Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 2:21
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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?”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17-24. Behold“But if”is, beyond doubt, the true reading here. (It differs but in a singleletter from the received reading, and the sense is the same).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?…. Several charges are here brought against the Jews, even against their teachers; for though they are put by way of question, they are to be considered as so many assertions and matters of fact; thus, though they taught others, they did not teach themselves; they were blind leaders of the blind; they were ignorant of the law, of the spirituality of it; they were desirous to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they affirmed: they were ignorant of the righteousness of God, of whom they boasted; and of the more excellent things of Moses, and the prophets, they pretended to explain; and of the Messiah, of whom their prophecies so much spoke: and besides, what they did understand and teach, they did not practise themselves; than which nothing is more shameful, or more betrays stupidity and ignorance; for as they themselves b say,
“he that teaches men, , “that which he himself does not do”, is like a blind man who has a lamp in his hand, and enlightens others, but he, himself walks in darkness.”
And such teachers they own were among them.
“Beautiful (say they c) are the words which come out of the mouths of them that do, them: Ben Assai was a beautiful preacher, but did not well observe;”
i.e., to do what he said.
Thou that preach at a man should not steal, dost thou steal? some understand this figuratively, of stealing, or taking away the true sense of the law, and putting a false one upon it; of which these men were notoriously guilty: but rather, it is to be understood literally, not only of the inward desires and motions of their minds after this sin, and of their consenting to, and conniving at theft and robbery, but of their doing it themselves; who, under pretence of long prayers, “devoured widows’ houses”, Mt 23:14, plundered and robbed them of their substance: no wonder that these men preferred Barabbas, a thief and a robber, to Jesus Christ.
b Sepher Hamaalot, p. 87. Apud Buxtorf. Heb. Florileg. p. 75. c Bereshit Rabba, fol. 30. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou therefore that teachest another ( ). Paul suddenly breaks off (anacoluthon) the long sentence that began in verse 17 and starts over again with a phrase that gathers it all up in small compass (teachest) and drives it home (therefore) on the Jew (thyself).
Not to steal ( ). Infinitive with in indirect command (indirect discourse) after .
Dost thou steal? (?). The preaching () was fine, but the practice? A home-thrust.
Should not commit adultery ( ). Infinitive in direct command again after . “The Talmud charges the crime of adultery upon the three most illustrious Rabbins” (Vincent).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Thou that preachest [ ] . See on Mt 4:17. Stealing is so gross a vice that one may openly denounce it.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) Thou therefore which teachest another, (ho oun didaskon heteron) The one therefore teaching another, Among the Jews, as a teacher, presuming to be an example of righteousness and justice, yet their example of conduct was one of hypocrisy, Mat 23:1-8; Mat 6:1-2; Mat 6:5; Mat 6:16.
2) Teachest thou not thyself? (seauton ou didaskeis): Teachest thou not thyself, alsodo you practice what you preach? Does your character harmonize with your assumptions? This is Pauls challenge of Jewish people who doted in the law to examine themselves, 1Co 13:5.
3) Thou that preachest a man should not steal, (ho kerusson me kleptein) The one preaching one not to steal, Mat 23:3; Psa 50:16-17.
4) Dost thou steal? (klepteis); Do you steal? like a kleptomaniac? Psalms 1-6. This is a series of rhetoric questions that actually affirms that the Jews preached one thing and practiced another, thus espoused contradictory moral and ethical values, Mat 23:14-15; Mat 23:24.
HYPOCRITE
Apes will be imitating men: spiders have their webs, and wasps their honeycombs. Hypocrites will need to do something, that they may seem to be somebody; but, for want of an inward principle, they do nothing well; they amend one error with another, as Esau here (Gen 28:1-22); and as Herod prevents perjury by murder. Thus, while they shun the sands, they rush upon rocks; and while they keep off the shallows, they fall into the whirlpool.
-Trapp
HIGHEST AND LOWEST
Ananias wished to have the credit of a complete sacrifice, and yet kept back part of it for himself -professing cream and practicing skim milk, as someone has said. The Register and Leader of Des Moines contains this item: -Wu Ting Fang, when he came to leave America, observed in his shrewd Chinese way that Americans profess higher ideals and fall farther short of realizing them than any other people in the world.
-Selected
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
21. Thou, who then teachest another, teachest not thyself, etc. (82) 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 Psa 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.
(82) This clause, and those which follow, are commonly put in an interrogatory form, that is, as questions: but some, as [ Theophylact ] , [ Erasmus ] and [ Luther ] , have rendered the clauses in the form here adopted. There is no difference in the meaning.
It is worthy of notice, that the Apostle, after the Hebrew manner, reverses the order as to the points he mentions; he, as it were, retrogrades, and begins to do so at Rom 2:21. The passage may be thus rendered, —
17. Seeing then, thou art named a Jew, And reliest on the law, and gloriest in God,
18. And knowest his will, And decernest things which differ, being taught by the law,
19. And art confident that thou art A leader to the blind, a light to those in darkness,
20. An instructor to the foolish, a teacher to babes, Having the form of knowledge and of truth according to the law:
21. Yet thou, who teachest another, teachest not thyself, Thou, who preachest, “Steal not,” stealest,
22. Thou, who sayest, “Commit no adultery,” committest adultery, Thou who detestest idols, committest sacrilege,
23. Thou who gloriest in the law, by transgressing the law dishonorest God; For the name of God, as it is written, is through you blasphemed by the Gentiles.
Rom 2:21
, and part of the 22, refer to what is contained in Rom 19:0 and the 20; and the latter part of the 22 to the 18 verse; and 23 to the 17. The latter part of the 22 helps us to fix the meaning of the latter part of the 18; the man who hated idols and committed sacrilege proved that he did not exercise his boasted power of making a proper distinction between right and wrong. Then the man who is said, in Rom 2:17, to rely on the law and glory in God, is charged, in Rom 2:23, with the sin of dishonoring God by transgressing the law — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) Therefore.See above on Rom. 2:17.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21. Steal Thefts, robberies, and murders were the order of the day at the time of Paul’s writing.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself?’
The question is sarcastic. They claim to teach others how to live, but they do not themselves live as they teach. Thus they seemingly fail to teach themselves.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?’
For example they taught that it was wrong to steal, something that was central to the covenant. And yet they themselves stole in all kinds of ways, by sharp business practises, and as a result of their contempt for the Gentiles, not considering theft from Gentiles as really theft. Paul no doubt had examples in mind.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Jew as a Sinner – After acknowledging the Jews’ claims to a right standing before God and man, Paul pulls back the curtain of their heart in Rom 2:21-22 and reveals the wickedness found within the Jewish society. He was a Jew himself and knew how many of them lived a sinful lifestyle while having an outward form of their Jewish religion and traditions.
Rom 2:22 “thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” Word Study on “sacrilege” Strong says the Greek word “sacrilege” ( ) (G2416) literally means, “to be a temple robber.”
Comments – Sacrilege means to misuse what has been consecrated to God.
Rom 2:24 Comments In Rom 2:24 Paul is quoting from Isa 52:5. However, the environment in which Paul was speaking to the Romans was one of growing Roman hostility towards the Jews. Claudius has evicted the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49 because of their behaviour. So, Paul could very well apply Rom 2:24 to the Jews in their current Roman setting. The name of God is blasphemed by the Gentiles when the Jews who boast in the name of God have their sins made public to the world.
Isa 52:5, “Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed .”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Rom 2:21. Dost thou steal? Grotius on this text proves from Josephus, that some of the Jewish priests lived by rapine, depriving others of their due share of the tithes, and even suffering them to perish for want: that others were guilty of gross uncleanness: and as for sacrilegiously robbing God and his altars, it had been complained of as early as Malachi’s days (Mal 1:8; Mal 1:12-13.). See Grotius and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 2:21-22 . Apodosis interrogating with lively indignation. See generally, and respecting , 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 or (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 Khner, 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.
] 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, Rosenmller, Fritzsche, de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi; Mehring (Rckert indecisively); as is required by the antithetic relation in which stands to the . . “Thou who holdest all contact with idols as a detestable pollution dost 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 Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation, p. 77. It is differently explained by Pelagius, Pareus, Toletus, Grotius, Heumann, Michaelis, Cramer, Reiche, Glckler, 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, Kllner, and Umbreit, interpret it, with still more deviation from the proper sense, as denoting the “ profanatio divinae majestatis ” (Calvin) generally. [703] Compare Luther’s gloss, “Thou art a robber of God; for it is God’s 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 to the temples of idols, but limits it to the taking away of the . His exposition, moreover, aptly brings out the practical bearing of the point: . , .
[702] The objection urged by Reiche and van Hengel, that 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 .
[703] Olshausen thinks that avarice , as inward idolatry, is meant.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rom 2:21 . Here the grammatical apodosis begins, the resuming all that has been said in Rom 2:17-20 . and 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
therefore. Ironical use of Greek. oun.
another. As Rom 2:1, but without article.
preachest. Greek. kerusso. App-121.
a man, &c. Literally not to steal.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Rom 2:21. , 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.-, preaching) loudly, clearly.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 2:21
Rom 2:21
thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?-As a result of their holding the form of truth without drinking into the spirit of it, they did not practice what they professed. They did not practice what they taught others.
thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?-While they taught the law, Thou shalt not steal, they themselves stole, cheated, defrauded, and misrepresented. [They were gross hypocrites. While preaching against a sin. they themselves at the very time were committing it. We must not, however, suppose that every Jew was a thief. It is only necessary to suppose that the sin was very general. It is introduced to make the inconsistency of their conduct more apparent. We expect a man to set an example of what he means by his public instruction.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
He Requires Heart-Obedience
Rom 2:21-29
The Jew relied upon the position given him by the privileges and rites of Judaism, although his religious life, as such, had shrunk within these outward things, as a seed rattles in its pod. The Apostles argument is meant to show that personal irreligion and unbelief will neutralize all the benefit that outward rites might promise; while humble faith will compensate for any disadvantage which might result from heathen origin and environment.
The Jew will become as a Gentile, unless he have the spiritual counterpart to outward rites, while Gentiles will become as the Chosen People of God, if they have that separation of soul and life which was set forth in the initial rite of the Jew. See Col 2:11. The mere outward rite does not constitute sonship to Abraham; and he who has never undergone it, but by faith has put away all filthiness of flesh and spirit, is entitled to all the promises made to Abraham and his seed.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
therefore: Psa 50:16-21, Mat 23:3-12, Luk 4:23, Luk 11:46, Luk 12:47, Luk 19:22, 1Co 9:27, Gal 6:13, Tit 2:1-7
dost thou steal: Isa 56:11, Eze 22:12, Eze 22:13, Eze 22:27, Amo 8:4-6, Mic 3:11, Mat 21:13, Mat 23:14
Reciprocal: Psa 50:17 – hatest Isa 30:9 – will not Luk 6:41 – why Luk 6:42 – cast Joh 8:7 – He that Joh 10:10 – thief Act 5:3 – to keep Rom 1:32 – knowing Rom 2:1 – for thou that Jam 3:1 – be
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:21
Rom 2:21. With all of the foremen-tioned advantages, the Jew had no reason for coming short of the proper conduct in his own life. However, many of them were satisfied to rest on their knowledge of what was right, without setting an example of the things they told others to do. They would steal to enrich their own purse, yet condemn the Gentiles for the sin of theft.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 2:21. Thou therefore. Therefore sums up what has been previously said. Being such an one, to thee, I say, etc. The questions imply surprise at such a state of things, and rebuke it.
Teachest thou not thyself. This is the general accusation, that the conduct of the Jew did not agree with his knowledge and assumed position, set forth in Rom 2:17-20. These specifications follow, with a summing up of the result in Rom 2:23.
Dost thou steal. In this charge there is probably a reference to the passionate and treacherous method of transacting business adopted by the Jews; Jas 4:13. (Lange.)
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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 , 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. : 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 , 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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
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?
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
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.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
With a series of rapier-like interrogations (rhetorical questions) Paul poked holes in the Jews’ hypocritical facade. Evidently it was not uncommon for Jews to rob the temples of the pagan Gentiles (Rom 2:22; cf. Act 19:37). They may have done this by using the precious metals from idolatrous articles stolen from pagan temples (cf. Deu 7:26). [Note: Ibid., p. 129.] By doing so, they betrayed their own idolatry, which was love of money. Furthermore, rather than staying away from what they professed to abhor, they went after pagan idols. The Jews’ Gentile neighbors saw their inconsistency and despised Yahweh because of it (Rom 2:24). The Jews did not apply their own teaching to themselves. Paul backed up his claim with a quotation from Isa 52:5.
Undoubtedly Paul did not mean that every single Jew practiced these sins, but these sins represented the contradiction between claim and conduct that marked Judaism.