https://youtu.be/Wj-yBslwXq8
In our verse by verse study of Romans last time we completed Rom 2:20 with the expanded translation;"A child instructor of the unthinking ignorant, a teacher of the immature, having a superficial form of knowledge and the doctrine in the law."
We have noted that the conditional sentence began in verse 17 with an extensive protasis now concludes with the apodosis.
In the Greek, the protasis of the first class condition presents a supposition from the viewpoint of reality. If and it is true.
The reality is the arrogance, self-righteousness and legalism that Jews' religion of Judaism extracted from the Mosaic Law.
Certain questions based on the protasis are now presented in the apodosis where we have interrogation based on the reality supposition of the protasis.
The self-righteous Jew is religious. He is guilty of teaching the law as a system of salvation by works.
But the self-righteous Jew is inconsistent with his own system because He himself cannot keep the law.
Like all arrogant and self-righteous legalistic people the Jews emphasizes what he does while minimizing what he doesn't do.
Rom 2:21 "You therefore who teach another." The nominative masculine singular prepositive definite article, "o." begins an anacoluthon. It is very rare to begin a sentence with a prepositive definite article.
Paul suddenly breaks off the long sentence he began in verse 17 and starts over with five questions, so we have the anacoluthon in a conditional sentence that is an unusual dramatic formation.
The inferential particle "oun" introduces an inference from the protasis. When you have a protasis in a conditional clause in the Greek the apodosis draws inference from the protasis but you can't draw inference from the protasis if you have an anacoluthon because the anacoluthon creates a syntactical break.
So to show that there is still an inference being drawn by these questions, rather than by indicative sentences, there is the insertion of an inferential particle. The word translated "teach" is the present active participle of "didasko."
It is in the historical present tense that views a past event with the vividness of a present occurrence. It is also a progressive present denoting a state of persistence. They persisted in distorting the Law in their teaching.
The active voice: the self-righteous and legalistic Jew produced the action of the verb. This is a temporal participle, translated "when you teach." Then the accusative singular direct object from "heteros" translated "another' referring to another of a different category, generally to Gentiles.
" you do not teach yourself?" This is the accusative singular direct object from the reflexive pronoun seautou, translated "yourself" and the present active indicative of "didasko," translated "teach."
The present tense is a customary present that describes what can reasonably be expected to occur. The active voice: the self-righteous person in this case the legalistic Jew is not correctly interpreting the law.
The indicative mood is the interrogative indicative used for a question of reality. Plus the negative, so it should be translated, "do you not teach yourself?"
Paul asks them how they can teach what they don't know? The self-righteous Jews emphasized stealing, fornication and idolatry almost to the exclusion of the other commandments that defined sin.
The format question creates a pattern for the three things emphasized by Judaism. Paul will emphasize the inconsistency of self-righteousness.
So this is the first of three questions that sets up the format for Paul's line of questioning.
The second question: "you who preach not to steal do you steal?" Here we have the articular present active infinitive from the verb "kerusso" doesn't mean to just shout out or a public proclamation, it means to preach to a congregation or to communicate a message to a group.
"Preach" means that you are speaking to more than one person so you have to raise your voice in order to be heard. In other words, it is not a private conversation because you are speaking to a group of people.
The word "not" is "un" and the word "steal" is translated from the Greek word "klepto."
Expanded Translation Rom 2:21; "You therefore, when you teach others, do you teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal?"
The self-righteous Judaiser quotes the eighth commandment that is a sin but it also deals with a violation of human freedom under divine establishment, but he is teaching it wrong.
He not only quotes it but he adds his own interpretation. He says that if you steal you are going to hell but you don't go to hell because you steal and you don't go to heaven because you don't steal.
The true issue is described in John 3:36 when compared with Matt 15:2-7;"the tradition" is the oral law handed down "ex cathedra "and later codified in the Mishna.
While the Old Testament did not command the washing of hands before meals it was a good idea because it was sanitary. But the rabbis took something that was a good idea and sanitary and made it into an indication of spirituality thereby distorting it. Good sanitation does not mean salvation and cleanliness does not imply godliness.
Matt 15:3; Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" Religion substitutes religion for doctrine. It distorts doctrine into a false system of legalism, self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
v4; For God commanded (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16), saying, Honor your father and mother: furthermore, he who speaks evil of his father or mother, let him be put to death." (Rejection of the most basic authority in life and the third law of divine establishment.)
v 5 "But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or to his mother, Corban, (a gift or sacrifice brought to the altar and dedicated to God)." The Levitical sacrifices described in Lev.1-6 were called Corban.
In the days when Jesus was being confronted by of the Pharisees they had changed it up a little. The religious self-righteous Jews distorted the word by lifting it from its biblical context and expanding it do include, gifts, offerings, or money given to the temple.
He would bring money instead of an animal sacrifice to the priest and say, "Corban," referring to a gift dedicated to God. But some of the Jews had a different system, and when Jesus was on the earth this had been accepted and had been operational for 100 years.
What could be done to avoid taxes and other things was to dedicate your entire estate. You could go to the priest with a piece of paper that said, "I dedicate my entire estate to God as corban."
You could keep on using your money as before but if your parents came to you and said they were broke, starving, and could you help us, he could say no because my estate is corban.
This happened quite frequently and enriched the temple, and so it was hypocrisy. While the fifth commandment required children to help their destitute parents, reversionistic children refused on the basis of corban.
The Corban gimmick illustrates how religious self-righteousness places tradition above truth.
v6; Jesus comments that this is not honoring his father or mother, and so you (the Pharisees) invalidate the law for the sake of your tradition. v7; Then Jesus adds: "You hypocrites."
This explains the impact of the second question in Rom 2:21; The Corban gimmick was stealing. It was used to avoid all kinds of legitimate financial obligations.
Rom 2:22; poses Paul's third question. "You who say " is the present active participle from the verb "lego", that means to say or to speak. It is a very common verb for communication of thought.
This is a nominative masculine singular definite article that goes with the participle, and it is still a part and a continuation of the anacoluthon. The present tense is retroactive progressive present denoting something that has happened in the past and continues into the present time.
They keep on communicating this in order to build up their own self-righteousness. The active voice: the self-righteous legalistic Jew produces the action of the verb.
He constantly builds up his own self-righteousness through his teaching, but he is guilty of the same things. The participle is circumstantial. They have to be blind in order to do this, but it is exactly what they do.
"one should not commit adultery" the negative "me" plus the present active infinitive of "moicheuo" which means to fornicate. The present tense is an aoristic present for punctiliar action in present time.
The active voice: students of Judaism are prohibited from producing the action of the verb, and they teach it but they also do it, and therefore they fail to see the real purpose of the law.
The purpose of the law is not to commend someone's self-righteousness because they teach some portion of it, but to condemn everyone's unrighteousness and/or sinfulness.
The purpose of the law is to demonstrate that all of us are sinners, not to prove that anyone is self-righteous or has any right to any category of righteousness, except what is given by God from His perfect integrity.
He is absolute in righteousness. This is an imperative infinitive with the negative, and it should be translated "thou shall not fornicate," a reference to the seventh commandment found in the Decalogue Exod 20:14.
"do you commit adultery" again the present active indicative of the same verb, "moicheuo" this time again the aoristic present tense for punctiliar action in present time.
The active voice: the self-righteous instructor in Judaism is now charged with the fact that the Mosaic law, the part in question, is not to build up self-righteousness but to condemn everyone in the human race.
The indicative mood is the interrogative indicative used to ask a question related to reality. The answer to this question is that, yes, everyone is guilty before the law.
The very ones who are very pious about their lack of fornication nevertheless have fornicated, says the Word of God. Jesus Himself is quoted dealing with this subject.
The Judaisers were all guilty of mental adultery as described in Matt 5:27, 28. We see their guilt illustrated in: John 8:3-11. Note: "He that is without sin among you let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
This drew attention to the fact that all are guilty under the law. Also: "Neither do I condemn you."
She was a believer; We know this because she called Him Lord. When she believed in the Lord Jesus Christ all of her sins as an unbeliever were wiped out Isa 43:25; Isa 44:22.
The woman had just believed in Jesus so her sins were blotted out. Then Jesus adds one more thing. Literally from the Greek: "Depart and no longer sin." This does not imply, sinless perfection as it appears to on the surface.
"Depart and no longer sin" does not imply sinless perfection or even that she would never sin again. It does imply that she be motivated by grace rather than by lust.
Here is where we get a great issue. Grace is the greatest restrainer of sin. Furthermore, from now on when she does sin, as she inevitably will, she has the problem-solving device of rebound available.
This also means that the restraint of condemnation on this occasion does not imply the restraint of God's justice toward sin. God's justice judged this sin along with all other sins on the cross, several years later.
This is also a warning from Jesus not to repeat this sin of adultery because that at the time under the Jewish law was a criminal act. It is a warning that next time she is caught she may die for it.
In other words, He is telling her not to become involved in criminal action. The repetition of criminal action could result in punitive action from the state, which would be legitimate and in this case at the time the penalty was capital punishment by stoning.
The fourth question: "you who abhor idols" "abhor" is translated from the present middle participle from "bdelyssomai" that means to create disgust or to be disgusted by a terrible stink. It finally came to mean to detest or to abhor anything, not just an obnoxious odor.
The present tense is a progressive present for a state of persistence. The indirect middle emphasizes the agent as producing the action. The agent is, again, the self-righteous Jew.
The participle is circumstantial. With it is the accusative plural direct object from "eidolon" that is transliterated into the English word "idol." Translation: "you who persistently despise idols."
"do you rob (steal from) temples?" - present active indicative from "hierosyleo" that literally means to means to commit sacrilege. In this case the sacrilege would be to steal from a temple. The present tense is an aoristic present for punctiliar action.
The active voice: self-righteous Jews used the fact that they were guarded by an idol as an excuse to steal from the temple that was also the heathen's bank. These Jews were not above walking into a temple in order to steal. They were distorting the second commandment and using it as an excuse for stealing. Acts 19:37.
Expanded Translation Rom 2:22; "You who say not to fornicate, do you fornicate? You who despise idols, do you rob temples?"