tion to their great progenitor. We cannot sufficiently admire the skill with which Paul conducts his argument against this ground of confidence. He does not even name the Jew, and say, 'Therefore, O Jew, thou art inexcusable,' &c. He begins at such a distance, that the prejudices of his readers are not at all aroused. He states his principles so generally and so simply, that they must have forced the assent of the Jew, before he was at all aware of their application to himself. They are indeed self- evident, and yet, when admitted and. applied, are found to be destructive of the very foundation on which the children of Abraham expected to inherit his blessing.
The connexion, indicated by the word therefore between this and the preceding chapter, is not very obvious. It may be explained thus : in V. 32, ch. 1, it is stated, that those who commit sin are conscious of its ill- desert ; those, therefore, who condemn it, acknowledge still more clearly its desert of punishment, and, of consequence, condemn themselves, if they are chargeable with it ; or to state the same view in a rather differ- ent form, ' Those who commit sin are worthy of death, much more those who encourage and delight in its commission, v. 32 ; and still more obvi- ously than either, he who, while he condemns others, himself commits the same offence.'
Whosoever thou art that judgest. That the Jew is intended, in this, and the following verses, is evident, from the drift of the argument, from his being expressly named in vs. 9, 10, and from the direct application of the argument to him in v. 17, and onward. It was, no doubt, with design^ that the apostle made the address thus general in the first instance. The principle stated in the verse is true in relation to all men. The word rendered to judge means frequently to condemn, see v. 12. Acts 7 : 7. 2Thess. 2 : 12, &c., and may be so rendered here, 'Thou art inexcusa- ble whosoever thou art that condemnest, for wherein thou condemnest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that condemnest doest the same things.' The apostle wished to show that the ready sanction, which the Jew gave to the condemnation of the Gentile, involved the condemna- tion of himself, inasmuch as Jew and Gentile were to be judged by the same general principles.
The words rendered in that may mean because that, see ch. 8:3; or, in that, eo ipso, in the very act of condemning another, thou condemnest thyself. The reason for this declaration follows, ' Because thou that condemnest doest the same things.' The ground of condemnation is the thing done, not the person of the agent. This is the first principle.
(2) But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth, against them which commit such things. The most probable interpreta- tion of this verse is the following : ' However perverse your judgments are in condemning others, while you excuse yourself, we know that God's judgments are not thus partial. His decisions are according to the truth, are correct and just, and according to the real state of the case, and not the external circumstances or relations of those concerned;' see v. 11.