23<\/strong>. dishonourest<\/em> ] disgracest<\/strong>. The crimes of Jews made their Lord’s “name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles;” as, alas, the name of Christ is, for exactly similar reasons, often blasphemed among the heathen now.<\/p>\n Makest thy boast … – <\/B>To boast in the Law implied their conviction of its excellence and obligation, as a man does not boast of what he esteems to be of no value.<\/P> Dishonourest thou God – <\/B>By boasting of the Law, they proclaimed their conviction that it was from God. By breaking it, they denied it. And as actions are a true test of mans real opinions, their breaking the Law did it more dishonor than their boasting of it did it honor. This is always the case. It matters little what a mans speculative opinions may be; his practice may do far more to disgrace religion than his profession does to honor it. It is the life and conduct, and not merely the profession of the lips, that does real honor to the true religion. Alas, with what pertinency and force may this question be put to many who call themselves Christians!<\/P><\/p>\n Dost thou bring a reproach upon religion, and give occasion to the Gentiles to blaspheme his name? So it follows in the next words. See Rom 2:24<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 17-24. Behold<\/B>“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).<\/P><\/p>\n Thou that makest thy boast of the law<\/strong>,…. 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:<\/p>\n through breaking of the law dishonourest thou God<\/strong>? 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.<\/p>\n Through thy transgression of the law <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Old word for stepping across a line. Trench calls attention to “the mournfully numerous group of words” for the varieties of sin like <\/SPAN><\/span>, ignorance, <\/SPAN><\/span>, violation of law, <\/SPAN><\/span>, missing the mark, <\/SPAN><\/span>, falling short, <\/SPAN><\/span>, passing over the line, <\/SPAN><\/span>, disobedience to a voice, <\/SPAN><\/span>, putting the law aside, <\/SPAN><\/span>, falling down, <\/SPAN><\/span>, discord. <\/P> <\/p>\n Transgression [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Trench remarks upon “the mournfully numerous group of words” which express the different aspects of sin. It is aJmartia the missing of a mark; parabasiv the overpassing of a line; parakoh the disobedience to a voice; paraptwma a falling when one should have stood; ajgnohma ignorance of what one should know; htthma a diminishing of what should be rendered in full measure; ajnomia or paranomia non – observance of law; plhmmeleia discord. <\/P> The primary sense of the preposition para is beside or by, with reference to a line or extended surface. Hence it indicates that which is not on its true line but beside it, either in the way of falling short or of going beyond. Thus, in the sense of going beyond, Rom 12:3<\/span>, to think more highly than he ought [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>, where the sense of beyond is fixed by uJperfronein to think beyond or over. “So Luk 13:2<\/span>. In the sense of falling short, Thucydides, 3, 49″ Mitylene came near such peril “[ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>, as if parallel to the danger but not touching it. Hence parabasiv differs from the Homeric uJperbasia transgression, in that the latter carries only the idea of going beyond or over. A mark or line as a standard is thus implied. Transgression implies something to transgress. With the law came in the possibility off transgressing the law.” Where there is no law there is no transgression ” (Rom 4:15<\/span>). Hence Adam ‘s sin is called a transgression (Rom 5:14<\/span>), because it was the violation of a definite command. Paul habitually uses the word and its kindred parabathv transgressor, of the transgression of a commandment distinctly given (Gal 3:19<\/span>; 1Ti 2:14<\/span>, Rom 2:25<\/span>, 27<\/span>). Hence it is peculiarly appropriate here of one who boasts in the law. It thus differs from aJmartia sin (see on sins, Mt 1:21<\/span>), in that one may sin without being under express law. See Romans 5<\/span>. Sin [<\/SPAN><\/span>] was in the world until the law; i e. during the period prior to the law. Death reigned from Adam to Moses over those who had not sinned [<\/SPAN><\/span>] after the similitude of Adam ‘s transgression [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The sin is implicit, the transgression explicit.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Thou that makest thy boast of the law,<\/strong> (hos en nomo kauchasai) who in (the) law boastest, of knowing and having it, 1Co 4:7<\/span>. If it be charity to build a storm cellar for a neighbor it is folly not to enter one ourselves.<\/p>\n 2) Through breaking the law,<\/strong> (dia tes parabaseos tou nomou) Through the breaking or transgression of the law, which all (Jews and Gentiles) have done, 1Ki 8:46<\/span>; Rom 3:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) Dishonorest thou God?<\/strong> (ton theon atimazeis) Dost thou dishonor God? Do you (not) dishonor God? This is a rhetoric question, really affirming that they were lawbreakers who dishonored God and needed to accept Gods mercy, pardon, forgiveness, and redemption, offered impartially to all men, Jews and Gentiles, Rom 10:12-13<\/span>; Rom 1:16<\/span>; Isa 53:4-6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 23. Thou who gloriest in the law, etc. Though every transgressor dishonors God, (for we are all born for this end — to serve him in righteousness and holiness;) yet he justly imputes in this respect a special fault to the Jews; for as they avowed God as their Lawgiver, and yet had no care to form their life according to his rule, they clearly proved that the majesty of their God was not so regarded by them, but that they easily despised him. In the same manner do they at this day dishonor Christ, by transgressing the gospel, who prattle idly about its doctrine, while yet they tread it under foot by their unbridled and licentious mode of living. <\/p>\n (23) Dishonourest thou God?<\/strong>This verse has been regarded, not as a question, but as a summary answer to the previous questions, You, who make all this boast in the Law, by breaking the Law, dishonour God. There is a certain force in this view, but the structure of the clause is so similar to those that have gone before that it seems best, perhaps, upon the whole, to take it in the ordinary way.<\/p>\n 23<\/strong>. <\/strong> Dishonourest thou God<\/strong> This verse embraces the sum total of all the previous questions as well as of all similar ones that they justly suggest. The entire charge is, that the Jew dishonours God, by breaking the law entrusted to him by God; whereas it was his true mission by a beautiful obedience to spread the glory of God abroad through the earth.<\/p>\n ‘You, who are boasting in the law, are through your transgression of the law dishonouring God.’<\/p>\n This may in fact be a question (‘are you through your transgression dishonouring God?’) or a statement (’you are through your transgression dishonouring God’). But whichever it is, it is applying what he has said above. They boasted in the Law, and yet through breaking it they dishonoured God, for God would be judged by outsiders on the basis of whether teachers of the Law followed their own teaching of which they boasted. Their very boast concerning the knowledge of the Law was thus bringing God into disrepute because of their hypocrisy.<\/p>\n Rom 2:23<\/span> gives to the four questions of reproachful astonishment the decisive categorical answer. See above on Rom 2:17-24<\/span> .<\/p>\n . . ] To this category belonged especially the ; for in Deu 7:25<\/span> f. the destruction<\/em> of heathen statues is enjoined, but the robbery of their gold and silver<\/em> is repudiated.<\/p>\n ] How? is shown in Rom 2:24<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] who has given the law.<\/p>\n 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 23. Through breaking<\/strong> ] By shooting short, or beyond, or wide of the mark; by omission, commission, or failing in the manner. <\/p>\n 23.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> , see above ( Rom 2:17 ) for the omission of the art. but it is not , because a is <\/strong> , the law being broken as a whole<\/em> (see Jas 2:10<\/span> ; and on below, Rom 2:25 ). And . . ., is thy breaking of the law<\/strong> .<\/p>\n This question comprehends the previous ones.<\/p>\n Rom 2:23<\/span> . Here again the construction is changed, and probably the use of the relative instead of the participle suggests that the sentence is to be read, not as interrogative, but as declaratory. “Thou who makest it thy boast that thou possessest a law, by the transgressing of that law dishonourest God: that is the sum of the whole matter, and thy sole distinction in contrast with the heathen.”<\/p>\n through. Greek. dia. App-104. Rom 2:1. <\/p>\n breaking, &c. = the transgression (Greek. parabasia. Compare App-128.:3) of the law. <\/p>\n dishonourest. Greek. atimazo. See Rom 1:24. <\/p>\n 23.] , see above (Rom 2:17) for the omission of the art.-but it is not , because a is , the law being broken as a whole (see Jam 2:10; and on below, Rom 2:25). And . . ., is thy breaking of the law.<\/p>\n This question comprehends the previous ones.<\/p>\n Rom 2:23<\/p>\n Rom 2:23<\/p>\n thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?-He makes the direct charge that while they boasted of being the guardians of, and supporters of, the law, they dishonored God in breaking it, while professing obedience to it. One guilty of great and open sins is forbidden to accuse others, and none can make groundless and uncertain accusations against any. When an accusation is made, if denied or in any part doubted, a fair and just adjudication should be made of the matter. Christians have faults. The aim of the Christian religion is to correct these faults. They are to help each other. They are to do it as tenderly and kindly as one helps another that has some fleshly hurt, and the reproof that is given to help should be received with hearts as grateful as for help given to relieve a fleshly wound. Sometimes the help given to relieve a fleshly wound is painful at the time, but we feel and cherish no ill feeling toward one who hurts the flesh in helping us. We ought to be as kind in feeling for spiritual help that will save us from a spiritual death. He who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:19).<\/p>\n breaking the law <\/p>\n Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”). <\/p>\n that makest: Rom 2:17, Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Jer 8:8, Jer 8:9, Mat 19:17-20, Luk 10:26-29, Luk 18:11, Joh 5:45, Joh 9:28, Joh 9:29, Jam 1:22-27, Jam 4:16, Jam 4:17 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 13:32 – yellow hair Lev 26:1 – Ye shall Psa 39:8 – make Psa 50:17 – hatest Mat 18:7 – unto Act 7:53 – and have Rom 1:30 – boasters Rom 2:25 – but if Rom 3:27 – Where Jam 3:14 – glory<\/p>\n :23<\/p>\n Rom 2:23. It is wrong to commit any lawlessness; it is worse to break the very law that one has praised as being the law of God.<\/p>\n Rom 2:23. Thou that boastest in. Comp. Rom 2:17.<\/p>\n Through the transgression of the law dishonorest thou God? or, thou dishonorest God. It is difficult to decide whether this verse is a question, forming a climax to the interrogative charge, or an answer given by Paul himself to his own questions, Rom 2:21-22. The sense remains substantially the same whichever construction be accepted. The general similarity of form in the verses favors the usual view, but a slight variation in the original is urged in support of the affirmative construction. It is an open question which is the more forcible. The transgression of the law points to the infraction of the law as a whole, rather than to single forms of transgression. (The transgression is equivalent to thy transgressions.) here is a summing up of the charges of Rom 2:21-22. God is dishonored, because it is His law which they transgress. See next verse.<\/p>\n thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou god? [These questions bring out the flagrant inconsistencies between Jewish preaching and practice. Teaching others not to steal, the Jew, though probably not often guilty of technical theft, was continually practically guilty of it in his business dealings, wherein, by the use of false weights, extortion, cheating, etc., he gathered money for which he had returned no just equivalent. Unchastity was also a besetting sin of the Jews, showing itself in the corrupt practice of permitting divorces without reasonable or righteous cause (Mat 19:8-9). Some of the most celebrated Rabbis are, in the Talmud, charged with adultery. Paul’s accusation, that the Jews robbed temples, has been a puzzle to many. This robbing of the temple, according to the context of his argument, must have been a species of idolatry, for he is charging the Jews with doing the very things which they condemned. They condemned stealing, and stole; they denounced adultery, and committed it; they abhorred idols, yet robbed the temples of them that they might worship them. Such is the clear meaning, according to the context. But we have no evidence that the Jews of Paul’s day did such a thing. The charge is doubtless historic. The Jewish history, in which they gloried, showed that the fathers, in whom they had taken so much pride, had done this thing over and over again, and the same spirit was in their children, though more covertly concealed (comp. Mat 23:29-32). The last question sums up the Jewish misconduct: glorying in the law, as is shown in Rom 2:17-20; they yet dishonored the God of the law by transgressing it, as is shown in this paragraph.] <\/p>\n 23. Who boastest in the law, and through the transgression of the law dishonorest God. I have that all round me till I turn heart-sick, e. g., people claiming to be paragon saints, boasting over their legal obedience in outward ordinances and churchisms, loudly condemning others, and at the same time showing by their unspiritual, carnal and frequently even profligate lives, their own utter ignorance of God and His salvation.<\/p>\n Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God? 23. dishonourest ] disgracest. The crimes of Jews made their Lord’s “name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles;” as, alas, the name of Christ is, for exactly similar reasons, often blasphemed among the heathen now. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 2:23”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27942","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"