#59. Romans 2:21-23 – The Effect

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

You, then, who are teaching another, you are not teaching yourself!

We have now read of the problem – the Jew, resting on law, and being instructed out of law, who should be boasting in God, knowing the will, and testing what things are of consequence, instead has confidence in themselves, teaching without understanding of the material they worship.

The previous three verses are all setup for these verses. We see this in the conjunction “then,” oun in Greek. The term is found forty-eight times in Romans. Every time it is found, it acts as a logical conclusion following the prior verse. This will be extremely helpful information, because it continually serves as the bridge between major thoughts in each passage.

As with most other considerations in this chapter, we would be foolish to take this verse out of its context and apply it elsewhere. It is the religious individual, who is inundated by the law – and the law alone – who effectually acts the way Paul describes, here. This one has heard the law – they have it. But because of sin working in them, they cannot do it. Every single person has already shown their failure to do the law, because of their underlying disposition against the only One Who lives by it.

It may be argued that Paul is making this up – that he is assuming about an entire people. This could not be further from the truth. Paul is an ex-Pharisee – one who is knowledgeable in the law. He is, truthfully, the most reliable source on this matter (Rom. 7:7-25.) That the world’s knowledge has grown over time does not change Paul’s conclusion, but rather reinforces it. Moreover, recall that Romans’ argument is pre-supposed. The underlying foundation for Rom. 1:18-3:20 is proven in the Old Testament, from the moment mankind receives the law through the Jewish history. This pattern has not magically changed, for all are still stuck in these dying, fleshy bodies.

There are five points in particular which Paul calls out from the Jew. He must begin, first and foremost, with teaching. Teaching is the foundation of any conduct (Rom. 6:17.) One walks under the code they live by, and, if they break that code, they may be considered “lawless” by their own measure. And, in the case of the Jew, their primary “code of conduct” is the law itself. To teach from it (as in, to treat it as your foundation on which the rest of the scriptures) is to profess yourself under it. Your life is grounded by this law.

This would be a great thing, if not for the fact that those under law teach others – yet cannot teach themselves. This is because it is easy to teach. It is much harder to live by what you preach. With their words, they speak! Yet their words are wind; they must be backed up by proper action. And it is because they fail to teach themselves that the following four points can be expounded upon.

who are heralding not to be stealing, you are stealing!

Paul begins highlighting the hypocrisy of their actions by exposing their lack of love toward their neighbors, fellow men, and God. One of the immediate examples of this occurred through the nation’s first conquered city – Jericho. Upon taking the land, Israel was ordered not to plunder it (Josh. 6:18.) Of course, this did not go as planned. One named Achar took some of the doomed goods – thus stealing from the One Who had taught them not to steal!

who are saying not to be committing adultery, you are committing adultery!

The point of progression is disturbing, in my opinion. We have gone from “theft” – which is not only extraordinarily disrespectful, plain and simple, but can be devastating to the livelihood of another – to one of the most intimate crimes in human history – the degradation of the marriage bed.

This, for me, is a personal one. I have tried my hardest to keep personal opinion out of this study, and stick to logic and facts, but of course, I’m only human. That said, I don’t believe it’s much of a controversy for my audience if I say that adultery disgusts me. It was the cause of some of the roughest memories of my teenage years, and the action ripped my family apart.

Adultery is mentioned three times by Paul – twice in this verse. It is an abhorrence, indeed. The first “relationship” God crafted among men was not a father and son, or brother and sister, but that of a man and his wife. In doing this, he established the woman as the complement of her man – the one that completes him, and helps him, for he needs it. The man, in turn, is the complement of the woman – the one that completes her, and fills her, for she needs it.

Adultery takes this relationship – arguably the most intimate relation that a man can have with a woman – and spits on it. In my opinion, it is a crime of the highest order that adultery is not treated with the vitriol that stealing and murder are given in the “free land” today. We have grown dismissive of our opposites, having forgotten the proper place and humility we should have toward each other. It is a sad state of affairs for men and women to treat marriage as an option, or a self-serving goal, instead of the humbling lesson it should be. Many of us marry those who consider us optional – or those who treat marriage itself as a business model. Any attempt to marry on uncertain grounds will have uncertain consequences. For a marriage to succeed in such questionable circumstances are typically exceptions which prove the rule.

Scarier still is the prospect that some men and women like the idea of adultery – in a communal sense, giving themselves to others in non-committal fashion, on the grounds that “the situation works.” While such a concept is not strictly “prohibited” by the Bible, scripture fully demonstrates the fault in such a mindset, and the naturalistic reactions that this will have.

This, for me, is not the time or the place to discuss this topic in depth. I believe that this would be better reserved for a later study in 1 Corinthians 7, and re-evaluated in Ephesians 5. For now, let us appreciate the expert progression Paul makes – first, the hypocrisy of their teaching (very much in line with the beginning of the chapter,) then its effect on the general public, and finally, its effect on the most intimate aspect of mankind – the relationship between man and woman.

who are abominating idols, you are despoiling the sanctuary!

Yet even the effects on the general public – even that of man’s significant other – do not compare to the irreverence toward God. Though the Jew claims detest manmade carvings and idols, they cannot help but despoil the sanctuary.

The severity of this cannot be understated – at the time of Paul’s writing (and with every major world power prior to it,) the world’s most powerful cultures would spend excess gold revering their specific god in sacrifices and libations. These sanctuaries became storehouses of wealth for the city – yet, because of the fearful wrath of the gods, taking from these gods was forbidden. This played such a heavy role in mankind’s economies that Plutarch, in his writing Life of Numa, wrote (paraphrasing,) that “An Athenian once, having undertaken to write down and arrange the traditional sacrifices of the city, found them so numerous and so costly that he declared they would ruin the state if all were performed.”

With all of this said, it can be expected that many would inevitably despoil these sanctuaries anyway. It was common for warring nations to loot the sanctuaries of their enemies as a sign that the victors’ gods were superior. But Yahweh, of course, does not operate under the same premise. To Him, the gold in the nations’ sanctuaries are an abhorrence, and marked it as doomed. To Him, there was no reason to desire something that was doomed, and warned the Jew not to take the gold for themselves, lest they suffer the same fate (Deut. 7:25-26.)

True to His word, almost none of the sanctuaries contain the same material wealth that they once held. Some have sat, rusting away for us to theorize about their past value – nothing more. Most have been destroyed. Their transient place in history clearly exemplifies their depreciating value. For a Jew to steal from some sanctuary, then, was not only a practical folly, as the practice has proven itself vain, but also an affront to the Deity the Jew claimed to love and adore!

who are boasting in a law, through the transgression of the law you are dishonoring God!

The hypocrisy of the Jewish nation reaches its zenith here. They do not, in truth “boast in God,” but boast in a law. They say, “Oh man, I’m not murdering!” and think themselves tall. Yet while they do not murder, they cannot stop the sinful desire to do so – or to steal, or to cheat, or to covet. This internal warfare often cannot be helped. While we may not actively commit a law, we do transgress the whole law by falling short of some other precept (James 2:10, Gal. 5:3.)

The term “transgress” is parabasis, or “BESIDE-STEPPing,” in Greek. The term is distinct from “sinning” and “offending.” To “transgress” is a judicial term, whereas “sinning” deals with man missing the mark of righteousness, and “offending” deals with the feelings of a hurt party. While these three terms are often connected in the scriptures, they are not interchangeable. To use one in place of another may very well obscure the entire verse, its theme, and its aim. “Offending” cannot be used here, for example, because the law itself does not have feelings. “Sinning” cannot be used here, either, for “sin” is not confined to a specific transgression (Rom. 5:14.) The Jew transgresses, “steps around” the law. It is an intentional direction in their walk, and their conscience, as with the gentile, has documented each transgression for recompense on Judgment Day.

This is the fifth time we have seen the element “VALUE,” here in the term “dishonor.” At this point, the humbled Jew would recognize their failure to attain to the law. They must intuitively recognize that they, too, are included in Paul’s argument from Rom. 1:18-32. The dishonor that they are subjected to in 1:24 and 1:26 is projected onto God. Their true feelings toward God are brought to light – not in their words, but in their actions. In their rejection of their Messiah. In their murder of their Messiah, under the pretense of lawful execution.

*   *   *

I said at the beginning of Rom. 2:17 that the Jew is a religious distinction – a “denomination.” They are representative of the piety that invades mankind today. Religion has infested the hearts of the many, and serves as a “safe space” for man’s pride. They are not entreated to read from a proper translation, keep a pattern of sound words, and employ logic – but to read from any translation that appeals to them, alter words wherever convenient for their specific denomination’s creeds and doctrines, and succumb to fervent bouts of emotion and haughty reasoning.

The Christian today heralds not to steal – and yet, undoubtedly, steals. This is true of our Zionist government, and true of our local churches, who request donations on tax-free lots.

The Christian today heralds not to commit adultery – and yet the modern dating scene is in greater disarray than at any other point in history, full of non-committal one-night stands and brief lust-filled nights of passion (and don’t even get me started on porn.)

The Christian today abominates idols – and yet they worship a fake plastic Jesus. The one God has not, as of yet, threatened us in this treatise from Paul. He has not demanded eternal torment. He has not offered to “respect” our shitty decisions. He has not called Himself His own Son. All of these theories are not yet proven, and in fact more evidence to the contrary has already been presented to us. God has, in fact, delineated between Himself and His Son (Rom. 1:1, 3, 7.) He has explicitly said He is impartial to our whims and feelings in this flesh, and that our judgment is not contingent upon them (Rom. 2:10.) He has expressed that He is in control of our shitty decisions (Rom. 1:22, 24, 26, 28.) He has proposed a certain death upon us – not eternal damnation or burning – as a logical effect of the disqualified minds we have been subjected to (Rom. 1:32.)

This is the simple reality of the religious crowd – they dishonor God, for all of the aforementioned reasons in Romans 1:18-32. And, by evading this point and doubling down, they imitate the ignorance which has pervaded His chosen nation for thousands of years, now. Their failure, both to acknowledge God’s word, and His authority over every matter, demonstrates a lack of recognizing Him as God, and proponents of vain reasoning. These folk should know the truth, and yet actively neglect it when the verses are expressed.

To them, this neglect is perceived as “withstanding opposition,” and perpetuates their shining beacons of hope for righteous conduct in these dying frames, while firmly believing that disregarding the majority of humanity is a righteous disposition toward them. They believe that, by creating a “thought for thought” ideology, as opposed to a “word for word” ideology, that they are more fully encapsulating what they believe is true. Yet in truth, per the facts in our word for word study, this neglect highlights their especial need, above all else, for the true evangel which Paul will provide in Romans 3:21-26. They are some of the foremost sinners, and need salvation and belief as much as any other.

- GerudoKing