instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. There is no trait of th« Jewish character more prominently exhibited than their self-confident superiority to others. Hence their desire to make proselytes, their end- less inculcation of the commands of men for the doctrines of God, their contempt of the Gentiles, &c. &c. Their Rabbins were in the habit of calling- themselves ' the light of the world.' Which hast the form of knowledge and truth in the law. The word rendered form means the external shape or appearance of a thing ,- 2 Tim. 3 : 5, <' Having the form of godliness." It also signifies a just representation, and then a rule. The idea is, ' they have in the law a perfect representation of what truth and duty are,' or ' a perfect rule of moral truth.' The words "knowledge and truth," by a common figure, may mean true knowledge,- or be equivalent to knowledge of the truth.
(21, 22) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thy~ self? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? &c. For the connexion of this verse with the 17th, see the note on that passage. We have here the application of the above reasoning to the hopes of the Jews. If men are to be judged according to their tuorA;^, those who do wickedly, who steal, commit adultery and sacrilege, no matter whether they are called Jews, and make their boast in God, and are instructed out of the law, or not, shall assuredly be condemned. It is evident that the crimes of theft, adultery, and sacrilege are here specified, not as crimes which all the Jews committed, but as examples merely. ' If you, though Jews, do what you condemn in others, you will not escape the righteous judgment of God. So far from this, your superior advantages will increase the weight of your condemnation.' Paul intended forcibly to assert that the Jews were guilty of these and other crimes, and it matters little whether the interrogative or affirmative form of address be adopted; i. e. whether we read ' Dost thou steal V or ' Thou dost steal, dost com- mit adultery,' &c. It is a mere matter of punctuation. The interroga- tion gives the assertion rather more point. It has been questioned whether the apostle, in charging the Jews with satrilege, had referance to the specific crime of temple-robbery, or more generally to the wicked and pro- fane abuse and perversion of sacred things. Most probably to the latter, because there is no historical evidence of temple-robbery having been committed by them ; and because the prophets represent the withholding from God his due, and the appropriation of sacred things to a common use, as a robbery of God. Malachi 3 : 8, " Will a man rob God 1 Yet ye have robbed me. Bat ye say. Wherein have we robbed thee 1 In tithes and oflierings." While the Jews, therefore, abhorred idols, which was one form of showing contempt for God, they evinced, without compunc- tion, their want of reverence for the divine Being, in ways scarcely less offensive. That this abhorrence of idolatry was characteristic of the Jews after the captivity, is one of the most familiar facts in their history ; and it is as great now as at any former period.
(23, 24) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the