Lange Commentary - Romans 2:17 - 2:24

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Romans 2:17 - 2:24


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Fourth Section.—The aggravated corruption of the Jew in his false zeal for the law (a side-piece to the corruption of the Gentile in his idolatrous worship of symbols). The fanatical and wicked method of the Jews in administering the law with legal pride, and in corrupting it by false application and treachery—an occasion for the blasphemy of God’s name among the Gentiles.

Rom_2:17-24

17Behold, [But if] thou art called [named, denominated, ἐðïíïìÜæῃ ] a Jew, and restest in [upon] the law, and makest thy boast of God [boastest in God], 18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent [provest, or, discernest the things that differ], being instructed out of the law; 19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which 20[those who] are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast [having] the form [the representation, model, pattern, ôὴí ìüñöùóéí ] of knowledge and of the truth in the law. [,—] 21Thou therefore which [Thou, then, who] teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege [literally, robbery of temples]? 23Thou that makest thy boast of [in] the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? [through the transgression of the law thou dishonourest God.] “24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,” as it is written [Isa_52:5; Eze_36:20].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The connection with the foregoing is explained by Tholuck [p. 110] thus: “The Jew was already humbled by the proof that the Gentile was also in possession of the law. But it is further charged upon him that his possession of the law has become a dishonor to Him who gave it to him.” We have seen already that the connection consists in a sharp antithesis: a Gentile who is a Jew at heart; a Jew who, according to the spirit of the law, is the most wanton Gentile. [Estius justly calls the following apostrophe, “oratio splendida ac vehemens.”]

Rom_2:17. But if thou art named a Jew. There seems to be an anacoluthon in the following verses, which it was probably intended to remove by the reading ἰäÝ . Tholuck: “The apodosis appears to be wanting to the protasis, Rom_2:17-20.” But we may explain without an anacoluthon (Meyer): “But if thou art called a Jew, &c. thou therefore ( ïὖí , Rom_2:21, in consequence of what has been said, who teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” We would find an easier solution, if we could read the verbs ἐðïíïìÜæῃ and ἐðáíáðáýῃ as conjunctives for the formation of a hypothetical protasis; the following indicatives would then constitute the apodosis. But the ἄí is wanting to the åἰ . [See Textual Note1.]—Named. Jew was the designation of the Hebrew according to his religion; therefore the theocratic name of honor, which is also contained in the etymology of the word itself. ἘðïíïìÜæ ῃ is translated cognominaris by the Vulgate and Bengel. [Wordsworth: ἐð — ïíïìÜæῃ , thou hast a title in addition to ( ἐðß ) that which other men possess.—P. S.] But the compound verb is also used in the sense of the Simple ὀíïìÜæåéí , and the name ̓ Éïõäáῖïò was not a surname, although it might become a surname for the false Jew. Tholuck [Meyer, Philippi, Hodge; comp. LXX. Gen_4:17; Gen_4:25-26, and the classical quotations of Meyer in loc.—P. S.].—And restest. Intimation of Jewish pride. Strictly: Thou liest on it for rest. Thus the Jew abused his privilege; Psa_147:19-20.—Israel perverted into a false trust its ideal destination for the nations, according to Isa_42:6-7, and other passages; and it so caricatured the single elements (which are designated in the following verses) of this destination, that the most glaring moral contradiction took place in its character.—Thou makest thy boast in God, as thy [exclusive] guardian God; Isa_45:25; Jer_31:33. [To boast or glory in God, or in Christ (Gal_6:14), is right, if it proceeds from a sense of our weakness and unworthiness, and a corresponding sense of the goodness of God, as our sure refuge and strength; but it is wrong if it arises from religious bigotry and conceit, which would monopolize the favor of God to the exclusion of others. Calvin: “Hœc igitur non cordis gloriatio, sed linguœ jactantia fuit.” The false Jewish boasting in God amounted to a boasting in the flesh, against which we are warned, Gal_6:13; 2Co_10:15; Php_3:3. Ἰïõäáῑïò ἐðáíïìÜæῃ — ÷áὶ ἐðáíáðáýóῂ íüìῳ — ÷áὶ ÷áõ÷ᾶóáé ἐí èåῷ , form a rising climax.—P. S.]

Rom_2:18. And knowest his will [ ôὸ èÝëçìá is emphatic.—P. S.] That is, His will as the inward part of the law; Eph_3:18, &c.; or rather, the absolute will which has become manifest in the law.—And discernest the things that differ [ äï÷éìÜæåéò ôὰ äéáöÝñïíôá ]. Three explanations of this expression: 1. The difference between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, &c., Tholuck, Philippi, and others); 2. what is at variance with the will of God, sinful (Clericus, Glöckler); 3. thou-approvest the excellent (Vulgate: probas utiliora, Bengel, Meyer [Hodge]). According to the meaning of äéáöÝñåéí (to be prominent; to be distinguished; to excel), and äéáöÝñïíôá (the distinctions; the excellent), these different explanations are equally allowable; and the connection must therefore determine which is the best one. But the explanation: thou approvest the excellent, is not strong enough; although Meyer sees in it the completion of a climax. The Jew was, as ôָּøåּùׁ , the distinguishing, the sharply deciding between what was allowed and disallowed; he was skilled in the äéÜ÷ñéóéò ÷áëïῦ ôå ÷áὶ ÷á÷ïῦ , Heb_5:14; the äéáóôïëὴ ἁãßùí ÷áß âåâÞëùí [a term frequently used by Philo]. This explanation passes over into a fourth: ôὰ äéáöÝñïíôá , the controversies (De Dieu, Wolf).—Being instructed. After his fashion he lives in the law, ÷áôç×ïýìåíïò , not ÷áôç×çèåßò . [Being instructed, not only catechetically in youth, but didactically and continually by the reading and exposition of the Scriptures in the synagogue on the Sabbath day.—P. S.]

Rom_2:19. And art confident. He should be every thing that follows, according to Old Testament intimations; see Isa_42:6-7, and other passages. So much less is there a reason why Reiche should find here reminiscences from the Gospels (Mat_15:14; Luk_20:32). The corruption of Judaism consisted throughout in perverting the Old Testament attributes of the people, and of its future, into the literal and the carnal. From this arose also its proselytism (Mat_23:15), which is here described.—Guide of the blind. The Jew called the Gentiles blind; ó÷üôïò , in Isa_60:2, means, therefore, the Gentiles; and öῶò åἰò ἀðï÷Üëõøéí ἐèíῶí , in Isa_49:6, means the Jews; íÞðéïé , the proselytes (see Tholuck).

Rom_2:20. Form (pattern) of knowledge. ìüñöùóéò —classically, ìüñöùìá ; Hesychius: á÷çìáôéóìüò . [In the New Testament it occurs only once more—2Ti_2:5—where it is opposed to äýíáìéò , and means the mere outward form or appearance. Here, on the contrary, it is the real representation or expression, exemplar, effigies Grotius: forma quœ rem exprimit.—P. S.] According to Meyer, the doctrines and commandments of the law itself are the form of knowledge and truth. We are nearer right when we remember the didactic impression of the Old Testament revelation of the law in the rabbinical tradition from which the Talmud subsequently arose; for the Apostle speaks of a ìüñöùóéò ôῆò ãíþóåùò , which should be indirectly ìüñö . ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò ἐí ôῷ íüìῳ . Œcumenius and Olshausen, without cause, think of the typical character of the Old Testament; others (with Theophylact) of the mere phantom of truth. The question is concerning an object of which the Jew boasts. His ìüñöùóéò . is indeed the gloomy antitype of the personal incarnation of the truth in Christ, as in Sir_24:25 (23) we read of the óïößá becoming a book in the Thora. All these are now the characteristics of the Jew’s pretensions. There now follow the proofs of the contradiction in which he stands to himself.

Ver 21. Thou, then, that teachest another. [The virtual apodosis of Rom_2:17. The several clauses are more lively and forcible if read interrogatively, so as to challenge the Jew to deny the charge, if he dare.—P. S.] The analogy of the following charges to the Apostle’s judgment on the Gentiles lies herein: the Jews, by their pride of the law and by their legal orthodoxy, were led into the way of ruin, just as, the Gentiles had been by their intellectual conceit indulging in symbols and myths. The first charge is general: Teachest thou not thyself? Psa_50:16. After this, three specific charges follow in strong gradation. Meyer: “The following infinitives [ ìὴ ÷ëÝðôåéí , ìὴ ìïé÷åýåéí ] do not include in themselves the idea of äåῖí or ἐîåῖíáé , but are explained by the idea of command which is implied in the finite verbs” [viz., ÷ëÝðôåéò , The verba jubendi here are ÷çñýóóùí and ëÝãùí .—P. S.] In the charge of stealing, there was undoubtedly special reference to the passionate and treacherous method of transacting business adopted by the Jews (Jam_4:2-13); in the charge of adultery, to the, loose practice or divorces (Mat_19:8-9; Jam_4:4).—[ Ìïé÷åýåéò . The Talmud charges adultery upon some of the most celebrated Rabbins, as Akiba, Meir, Eleasar.—P. S.] The strongest charge is the third:

Rom_2:22. Thou that abhorrest idols, &c. Âäåëýóóïìáé , from âäåëýóóù , to excite disgust by a loathsome odor. In the religious sense, to abhor. The Jew called the idols âäåëýãìáôá (1Ma_6:7; 2Ki_23:13, úּåֹòֵëåֹú ). Explanations: 1. By plundering the temples of idols (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others; Meyer, Philippi [Alford, Conybeare and Howson] ). Tholuck: “The law, in Deu_7:25, forbids the appropriation of the gold and silver ornaments of the images of gods; and in the paraphrase of this prohibition in Josephus (Antiq. iv. 8, 10), express reference is made to the robbing of heathen temples. Act_19:36-37, shows that the Jews had the name of committing such an offence. [The objection to this view is” that the Jew, attaching no sacredness to the temples of idols, regarded the despoiling of heathen temples as no sacrilege, but simply as robbery, which might be justified under certain circumstances.—P. S.]. 2. ἱñïóõëåῖí in the figurative sense: profanatio majestatis divinœ (Calvin, Luther, Bengel, Köllner). 3. Embezzlement of taxes [tithes and offerings] for their own temple (Pelagius, Grotius [Ewald, Wordsworth, and others; comp. Mal_1:8; Mal_1:12; Mal_1:14; Mal_3:8-10]). To the charge of robbing heathen temples, the idea of pollution—which this robbery carries with it—may also be added, as is done by Meyer. But it seems strange that the Apostle should have established, on isolated occurrences of such robbery, so general and fearful a charge. As in the charges: “Thou stealest, thou committest adultery,” he had not merely in mind occasional great transgressions, but also the universal exhibitions of Jewish avarice and concupiscence, so we must also here accept a more general and spiritual significance of his accusation. We must indeed suppose here transgressions that were an occasion of offence to the Gentiles; and Luther goes much too far in spiritualizing the charge: “Thou art a robber of God; for it is God’s honor that all those who rely on good works would take from Him.” But the worst outrage on the temple, according to Joh_2:19, consisted in the crucifixion of Christ (comp. Jam_5:6). It was therefore as a sign of judgment that the temple in Jerusalem itself was desecrated by the Jews in every possible way before its destruction. In a wider sense, the transgression of the Jews consisted in their causing, by their, fanaticism, not only the downfall of the temple, but in frivolously abusing and insulting the sanctuaries of Gentiles, and, where occasion offered, in converting their treasures into spoils and articles of commerce.

Rom_2:23. Thou that makest thy boast in the law. Since this judgment is the result of the foregoing question, Meyer has good reason for reading this verse not as a question, but as a categorical impeachment. This is supported by the ãÜñ in Rom_2:24.

Rom_2:24. For the name of God. That is, the Gentiles judged the religion of the Jews by the scandalous conduct of the Jews themselves, and thus were led to blaspheme their God, Jehovah. The Jews boasted of the law (which, Bar_4:3, is termed ἡ äüîá ôïῦ ̓ Éá÷þâ ), and reflected disgrace on the lawgiver. For the Jews, the Apostle here seals again his declaration, by concluding with a quotation from the Old Testament—Isa_52:5 : “My name continually every day is blasphemed” [in the Septuagint: äἰ ὑìᾶò äéáðáíôὸò ôὸ ὄíïìÜ ìïõ âëáóöçìåῖôáé ἐí ôïῖò ἔèíåóé ]. Comp. Eze_36:23 : “I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them.”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Apostle now passes over from his indirect representation of the corruption in Judaism, which he had given from a general point of view, Rom_2:10-16, to paint its life-picture from experience. In Rom_3:10-19, he proves that the Old Testament had already testified to the corruption of the Jewish people. But this, description of the actual corruption must be distinguished from the sketch of the original transgression, Rom_5:12 ff., and from the development in part of the judgment of hard-heartedness, chaps. 9 and 10.

2. The description of the corruption in Judaism presents only legalistic features, as the account of Gentile corruption presents Antinomian features. In the former case, the disfiguration of religion proceeded from legal conceit, while in the latter it arose from the conceit of wisdom; the root of pride is therefore common to both lines of corruption. The self-contradiction of the Gentiles was developed thus: he, the pretended wise man, becomes a fool by disfiguring his symbolical religion of nature; with all his self-glory, he becomes a worshipper of the creature, and loses the dignity of his human body; with all his deification of nature, he sinks thereby into abominable unnaturalness; with all his efforts for vigor of life and enthusiasm, he sinks more and more into the degradation of wicked characters; and finally, with all his better knowledge, he ornaments and varnishes sin theoretically and æsthetically. The self-contradiction of the Jew, on the other hand, developed itself thus: he, the pretended teacher of the nations, becomes an Antinomian blasphemer, by the perversion of his religion of revelation and law, while he teaches others, and not himself, and, by a succession of transgressions of the law, goes so far as to profane sacred things, by abusing and robbing the temples (see Mat_21:13). To the profanation of the temple was added that of the high-priesthood, which reached its climax in Caiaphas. Likewise the ministry of the Jew was thoroughly profaned by proselytism and falsification of the law, and his religiousness was converted into a cloak for hypocrisy.

3. The fanatic grows ever more profane by the consistency of his course of conduct—a despiser of the substantial possessions of religion. Church history furnishes numerous examples, how fanatics of the churchly as well as unchurchly type become at last, out of pretended saints, profaners and robbers of the temple.

4. Priests and preachers have certainly corrupted religion as often as philosophers have corrupted wisdom, politicians the State, jurists the law, &c.

5. The dogmatic and legalistic spirit of the Middle Ages, too, which, in a better form, was really a “teacher of the blind,” has finally gone so far as to present the greatest variety of religious and moral hindrances to modern Gentiles. It is not without serious significance, therefore, that the Epistle to the Romans contains this very section.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The false zeal for the law practised by the Jews as occasion for blaspheming the name of God by the Gentiles: so far as, 1. such false zeal knows God’s will; but, 2. wantonly transgresses it (Rom_2:17-24).—The mere name of Christianity goes no further than the name of Judaism (Rom_2:17-24).—Do not depend upon your orthodoxy, if you do not act right by faith (Rom_2:17-24).—Notwithstanding brilliant knowledge, one is a bad teacher if he does not do what he knows (Rom_2:17-24).—Blasphemy of the name of God (Rom_2:24).—God’s name has already been often blasphemed among the heathen (and Mohammedans) because of Christians. Proof: 1. From the outrages of persons professing Christianity in the Middle Ages (Charlemagne, and the Saxons, the Brethren of the Sword, the Spaniards in America, &c.); 2. from the abuses in trade in the present time (the slave trade, opium trade, sandal-wood trade).

Starke: When one does any thing which has ever so good appearance, it is sin if it does not come from faith (Rom_2:18).—Theological learning is by no means enough for a teacher, when he is not taught in the school of the Holy Spirit (Rom_2:20).—That teacher cannot be an example of good works who can only say of himself: “Judge according to my words, and not according to my deeds” (Rom_2:21).—Boasting and vain-glory—the manner, alas, of many Christians! (Rom_2:23.)—Cramer: The titles and names of honor that we may possess should be to us a continual reminder to conduct ourselves in harmony with such titles (Rom_2:17).—Nova Bibl. Tub.: Oh, how many external privileges a soul can have! Communion in the true Church, knowledge of God and His word, of His will and His works, the best instruction, a skilful sense of the difference between good and evil; and yet, in spite of all this, it can be at fault, and quite removed from the inner fellowship with God (Rom_2:17).—Look, teacher! You must commence with yourself; you must, first be your own teacher, guide, and chastiser; first preach to your own self, first break your own will, and perform what you preach. But to desire to guide, discipline, and control others, and yet steal and commit adultery yourself, &c.—that will enter in judgment against you. Oh, how great is this corruption! (Rom_2:20.)—Quesnel: Oh, how rare a thing it is to be learned without being proud! (Rom_2:19).

Heubner: There is a false and a true boasting on the part of a believer in revelation. He does it falsely when he imagines, 1. that he thereby makes himself more acceptable to God; 2. that merely having and knowing are sufficient, without practice; 3. when, at the same time, he despises others. He boasts properly when, 1. he gives God all the glory; 2. makes use of the revealed truth; 3. does not despise others (Rom_2:17).—It is a great grace when God gives a tender conscience (Rom_2:18).—To know the right, is in the power of every Christian; and sin does not consist in ignorance or misunderstanding, but has its root in the will (Rom_2:19).—Melancholy contradiction between knowledge and deeds (Rom_2:21-23).—The honor of Christianity is dependent upon us.—A holy life is the final vindication of faith (Rom_2:24).

Besser: Legalists, who would be righteous by their works, deprive the law of its spiritual clearness (Rom_2:17).

Lange: The internal self-contradiction between knowledge and disposition extends to external life: 1. As self-contradiction between word and deed; 2. between the vocation and the discharge of it; 3. between destination to the welfare of the world, and degeneration, on the contrary, to the misery of the world.—The teacher of the law in olden times, and the (religious) teacher of the law in recent days—the offence of modern Gentiles.

[Burkitt: Rom_2:17-20. Learn: 1. That persons are very prone to be proud of church privileges, glorying in the letter of the law, but not conformed to its spirituality either in heart or life; and 2. that gifts, duties and supposed graces, are the stay and staff which hypocrites lean on. The duties which Christ has appointed, are the trust and rest of the hypocrite; but Christ Himself is the trust and rest of the upright.

Rom_2:21-24. 1. It is much easier to instruct and teach others, than to be instructed ourselves; 2. it is both sinful and shameful to teach others the right way, and to go in the wrong ourselves. While this is a double fault in a private person, it is inexcusable in the teacher; 3. the name of God suffers by none so much as by those who preach and press the duties of Christianity upon others, but do not practise them themselves. The sins of teachers are teaching sins. Lord, let all that administer unto Thee in holy things consider that they have not only their own sins to account for, but also the sins of their people, if committed by their profligate example.—Matthew Henry: The greatest obstructors of the success of the Word, are those whose bad lives contradict their good doctrine; who in the pulpit preach so well, that it is a pity they should ever come out; and out of the pulpit live so ill, that it is a pity they should ever come in.—Doddridge: We pity the Gentiles, and we have reason to do it; for they are lamentably blind and dissolute: but let us take heed lest those appearances of virtue which are to be found among some of them condemn us, who, with the letter of the law and the gospel, and with the solemn tokens of a covenant relation to God, transgress His precepts, and violate our engagements to Him, so turning the means of goodness and happiness into the occasion of more aggravated guilt and misery.—Clarke: Rom_2:17. It is the highest honor to be called to know God’s name, and be employed in His service.—Hodge (condensed): The sins of the professing people of God are peculiarly offensive to Him, and injurious to our fellow-men.—The sins and refuges of men are alike in all ages.—Were it ever so certain that the church to which we belong is the true, apostolic, universal Church, it remains no less certain, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.—Barnes: It matters little what a man’s speculative opinions may be; his practice may do far more to disgrace religion, than his profession does to honor it.—J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

Rom_2:17.—[Instead of the text. rec., ἰäÝ , behold, which is not sufficiently sustained, read åἰäÝ , but if, with à . A. B. D*. K., Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bloomfield, Alford, and nearly all the recent commentators. The reading ἰäÝ is either a mistake, or a change for the purpose of avoiding the anacoluthon, which, however, is more apparent than real. The apodosis must he supplied (why dost thou not act accordingly, or, how great is thy responsibility), or it may be found in Rom_2:21, by simply omitting the ïὖí , which is often epanaleptic, resuming the thread of the sentence. So Meyer, who regards Rom_2:17-28 as the protasis, and 21, 22 as the apodosis.—P. S.]

Rom_2:17.—[ ἐðáíáðáýῃ íüìῳ , without the article, à . A. B.D1.The later MSS. and the text. rec. insert ôῳ before íüìῳ , because it here clearly applies to the written law of Moses as representing the whole Mosaic system, the civil and religious polity of the Jews. íüìïò has here as in Rom_2:14 the force of a proper name. Alford: “The article is omitted, because ‘the law’ is not here distributed—it is not the law itself in its entirety which is meant, but the fact of having or of knowing the law:—the strict way of expressing it would perhaps be, ‘in the fact of possessing a law,’ which, condensed into our less accurate English, would be in one word, in the law: viz., ‘which thou possessest.”—P. S.]

Rom_2:18.—[On the different interpretations of äïêéìÜæåéò ôὰ äéöåÜñïíôá , see the Exeg. Notes. Lange (with Tholuck, Fritzsche, Reiche, Rückert, Philippi, Alford) translates: Du beurtheilest die widerstreitenden Dinge. Tholuck: Du piüfst das Unterschiedene. Tyndale: Hast experience of good and bad. Conybeare and Howson: Givest judgment upon good or evil. Robert Young, too literally: Dost approve the distinctions. But the versions of Cranmer, Geneva, James, Rheims, and Am. Bible Union agree substantially with the Latin Vulg.: Probas utiliora. So also Meyer, who translates: Du billigst das Vorzügliche. Wordsworth: Thou discernest the things that are more excellent. The same phrase occurs, Php_1:10, where the E. V. renders it in the same way. Grammatically, both interpretations are correct, and hence the connection must decide. äïêéìÜæåéí means first to examine, to try. to prove (1Co_3:13; 1Pe_1:7); and then, as the result of examination and trial, to discern, to distinguish, and to approve (1Co_16:3; Rom_14:22). äéáöÝñåéí is: (1) To differ; (2) to differ to advantage, to excel. Hence ôὰ äéáöÝñïíôá : (1) The difference between right and wrong, good and bad; (2) the excellent things, utilia.—P. S.]

Rom_2:22.—[Alford translates: Thou who abhorrest idols, dost thou rob their temples To maintain the contrast, he refers (with Chrysostom, Meyer, Tholuck, and others) ἱåñïóõëåῖò to the robbing of idol temples ( åἴäùëá ); but this was no sacrilege in the eyes of the Jew; and hence others refer it to the temple of God in Jerusalem. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

Rom_2:23.—[Lange and Meyer take this verse as a categorical charge, resulting from the preceding questions which the Jew could not deny. This view is supported by the following ãÜñ . ðáñÜâáóéò , in the six other passages of the N. T. where it occurs, is uniformly translated transgression in the E. V.—P. S.]

[ éְäåּãָä is the verbal noun from the future hophal of éָãָä , to praise, and means praised, sc. Jah, God (Gottlob); see Fürst, Dict., sub éָäּ , vol. 1:491; Gen_29:35 (where Leah, after the birth of Judah, says: “Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah”); Gen_49:8; Rev_2:9. To be a Jew in this proper sense was to belong to the covenant people of God selected for His praise.—P. S.]

[ Êáõ÷ᾶóáé (also in 1Co_4:7), like êáôáêáõ÷ᾶóáé , Rom_11:18, äýíáóáé (for äýíç ). Mat_5:36, ὀäõíᾶóáé , Luk_16:25, is the original uncontracted form for êáí÷ᾷ . in use with the poets and later prose-writers, see Winer, Gram., p. 73, 7th ed. The ἐí signifies the sphere in which the boasting moves, or the object of boasting, as ÷áßñåéí ἐí .—P. S.]

[So does Hodge: “To approve of what is right, is a higher attainment than merely to discriminate between good and evil.” But there is a difference between an instinctive and an intelligent approval of what is right. The latter is the result of reflection and discrimination, resting on superior knowledge, which was the peculiar advantage of the Jew having the touchstone of the written law and the continual instruction of the Scriptures. What immediately follows agrees better with the interpretation of Lange. Comp. Textual Note3.—P. S.]

[ ôָּøַùׁ , to distinguish, clearly to discern, also to separate. From this the term Pharisee Perishin, the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Parushim, “separated”) is derived.—P. S.]

[So Hodge: “The essence of idolatry was profanation of God; of this the Jews were in a high degree guilty. They had made His house a den of thieves.”—P. S.]