Romans 2:17

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

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(17) Behold.—An interesting case of a corrupt reading which has found its way into the Authorised version. For “behold,” a decisive consensus of the best MSS. has “but if.” The corruption was very obvious and easy. Adopting “but if,” the answering clause of the sentence is to be found in the question, “Teachest thou not thyself?” Romans 2:21. The connecting particle “therefore” at the beginning of the same verse is merely resumptive, or, as it is technically called, “epanaleptic.”

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

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

Makest thy boast of God—i.e., of a peculiar and exclusive claim to His favour. (Comp. Deuteronomy 4:7; Psalm 147:19-20.)

Benson Commentary

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

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

2:17-24 The apostle directs his discourse to the Jews, and shows of what sins they were guilty, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions. A believing, humble, thankful glorying in God, is the root and sum of all religion. But proud, vain-glorious boasting in God, and in the outward profession of his name, is the root and sum of all hypocrisy. Spiritual pride is the most dangerous of all kinds of pride. A great evil of the sins professors is, the dishonour done to God and religion, by their not living according to their profession. Many despise their more ignorant neighbours who rest in a dead form of godliness; yet themselves trust in a form of knowledge, equally void of life and power, while some glory in the gospel, whose unholy lives dishonour God, and cause his name to be blasphemed.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

17-24. Behold—"But if" is, beyond doubt, the true reading here. (It differs but in a single letter from the received reading, and the sense is the same).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

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

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

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

Restest in the law; puttest thy trust in it.

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

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Behold, thou art called a Jew,.... From hence to the end of the chapter the Jews are particularly addressed; their several privileges and characters are commemorated, which by an ironical concession are allowed them; several charges are brought against them, even against their principal men; and the plea in favour of them, from their circumcision, is considered; and the apostle's view in the whole, is to show that they could not be justified before God by their obedience to the law of Moses: "behold"; take notice, observe it, this will be granted: "thou art called a Jew"; thou art one by name, by nation, and by religion; but no name, nor outward religion, nor a mere profession, will justify before God:

and restest in the law; which may be understood of their having the law and the knowledge of it, what is to be done and avoided easily, without any fatigue and labour; of their pleasing and applauding themselves with the bare having and hearing of it; of their trust and confidence in it; and of their inactivity and security in it, as persons asleep; and so of their coming short of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of Christ the end of the law for righteousness, their whole confidence being placed in that: so the Targumist in Jeremiah 8:8 paraphrases the words,

"we are wise, "and in the law of the Lord", , do we trust;''

and makest thy boast of God. There is a right boasting of God in opposition to boasting in the creature, when men ascribe all the blessings of nature and grace to the Lord alone, and praise him for all their enjoyments, temporal and spiritual; and when they trust in, and glory, and make their boast of Christ as the Lord their righteousness, in whom alone they are, and can be justified. But the boasting here spoken of, was such that was not right; these men boasted of their bare external knowledge of the one God, when the Gentiles around them were ignorant of him; of their being the covenant people of God, when others were aliens and strangers; and of their having the word and worship of the true God, which other nations were unacquainted with; and, on these external things they depended, which was their fault.

Geneva Study Bible

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

(8) He proves by the testimony of David, and the other prophets, that God bestows greatest benefits upon the Jews, in giving them also the law, but that they are the most unthankful and unkind of all men.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Romans 2:17-20 contain the protasis, whose tenor of censure (called in question without ground by Th. Schott and Hofmann) reveals itself at first gently, but afterwards, Romans 2:19 f., with greater force.

Ἱουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ] if thou art named “Jew.” This was the theocratic title of honour opposed to heathenism (יודה יה, see Philo, Alleg. I. p. 55 B, de plant. Noë, p. 233 A). Comp Revelation 2:9. So much the less therefore is ἐπονομάζ. to be here understood of a surname (Bengel). Full effect is given to the compound in classic writers also by the notion of name-giving, imposing the name. See Plat. Crat. p. 397 E, p. 406 A; Phaedr. p. 238 A al[683]; Xen. Oec. 6, 17; Thuc. ii. 29, 3; Polyb. i. 29, 2; comp Genesis 4:17; Genesis 4:25 f. Van Hengel arbitrarily imports the idea: Proverbs veteri nomine (Israelitarum) novum substituens.

ἐπαναπαύη τῷ νόμῳ] acquiescis, thou reliest (Micah 3:11; 1Ma 8:12; see Wetstein) on the law, comp John 5:45, as if the possession and knowledge of it were to thee the guarantee of salvation. The rest, of not being obliged first of all to seek what God’s will is (Hofmann), cannot be meant; since such a seeking cannot be separated from the possession of the law, but is on the contrary directed to that very law (see Romans 2:18). But in the law the Jew saw the magna charta of his assurance of salvation. He relied upon it.

ἐν Θεῷ] As being the exclusive Father and Protector of the nation. Comp Genesis 17:7; Isaiah 45:25; Jeremiah 31:33. Observe the climax of the three points in Romans 2:17. The ἐν with καυχ. (2 Corinthians 10:15; Galatians 6:13), a verb which in Greek authors is joined with ἐπί or εἰς or the accusative, denotes that, wherein the καυχ. rests, according to the analogy of χαίρειν, τέρπεσθαι ἐν (Bernhardy, p. 211; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403).

Romans 2:18, τὸ θέλημα] κατʼ ἐξοχήν. Whose will it was, that was to be obeyed on the part of man, was obvious of itself. Comp on ὄνομα Acts 5:41.

δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέρ.] Thou approvest the excellent. Respecting the lexical correctness of this rendering comp on Php 1:10. Its correctness in accordance with the connection is plain from the climactic relation, in which the two elements of Romans 2:18 must stand to each other. “Thou knowest the will of God and approvest (theoretically) the excellent”—therewith Paul has conceded to the Jews all possible theory of the ethical, up to the limit of practice. Others, taking δοκιμάζειν as to prove, explain τὰ διαφέροντα as meaning that which is different; and this either (comp Hebrews 5:14) of the distinction between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Grotius and others, including Reiche, Rückert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Krehl, Philippi, van Hengel, Th. Schott), or that which is different from the will of God, i.e. what is wrong, sinful (Clericus, Glöckler, Mehring, Hofmann; compare Beza). But, after γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα, how tame and destructive of the climax is either explanation! The Vulgate rightly renders: “probas utiliora.” Compare Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald.

κατηχούμ. ἐκ τ. νόμου] Being instructed out of the law (through the public reading and exposition of it in the synagogues, comp ἀκροάται, Romans 2:13), namely as to the will of God, and as to that which is excellent.

Romans 2:19-20 now describe, with a reference not to be mistaken (in opposition to Th. Schott and Hofmann) to the Jewish presumption and disposition to proselytize (Matthew 23:15), the influence which the Jews, in virtue of their theoretic insight, fancied that they exercised over the Gentiles. The accumulated asyndetic designations of the same thing lend lively force to the description. They are not to be regarded with Reiche as reminiscences from the Gospels (Matthew 15:14; Luke 20:32; Luke 2:32); for apart from the fact that at least no canonical Gospel had at that time been written, the figurative expressions themselves which are here used were very current among the Jews and elsewhere. See, e.g. Wetstein on Matthew 15:14. Observe, further, that Paul does not continue here with the conjunctive καί, but with the adjunctive τέ, because what follows contains the conduct determined by and dependent on the elements of Romans 2:18, and not something independent. Comp Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 790.

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

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

τὴν μόρφωσιν τ. γνώσ. κ. τ. ἀλήθ.] the form of knowledge and of the truth. In the doctrines and precepts of the law religious knowledge and divine truth, both in the objective sense, attain the conformation and exhibition (Ewald: “embodiment”) proper to them, i.e. corresponding to their nature (hence τὴν μόρφ.), so that we possess in the law those lineaments which, taken collectively, compose the σχηματισμὸς (Hesychius) of knowledge and truth and thus bring them to adequate intellectual cognizance. Truth and knowledge have become in the law ἔμμορφος (Plut. Numbers 8, Mor. p. 428 F), or μορφοειδής (Plut. Mor. p. 735 A). Paul adds this ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφ. τ. γν. κ. τ. ἀλ. as an illustrative definition (ut qui habeas, etc.) to all the points previously adduced; and in doing so he places himself entirely at the Jewish point of view (comp Wis 14:31 ff.), and speaks according to their mode of conception; hence the view which takes μόρφ. here as the mere appearance (2 Timothy 3:5), in contrast to the reality, is quite erroneous (in opposition to τινές in Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pareus, Olshausen). Even Paul himself could not possibly find in the law merely the appearance of truth (Romans 3:21; Romans 3:31). On μόρφωσις compare Theophrastus, h. pl. iii. 7, 4, and διαμόρφωσις in Plut. Mor. p. 1023 C.

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

[692] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[693] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 2:17-24. The logical connection of this “oratio splendida ac vehemens” (Estius), introduced once more in lively apostrophe,[679] with what precedes is to be taken thus: Paul has expressed in Romans 2:13-16 the rule of judgment, that not the hearers but the doers of the law shall in the judgment be justified. He wishes now vividly to bring home the fact, that the conduct of the Jews, with all their conceit as to the possession and knowledge of the law, is in sharp contradiction to that standard of judgment. The δέ and the emphatic σύ are to be explained from the conception of the contrast, which the conduct of the Jews showed, to the proposition that only the doers δικαιωθήσονται. As to the construction of Romans 2:17-23, the common assumption of an anakoluthon, by which Paul in Romans 2:21 abandons the plan of the discourse started with εἰ, and introduces another turn by means of οὖν (see Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 712], Buttmann, p. 331) is quite unnecessary. The discourse, on the contrary, is formed with regular and logically accurate connection as protasis (Romans 2:17-20

Expositor's Greek Testament

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

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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

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

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

art called] Lit. art surnamed. Perhaps in the word “named” lies a slight reference to the contrast between external and internal “Judaism.” See Romans 2:28.

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

makest thy boast of God] Lit. boastest, or gloriest, in God. A “boast” either most holy or most sinful according to the man’s view of God and of himself. See Isaiah 45:25, for the sacred promise perverted by Pharisaic pride.

Bengel's Gnomen

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

[30] See Appendix.

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

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

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 17. - But if (the true reading being certainly εἰ δὲ, not ἰδὲ, as in the Textus Receptus) thou (σὺ, emphatic) art named a Jew. The Israelites who had remained in Palestine, or who returned to it after the Captivity, seem thenceforth to have been designated Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι, though they included some of other tribes than that of Judah, notably that of Benjamin, of which St. Paul himself was, and of course of Levi. They are so called, whether resident in Palestine or elsewhere, throughout the New Testament, as well as by Roman writers. the term Ἑβραῖοι being applied in the New Testament (usually at least) to distinguish those Jews who adhered to the Hebrew language in public worship, and to national customs and traditions, from those who Hellenized (Ἑλληυισταί). It was the name on which the people prided themselves at that time, as expressing their peculiar privileges. The apostle, having at the beginning of this chapter addressed himself generally to "whosoever thou art that judgest," now summons the Jew exclusively to the bar of judgment, whose claims to exemption from the general condemnation have come to the front in the preceding verses. By the emphatic σὺ, he calls on him now to give an account of himself, and justify his pretensions if he can. The point of the argument is that the Jews were notoriously at that time no better than other nations in moral conduct - nay, their national character was such as to bring their very religion into disrepute among the heathen - and therefore doing, and not either privilege, knowledge, or profession, being according to the very Law on which they rested the test required, their whole ground for national exemption was taken away. And retest on law (νόμῳ, here without the article, so as to emphasize the principle on which the Jew professed to rest for acceptance), and makest thy boast of God. The Jew gloried, as against the heathen, in his knowledge and worship of the one true God. Romans 2:17

Vincent's Word Studies

Behold (ἴδε)

But the correct reading is εἰ δὲ but if.

Thou art called (ἐπονομάζῃ)

Rev., much better, bearest the name of, bringing out the value which attached to the name Jew, the theocratic title of honor. See on Hebrews, Acts 6:1.

Restest in (ἐπαναπαύῃ)

Rev., better, upon, giving the force of ἐπί in the verb. The radical conception of the verb ἀναπαύω is relief. See Matthew 11:28. Thou restest with a blind trust in God as thy Father and protector exclusively.