21. 6 οὖν διδάσκων ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν οὐ
διδάσκεις; ὁ κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν, κλέπτεις; 22. 6 λέγων μὴ
µοιχεύειν, µοιχεύεις; ὁ βδελυσσόµενος τὰ εἴδωλα, ἱεροσυλεῖς; 23.
ὃς ἐν νόµῳ καυχᾶσαι, διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόµου τὸν Θεὸν
ἀτιμάζεις; 24. “τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ δι ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται
25. Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ,
ἐὰν νόµον πράσσῃς' ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόµου ᾖς, ἡ περιτομή σου
600 ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόµω.
Ρ 15. 1.5. ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, καθὼς ? γέγραπται.
ἔχοντες µόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας) rather
suggests the same disparaging note which here belongs to πέποιθας. The µόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως is in point of fact only a form: valuable as the outline or definition of truth was, which the Jew possessed in the law, it was in reality ineffective, so far as the practical authority of the law in the Jew’s con- duct was concerned.
Ver. 21. Here the grammatical apo- dosis begins, the οὖν resuming all that has been said in vers. 17-20. κηρύσσων and λέγων are virtually verbs of com- mand: hence the infinitives. The thetorical question implies that the Jew does not teach himself, and that he does break the law he would enforce on others.
Ver. 22. βδελυσσόμενος properly ex- presses physical repulsion: thou that shrinkest in horror from idols. Cf. Dan. ix. 27, Mk. xiii. 14. ἱεροσυλεῖς: dost thou rob temples, and so, for the sake of gain, come in contact with abominations without misgiving? This is the mean- ing, and not, Dost thou rob the temple, by keeping back the temple dues? as has been suggested. The crime of ἱεροσυλία is referred to in Acts xix. 37, and accord- ing to Josephus, Ant., iv., 8, 10, it was expressly forbidden to the Jews: μὴ συλᾶν ἱερὰ ξενικά, μηδ ἂν ἐπωνομασ- µένον ᾖ τινὶ θεῷ κειµήλιον λαμβάνειν.
Ver. 23. Here again the construction is changed, and probably the use of the relative instead of the participle sug- gests that the sentence is to be read, not as interrogative, but as declaratory. «που who makest it thy boast that thou possessest a law, by the trans- gressing of that law dishonourest God: that is the sum of the whole matter, and thy sole distinction in contrast with the heathen.”
Ver. 24. And this is only what Scrip- ture bids us expect. The Scripture quoted is Is. lii. 5, LXX. The LXX interpret the Hebrew by inserting δι ὑμᾶς and ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Both in- sertions are in the line of the original
meaning. It was owing to the misery and helplessness of the people of God, in exile among the nations, that the heathen scoffed at the Divine name. “' The God of Israel is not able to deliver His people: He is no God.” Paul here gives the words quite another turn. God, he says, is now blasphemed among the nations because of the inconsistency between the pretensions of the Jews and their be- haviour. As if the heathen were saying: “* Like God, like people; what a Divinity the patron of this odious race must be”’. It is surely not right to argue (with Sanday and Headlam) that the throwing of the formula of quotation to the end shows that Paul is conscious of quoting freely: ‘‘it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the language he has just used is a quotation at all’. The quotation is as relevant as most that the Apostle uses. He never cares for the context or the original application. When he can express himself in Scrip- ture language he teels that he has the Word of God on his side, and all through this epistle he nails his arguments so, and insists on the confirmation they thus obtain. What the closing of the sentence with καθὼς γέγραπται suggests is not that it occurred to Paul after he had finished that he had almost un- consciously been using Scripture: it is rather that there is a challenge in the words, as if he had said, Let him impugn this who dare contest the Word of God.