The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 63

repreeenbltion in oonoret.e form of 1.-nowlerlg-e heathen templGB-ft practioo whioh Jewish nnd troth. The Jew had that; and the Z<'l\lota, in t.heir professed abhorronco of Law ifF<'lf is by no means disparngro bc- idolatry, might be addioted to when they oame the Jew presumed on it without keep- hl\d opportunity. A writer, though himself ing it (cf. ob. ,·ii. 12). attl\ching no;idee. of sanotity to such temples, ,er. 21.-Thou therefore which teaoheat might still uso the ourrent term iepocru>..eiv. another, te&ahest thou not thyself 1 The So, among tho 1moients1 Chrysostom nnd o~ here does not involrn an anaooluthon Theophylaot nndcrste.nd 1t; the lo.tter, how- Ml.er the reading •" ll~ in ver. 17, though e,er, limiting it to ta.king e.we.y the dvci~- St.. Paul would not ha,e much cared if it µ.ci-ra.. He says, "For if they did abhor the had been 80. It ser.es only to sum up the idols, yet nevertheless, dominated by cove- lellj?thened protasis. and introdu('e the apo- t.ousnesa, they touched the idol-offerings for dollis: "If , .. dost thou thffl," eto. ? In filthy lucre's sake." In doing this, he seems -what follows it is not, of course, implied that to imply, they broke the very Law which all Jews who relied on the Law were, in had enjoined their ancestors to "destroy the fact, thieves, adulterers, etc., b11t only that alt.'\rs, and break down the images" of idolo.- the Jews as a nation were no more exempt ters (Deut. vii. 5); for the so.me Law h!Ld from 811ch sins than others; and it may be forbidden them to " desire the silver and that those specified were not selected by the gold that is on them," or "tnke it unto apostle at random. but as being such &B the thee, for it is e.n abomination to the Lord Jews had a peculiar evil notoriety for e.t thy God" (Deut. vii. 25). A strong oon- that time. Thou that preachest a man firme.tion of the view that plundering of llhould not steal, dost thou steal! heathen temples is denoted by /epocruh.,is l" er. 22.-Thou that sayest a man should is found in Acts xix. 37, when the town- Dot commit adultery, dost thou commit clerk of Ephesus defended the Christie.us adultery ! thou that abhorrest idols, dost against the popular fury by deole.ring tho.t thou commit se.erilege ! The word (iepoov- they were not iepoCT6h.o,, that is (e.s he might A•is) thllii rendered in the Anthorized Ver- mean) not temple-plunderers, such as ordi- sion means literally "robbest temples," nary Jews had the reputo.tion of being. It though it may bear also the general mean- has been objected ago.inst this view that ing of" sacrilege." Commentators di1fer as there is a le.ck of recorded insto.nces of such to -what is meant. Some, considering that temple-plundering on the part of Jews, and the ward would not have been used except that they could not have bad much chance, 1D denote something really sacrilegious- e.s thin~ then were, of thus displaying their aime offence a.,oain.st true sanctity-refer it zeal. But there may have been instances, 1D the withholding of gifts and offerings notorious e.t the time, though not recorded; from the temple at Jerusalem, or of tithes and, if so, the drift me.y be, "Thou displayest from the priest.&, or embezzlement of the thy abhorrence of idolatry, enjoined by the temple revenues. Mai. iii 8, etc., is adduced Law, by acts of violence and greed, such o.e in illustration, "Will a man rob God? Yet the very Law forbids." ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein Vere. 23, 24.-Thou that makeet thy boast have -we robbed thee ? In tithes and o:ffer- in law, through thy transgression of the ingB," et.c. ( cf. also Mal i 7-14 ). A pas- Law dishonourest thou God 1 (or, thou dis- 11&ge also is q ooted from J osephm, •.Archmol,' honowrest Goa). For the name of God is B. xviii c. 5, where cenain Jews are said to blasphemed among the Gentiles because of have appropriated to their own use purple you, as it is written. The reference is to and gold whic.b. had been given t.o them for lee.. lii. 5, where the LXX. has A,' uµ.u.s B,ci- ihe temple at Jemsalem by one Fulvia., e. -re&V'Tbs -rb l',voµ.d. µ.ou /3h.a.<1~'1/p.ei'rci1 Iv -rois prDElyte of theirs e.t Bame, in consequence l6vecrt. The passo.ge is not quoted as a of which tht, Emperor Tiberius, having been prophecy now fulfilled, or as in its original imorme.d of tht, tmnse.ction by the lady's reference exactly applicable, but only &B husband, tad ba.Illilhed all the Jews from serving to express well how the charo.cter of Bomto. Othera take the word in e. general the Jews had brought their very religion l!eIIBC t.o deIJote aoy profanation of sanctity. into dutrepute (cf.;Tacitus, 'Hist.,' v. 4, eto.). So Luther, Calvin (" profanatio di vi.nal Ill&- The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a jestatis "), e.nd Bengel (" 11aCrilegium com- clear and fine.I exposition of the 'principle, mittis, qo.ia Doo non das gloriam, qwe pro- involved throughout e.11 the previous verses, prit, Dei est"). Inasmuch, however, as that Jewish privileges were of no profit in definitto malpre.ctioos of the J ewe at that them eel ves, or without their meo.ning e.nd time, on account of which tht, name of God purpose being understood o.nd acted on, WIii! blasphemed e.moog tl,e Gentiles (ver. The thought now po.sees exclusively to cir- 24),b(;(:m to be here alludoo to, the word may, cumcision, ILB being the origino.l token of the perha1,• u.orti probe.Uy, be understood in its covenant, and the Jew's rite of initiation into proper !ffmBe of pwmde:ri'llfl U1flIJles, meaning b.i.s whi)le privileged position (Gen. xvii,), «lit. n.1-29.J TUE EPISTLE OF PAtl'L TO THE ROMANS.