here, by one which signifies a "passing over it", and the bounds which it has set, as the rule of man's obedience; and hereby God, the lawgiver, is dishonoured: for as God is glorified by good works, when rightly performed, he is dishonoured by evil ones; for his authority, as a lawgiver, is trampled upon and despised. Now persons guilty of such iniquities as here mentioned, could not be justified before God, or accepted by him on account of any works of righteousness done by them.

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

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

Ver. 21. Teachest thou not thyself?] He that knows well and does worse is but as a whiner which carrieth a torch in his hand to show others his own deformities. I have read of a woman, who living in professed doubt of the Godhead, after better illumination and repentance, did often protest that the vicious life of a great scholar in that town did conjure up those damnable doubts in her soul. Neronis illud (quautus artifex pereo?) quadrabit in te peritum et periturum. That is the best sermon that is digged out of a man’s own breast. Origen’s teaching and living were said to be both one. Eusebius said that he preached not by his words only, but by his practice; and that thereby he had almost persuaded Alexander Severus the emperor to be a Christian; his mother Mammaea he fully persuaded. But Ferdinand I, emperor, complained of some divines that they were in sua ipsorum vitia fecundi satis, bitter against those vices in others which they too much favoured in themselves. {a}

{a} Non verbis solum sed exemplis Grammatici de Ulisis erroribus disserentes suos non vident. Bern.

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.

Thou therefore ... - He who is a teacher of others may be expected to be learned himself. They ought to be found to be possessed of superior knowledge; and by this question the apostle impliedly reproves them for their ignorance. The form of a question is chosen because it conveys the truth with greater force. He puts the question as if it were undeniable that they were grossly ignorant; compare Mat 23:3, “They say, and do not,” etc.

That preachest - This word means to proclaim in any manner, whether in the synagogue, or in any place of public teaching.

Dost thou steal? - It cannot be proved, perhaps, that the Jews were extensively guilty of this crime. It is introduced partly, no doubt, to make the inconsistency of their conduct mere apparent. We expect a man to set an example of what he means by his public instruction.

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

Thou, therefore, that teachest another, teachest not thyself, &c. St. John Chrysostom (hom. vi.) takes these sentences as so many interrogations; dost thou teach thyself? dost thou not steal? dost thou not commit adultery? &c. (Witham)

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).

Teachest thou not thyself? q.d. Dost not thou thyself do what thou pressest upon others? see Mat 23:3.

Dost thou steal? the Jews were infamous of old for this sin, Psa 50:18; Mat 23:14.

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

21-23. As if the representatives of the Jewish race were before him, the apostle questions them touching the conformity of their practice to their pretences. To sustain their case as needing no Saviour their conformity must be perfect. But is it so? Theft, adultery, and sacrilege are fearlessly imputed to their race.

21. Steal—Thefts, robberies, and murders were the order of the day at the time of Paul’s writing.

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

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? The oun here does not involve an anacoluthon after the reading ei de in ver. 17, though St. Paul would not have much cared if it had been so. It serves only to sum up the lengthened protasis, and introduce the apodosis: If... dost thou then," etc.? In what follows it is not, of course, implied that all Jews who relied on the Law were, in fact, thieves, adulterers, etc., but only that the Jews as a nation were no more exempt from such sins than others; and it may be that those specified were not selected by the apostle at random, but as being such as the Jews had a peculiar evil notoriety for at that time. Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

A sermon to teachers.

The apostle supposes a Jew to have listened complacently to the long catalogue of crimes of which the heathen world has been guilty crimes which blacken the lip to mention. And then the apostle turns strategically round upon the self-satisfied possessor of a Divine revelation to put the scathing inquiry, why he has not been freer from violations of the moral law. Advantage entails responsibility; it was inconsistent to eagerly proselytize to a religion which the preacher observed more by precept than by example. A lesson here for all teachers of the Word: let their instructions mould their own lives!

I THE WORK OF TEACHING.

1. Its possibility. It presumes that some are able and willing to teach, and that others are equally in a position to learn. Knowledge begets the desire of communication to others; truth by its dissemination enriches all, leaves none the poorer. The possession of the Scriptures constitutes a capacity in those who study to explain their meaning to others less happily situated for meditation. Besides the preachers of the gospel from the pulpit, we have a noble army of volunteers sacrificing their ease each Lord"s day to impart to the young what they themselves have learned of Christ. And the youthful mind is plastic, its heart easily impressed.

2. Its importance. Education is a work of beginnings, of seed-sowing, of filling the pockets with treasure in the shape of facts and principles to be afterwards used, applied, recognized, in fulness of meaning. The mind must be fed as well as the body, or we have dwarfed, stunted souls, miserable and corrupt. To neglect the garden is to fill it with weeds. We insufficiently value acquisitions whose worth cannot be tabulated in monetary figures. Of what priceless value is a new happy inspiring thought of God! To be led where we can get a better sight of Christ and his salvation, is surely a service for which we can in no wise adequately thank or pay our guide.

3. Its difficulty. Some hesitate to teach unless they can answer every objection which may be urged against the truth they enforce. And on religious subjects there is no end to the queries which may be started. There are many adverse influences preventing the ready reception of the facts and doctrines of Christianity, or checking the subsequent advance in learning. Recall our Lord"s parable of the sower, and its picture of the multiform ways in which sin works against the leaven of the truth. There is a roseate and there is a practical view of Sunday school work. Yet, whilst we would not forget the restlessness of the young, and the far aim of making them "wise unto salvation" so frequently hindered by unlovely homes, neither should any despair, but remember they are wielding the sword of the Spirit, and that to God all hearts are open. Let preachers think of the Lord and his apostles as failing to conquer the opposition and win the assent of all their hearers, and, instead of renouncing toil, remember that they are not responsible for success, but only for effort.

II THE REFLEX INFLUENCE OF TEACHING ON THE TEACHERS,

1. Incites to their own culture. There is the felt necessity of being in advance of the learners. The more we know and the more thoroughly and clearly we understand it, the greater the enjoyment and the success of the work. We often take pains for the sake of others which we should reject for ourselves. How can we teach if we do not instruct ourselves? There ought to be no sad hiatus between our declarations and our spiritual conduct. We must not only be finger-posts, but guides having preached to others, we ourselves become castaways." "The lore of Christ and his apostles twelve He taught, but first he followed it himself. If we are the channels of good to our fellows, it behoves us to clear away all that might impede the flowing, and defile the purity of the stream of truth from God.

2. Necessarily promotes their own improvement. Earnest sincere teaching not only demands self-culture and progress, but is certain to result therein. All Christian service is self-rewarding. "Thou shalt be served thyself, by every sense Of service which thou renderest.

Teaching clarifies our own views, enforces truth upon our own souls. Many a teacher has enjoyed prayer and realized the sweetness and significance of the Scriptures most when preparing the lesson for his scholars. The Divine plan for oblivion of our own sorrows is to become saviours to the helpless, physicians to the sick. The outrush of Christian benevolence protects against the inflow of corroding cares or pleasures. S.R.A.

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

Thou dost not teach thyself - He does not teach himself who does not practice what he teaches. Dost thou steal, commit adultery, commit sacrilege - Sin grievously against thy neighbour, thyself, God. St. Paul had shown the gentiles, first their sins against God, then against themselves, then against their neighbours. He now inverts the order: for sins against God are the most glaring in an heathen, but not in a Jew. Thou that abhorrest idols - Which all the Jews did, from the time of the Babylonish captivity. Thou committest sacrilege - Doest what is worse, robbing Him "who is God over all" of the glory which is due to him. None of these charges were rashly advanced against the Jews of that age; for, as their own historian relates, some even of the priests lived by rapine, and others in gross uncleanness. And as for sacrilegiously robbing God and his altar, it had been complained of ever since Malachi; so that the instances are given with great propriety and judgment.

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

The apostle proceeds, to the end of this chapter, to convince the Jews, that they were equally in a sinful and wretched condition with the despised Gentiles, and therefore stood in need of Jesus Christ to justify them by his grace, as well as they: And because the Jews were so exceeding apt to dote upon, and rest in, their external privileges, he did in the foregoing verses, recount and reckon up the several privileges which they enjoyed: Thou art called a Jew, thou makest thy boast of God, &c.

But now, in the verses before us, he takes occasion to aggravate their sins committed, from their high privileges and prerogatives enjoyed, because they sinned against light and knowledge, against the convictions of their own consciences, and contradicted the dictates of their minds, as the Gentiles did: But besides all that, rebelled against the precepts of the written word, which was all in their hands. The law of Moses was near in their mouths, but far from their reins; for thus the apostle expostulates the case with them, Thou that teachest another teachest thou not thyself? Thou that undertakest to be a teahcer of, and a guide unto the ignorant and blind Gentiles, wilt thou not practice thine own instructions; but condemn thyself out of thine own mouth? "Wilt thou, Oh Jew! as if the apostle had said) be guilty of theft, adultery, sacrilege, rapine and murder, sins which the very Heathens condemn, and all this while, call yourselves the only people of God? Verily, The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you Jews, who pretend to be the favourites of heaven, whilst you do the works of hell."

Learn hence, 1. That it is much easier to instruct and teach others, than to be instructed and receive instruction ourselves.

Learn, 2. That it is both sinful and shameful to teach others the right way and to go in the wrong ourselves. It is a double fault in a private person, when his actions run cross to his profession; but it is an inexcusable, if not an unpardonable fault in the teacher, when the crimes which he condemns in others, may be justly charged upon himself: Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?

Learn, 3. That the name of God suffers much, very much; yea, by none so much as those who preach and press the duties of Christianity upon others, but practise them not themselves. The name of the Lord is blasphemed by such preachers, the wicked profane world taking occasion from thence to wound the name of God with the poisoned arrows and darts of reproach.

The sins of teachers are teaching sins. True, sin, strictly speaking, cannot injure the name and glory of God: He is above the reach of any mischief that sin can do to him: His essential glory is perfect, and can neither be increased nor diminished by the creatures: God can no more be hurt by our sins, than the sun can be hurt by throwing stones into the air, or the moon hurt by the barking of dogs. But his manifestative glory, or the present manifestations of his glory, these are clouded and elipsed by sin; and therefore God will deal with knowing sinners, especially such as undertake to be teacher of others, as with those that have blasphemed his name, wounded his glory, trampled upon his honour, and caused his holy ways to be evil spoken of, by reason of their wicked and unholy lives. 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.

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

21. “Wherefore thou that teachest another, doest thou not teach thyself?”

What a vivid picture of the preacher in the pulpit and the member in the pew, like the sign-boards, pointing out a road they never travel! “Thou who preachest not to steal, doest thou steal?” How significant this arraignment of the counterfeit professors. If you ever cheated a man out of a dollar, you stole a dollar. We send to the penitentiary the little rogues who steal a few dollars, while great thieves who have stolen their thousands serve as jurors, plead at the bar, or even encumber the judicial bench. Many serious people believe our public is now ruled by thieves who have stolen princely fortunes and risen to the dignity of mammon kings. “Thou that sayest not to commit adultery, doest thou commit adultery?” Aside from the consideration of the actual sin, in millions of cases secretly committed, when we hear Jesus say, “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery in his heart,” what a multitude are guilty of this dark crime! “Man looks on the outside, but God looketh on the heart.”

Glory to God for sanctification, whose consuming fires alone can exterminate heart adultery! Awful revelations and terrible ordeals await the guilty in the Judgment Day. “Thou that abominatest idolatry, doest thou rob temples?” Rome was full of costly heathen temples, adorned with gold, silver, and precious stones. The Jews were so avaricious, doubtless this accusation is not without foundation, especially if we consider the probability of their defrauding the heathens out of the offerings due their gods.

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

thou therefore that teacheth another, teachest thou not thyself? [But if doers, and not hearers, are not justified, why do you put your confidence in mere hearing, and such things as are analogous to it? Since only the doers of the law are justified, why do you vainly trust that you will be acceptable because you bear the proud name of Jew ( Gal_2:15 ; Phi_3:5 ; Rev_2:9 ), rather than the humble one of Gentile? Why do you rest confidently merely because you possess a better law than the Gentiles, because you glory in the worship of the true God ( Deu_4:7 ), and in knowing his will ( Psa_147:19-20 ), and in being instructed so as to approve the more excellent things of the Jewish religion above the debauchery of idolatry? Of what avail are these things when God demands doing and not mere knowing? And of what profit is it to you if the law does give you such a correct knowledge of the truth that you are to the Gentiles, yea, even to their chief philosophers, as a guide to the blind, a light to the benighted, a wise man among fools, a skilled teacher among children? Of what avail or profit is it all if, with all this ability, you teach only others and fail to teach yourself? The apostle next shows, in detail, how truly the Jew had failed to profit by his knowledge, so as to become a doer of the law.] thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

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.

21. Thou therefore who teachest another. Having just described the proud claims of the Jews, he next inquires how their practice corresponds. He who teaches others how to live, does he teach himself how to live? Dost thou steal? Some of the essential principles of the law which the Jews supposed to teach to others. The decalogue forbade stealing, but the Jews were already proverbial for their tricky methods of trade.

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.

You who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

Paul is using a question to scold his listeners. You can translate this as a strong statement. AT: "You teach others, but you do not teach yourself!" or "You teach others, but you do not do what you teach!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

You who preach against stealing, do you steal?

Paul is using a question to scold his listeners. You can translate this as a strong statement. AT: "You tell people not to steal, but you steal!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?

Paul is using a question to scold his listeners. You can translate this as a strong statement. AT: "You tell people not to commit adultery, but you commit adultery!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

You who hate idols, do you rob temples?

Paul is using a question to scold his listener. You can translate this as a strong statement. AT: "You say you hate idols, but you rob temples!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

rob temples

Possible meanings are 1) "steal items from local pagan temples to sell and make a profit" or 2) "do not send to the Jerusalem temple all the money that is due to God."

translationWords

teacher

preach

adultery

false god

temple

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

21–29. The nexus is marked by the particles—οὖν (21) sums up the privileges and introduces, in the form of questions, the contrast in the actual facts; γὰρ (24) implies the answer yes to the preceding questions and justifies it; γὰρ (25) explains how the event has come about, in spite of the privileges; οὖν (26) draws the conclusion, as to the relative position of Jew and Gentile; γὰρ (28) explains this conclusion as resting on the essential superiority of the moral and spiritual to the external and ritual.

21. οὖν. Well then, does practice correspond to prerogative? If not, prerogative does not exempt from judgment. The charge is put in the form of questions, by way of convicting the Jew in his own conscience. He cannot plead not guilty. Much more forcible than bare statements.

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.

21.] “And now the righteous rebuke may no longer be restrained. Such advantages and such pretensions ought undoubtedly to be followed and justified by a corresponding course of holy conduct.” Ewbank.]

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

21. οὖν: resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long protasis in vv. 17-20. After the string of points, suspended as it were in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew’s complacency, he now at last comes down with his emphatic accusation. Here is the ‘Thou art the man’ which we have been expecting since ver. 1.

κλέπτειν: infin. because κηρύσσων contains the idea of command.

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

Thou that preachest [ο κηρυσσων] . See on Mt 4:17. Stealing is so gross a vice that one may openly denounce it.

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