Practice Fails to Show Perfect
RO16-01

The Unsaved Person

The Jew

He considered himself a guide to those who were spiritually blind. He considered himself a source of divine viewpoint light to those who were in human viewpoint darkness. He was a corrector of those who were spiritually foolish. He knew when somebody was spiritually out of line, and felt fully qualified to correct them. He was, as a matter of fact, in his eyes, a teacher of the spiritually immature. He was finally the very embodiment of divine viewpoint knowledge – the embodiment of Bible knowledge, and of God's truth. He was the epitome of understanding concerning what God thought and what pleased God.

All of these things, one by one, had been listed in this long sentence in verses 17-20. And all of these things in a certain degree were true. This is how the Jew did look at himself, and he did have a certain area of qualification for these things which he claimed.

With this long conditional part of the sentence established, you can see that the religious, unbelieving Jew was a very confident person. At the end of verse 20, you will notice in your English translation that there is just a dash. This is the translator's way of trying to convey something that's in the Greek grammar, which is that Paul has been writing along this line, and suddenly he makes a very dramatic shift. Grammatically, in Greek grammar, this is called an anacoluthon, which means that he stops one grammatical form, which here was the conditional sentence, and he just starts all over again. That's a dramatic way, and an emphatic way, of pointing out something that he wants to say.

So, the translators try to convey that just by showing you a dash, and the sentence just ends up hanging in the air, and what should follow normally to finish the conditional sentence doesn't follow. But, in effect, from verses 21-24, we do have the conclusion of the conditional sentence, but not in its normal sense. It does make it stand out, however, by doing it this way. Paul is going to build something now upon all these things that are really true about the Jew.

So, he proceeds to show, beginning at verse 21, that the religious Jew violates the very expression of divine righteousness which he indeed possessed in the Mosaic Law. The Jew, who had all these qualities in some degree true about himself that have been listed, nevertheless, he failed in salvation. He still did not gain eternal life through these things. So, what the religious unbeliever takes pride in (the thing he is trusting in for salvation) is mere religion, and it's unacceptable to God.

Legalism

So, we pick it up at verse 21, where Paul says, "You, therefore, who teaches another." The word, "therefore," is the Greek word "oun." It introduces the result of the facts that have been listed for us in verses 17-20. On the basis of this, Paul, with this word, begins the conclusion. It isn't the normal way to begin the second part of a conditional sentence, but he begins it this way, and calls thereby special attention to what he's going to say.

"Who teaches." It's the Greek word "didasko." "Didasko" refers to the religious Jew as an instructor of the information that was contained in the Mosaic Law. He was that. He did explain to people what the Mosaic Law had to teach. It is present tense, which indicates that he was constantly ready to give you information about what was in the Law. It is active because he himself was the teacher. It is a participle, which indicates to us that a principle is being stated here; namely, that the religious Jew was a teacher. He was somebody who was ready to discuss God and to tell you what he believed; what he understood; and, what he was confident of concerning God.

A Teacher has Authority

Now, of course, you have heard a lot of that violated in recent years, where you have the grotesque sight of students in college classrooms who are insisting that they should have a right on what they are taught, instead of insisting that the authority lies in the teacher, and if they don't like what they're being taught, they should go someplace else, and learn what they want to learn. Turning a college over to students, or any school over to students, to have a direction of the institution is like turning an insane asylum over to the inmates. You get about the same results.

This word is making a point. "Heteros" is making a very distinct point. This is one kind of person who bears authority teaching another kind of person (a nobody) who has no authority. So, the apostle Paul is making it very clear that these teachers, religious unbelievers though they were, did a good job of exercising their authority. When they got up to teach, everybody else closed their mouths. There wasn't a lot of chit-chatting and visiting and carrying on. There was authority in that classroom. And some teachers are so rough on authority, if you're in a church service, that you're not even allowed to go out to the washroom if you need to, or throw up if you have to. We won't insist on that here, however.

So, Paul, in verse 21 says, "You, therefore, who stand in a position of authority, teaching another who has no authority." Then Paul says, "Don't you teach yourself?" Again, it's the same word: "teaches" is again "didasko." This time, however, it's a present active infinitive. It is his habitual practice of teaching. It is active. He does the teaching. It is infinitive. His purpose is teaching. Infinitive indicates purpose. And the purpose is negative. He uses the word "ou," which is the strongest Greek negative. He's asking the question: "Don't you teach yourself?" He uses the word "seautou." The religious unsaved Jew was teaching himself. In the Greek language, when you have this word "ou" in a question, it tells you what the answer should be. And the answer should be "Yes." Whenever you have "ou," the answer is "Yes." If it had "me," that would tell you that the answer is no. The Greek is beautiful. When it asks questions, it tells you what the answer should be.

So, here it asks the question, "Do you teach yourself?" And it asks in such a way that Paul is saying, "You do, don't you? You teach yourself, don't you?" That is the way we would put it in English.

So, the religious Jew would very smugly agree to this. He would say, "Yes, of course. I go home and I study the Bible. When I study the Bible, I teach myself. I go out and teach others, but I also teach myself. The same authority that I used to teach my pupils in my class is the same authority I exercise toward myself. What I know and pass to them is what I know to pass to myself too."

Paul says, "Good. You're a religious instructor. You should be positive to your own instruction. If you tell your pupils to do this, you should do this. If you tell the pupils not to do this, because it's wrong, you shouldn't do this. You teach them, and you teach yourself. That's good. That's the way it should be. And Paul is leading them into a trap. Then he begins closing the trap.

Stealing

This is something sort of like a person who is in a political campaign. He will want to say things that make him appear as being a supporter of what is right, and being against what is wrong. So, he will stand up, when somebody has been doing a lot of stealing in high office, and he will get up and make a big issue: "People should not steal." And he will make this as a public declaration. He will make a pronouncement. He will make an official statement. That will be his policy. That will reflect his position.

That's what the Jew was doing. It is present tense, which means he was constantly proclaiming this kind of honesty. It was active. The unbelieving, religious Jew himself was making this proclamation. It's participle, indicating a statement of his practice. He was constantly saying, "Don't steal." And he was making a public proclamation about that.

The word "steal" is "klepto," from which, of course, you can see we get "kleptomaniac" – a person who can't keep from stealing. The word simply means "to take what belongs to another." He says, "Don't steal." He uses the Greek word "me:" "Don't steal." It is present tense. This is never to be your practice. It is active. You should not be guilty of the personal act of thievery. It is infinitive. The purpose of this statement is to keep people from stealing.

So, he says, "You, who are standing up and preaching to people saying, 'Do not steal.'" Then he asks them a question: "Do you steal?" And again he uses the word "klepto." This could be read in the Greek Bible as a statement. It is better to understand it as a question. Paul is very subtly asking him a question. And he does it in this way:

Paul is raising an eyebrow, and he is simply saying, "Do you steal? You who stand up and you proclaim to the world, 'People should not steal.'" Paul says, "Uh, Mr. Religious Jew, may I ask you a question?" And the Jew says, "Of course, my good man?" Paul says, "Do you steal?" He's not telling him that he steals. He is just asking him the question. This is dirty-pool Paul doing his job of eating away and grinding away at the confidence of the religious Jews. Paul knew that the religious Jew was not above stealing. Paul knew that the religious Jew was only above letting other people know that he steals.

So, he asked the question, present tense: "Is it a regular practice with you to steal?" It is active voice? "Do you yourself act as a thief?" It is indicative – a statement of fact. "Is that a true statement?" Paul is asking the question, and he knows that the answer is "Yes."

We have several indications in the Bible that show us that many of the Jews were not above stealing. In Mark 12:40, we read, "Who devour widows houses, and for a pretense, make long prayers. These shall receive greater condemnation." Part of the way they devoured widows' houses was to steal from the widow – to put her in a position where they could take her property at a great loss to herself, and thus, in effect, to be stealing from someone who was in the helpless position of widowhood.

Korban

Here's a subtle way in which the Jew was stealing. Yet he was standing up and proclaiming publicly, "People shouldn't steal." The apostle Paul says, "Hey, fella, do you steal?"

One example you have, that Malachi points out to us that is very popularly known is in Malachi 3:8 (the last book of the Old Testament), where God says, "Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed me. But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings? You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house. And test Me now herewith, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

In the Old Testament, God had the system of the religious income tax. 10% was known as the tithe. God said, "You will bring this. There is no question about it. There are no exceptions. Poor or rich, you will bring this 10%." Yet, they were holding out on God. And God said, "You've been stealing from Me." And the religious unbelieving Jew said, "How could we have been stealing from you? What do you mean, God? God said, "You've been stealing from Me because you are supposed to bring me a certain amount of your money, and you have refused to do so."

I know that a lot of preachers like to use that passage and apply it to churches today. And it is a good verse. It does really move the cockles of the heart. You can see why they're tempted to try to take that passage and put the religious income tax system on believers. But that's not legitimate. However, the principle, no doubt, involved is legitimate. We, too, in the age of grace, have been entrusted. We are now the stewards of the possessions that God has in the world. God has no possessions in this world except those that are entrusted to us. If we do not bring to Him that which He has entrusted (that part that he meant for us to give to his work), we're stealing just as much as the Jews of the Old Testament did. If we do not bring our offerings, we're just as much thieves as the Jews of the Old Testament ever were. So, the spiritual principle involved there is indeed applicable.

So, you may tell your children, "I don't want you stealing. You don't take things that don't belong to you." I just hope your kids won't embarrass you by saying, "Have we been giving our offering to the Lord's work that God gave us to give to the Lord's work?" Sooner or later, some of you are going to have some smart kids who are going to ask you that. There are no children here tonight, so none of them will go home and ask you that. However, it might be embarrassing if they did. If you were not playing square with God, you might have to rise up and say, "Son, don't be invading the privacy of my priesthood. You may have to fall back on that (whatever it takes).

Well, what Paul is doing here is he's aiming at the conscience. He's aiming at the conscience of the unsaved Jew. Rather than point his finger at this fellow and saying, "You're stealing," he's asked his conscience the question. If he went point blank and said "You're a thief," this Jew would rise up like he always does, in his religious indignation, and say, "No, I'm not." In his mind, the religious person knows that he is a hypocrite on the matter of stealing. Paul just raises his eyebrow, and says, "Do you steal?" And the Jew's conscience is screaming at him, "You know you do." The religious unbeliever has been preaching that one must not steal in order to be saved. That was the point here. The religious unbelieving Jew says, "I know I am saved because I don't steal."

Paul is going to pick three of the biggest things out of the Mosaic Law. These are the biggest things about which the religious unbelieving Jews said "If you want to go to heaven, man, I'm going to tell you one thing. You do these three things for sure. One of them is that you don't steal. Yet, Paul has forced the conscience of this unbelieving Jew to admit to himself that he steals. Once he has caused him to admit that, then his confidence in his salvation is shown to be false. And that's what Paul is after.

Paul has shown that the immoral man is not going to heaven. He has shown that the moral man is not going to heaven. Now he has got to show that the religious man is not going to heaven either. He has made the first step toward this by showing that this Jew who says, "If you want to go to heaven, you don't steal" – he has now shown this Jew that he is stealing, and therefore his claim to salvation is based on the false confidence.

All systems of religion always break down in the fact that the promoters cannot live up to their own system. All systems of religion designed for salvation by man's capacity always break down, because the people who created them can't live up to their own systems. Human good is ignorantly equated with divine good. Even when they do good things, it doesn't count with God.

So, the illusion is created that man, with the old sin nature, can still somehow produce something good that God will accept for eternal life, because they don't know the difference between human good, that comes from the sin nature, and divine good, that comes from God. So, the weakness in all these religious systems is that they are based on who and what the sinner is rather than on who and what God is.

Adultery

So, the sentence really is saying, "The one who says," or literally, "The saying not-to-commit-adultery person." He addresses the unbelieving Jew as the "saying-not-to-commit-adultery person." A man should not commit adultery. The Greek word is "moicheuo." "Moicheuo" is illicit sex outside of marriage. It is present tense. It has the negative with this. You are never to do this. It's active. It is personally to be avoided. It is infinitive, which indicates that it is God's purpose that illicit sex should not be practiced by the human race. We would translate this: "You who say that one should not commit adultery."

You may be sure that the religious, unbelieving Jew was very strong on this point. This was a big point in the Jews legalistic system. He was very confident that if you wanted to go to heaven, brother, there is one thing you better not be guilty of, and that's the illicit sex. While having established this, Paul then zeros in on him with his eye raising question again. He says, "Do you commit adultery?" And he again uses the same word "moicheuo." This time it's present tense active indicative.

Some religious Jews were indeed overtly adulterous. That was evident. One of the favorite places that they did this was to sneak off down to the pagan temple. Any big city in the ancient world had its pagan temples. At the heart of the pagan worship was the worship of life through the practice of prostitution. So, the temples had their contingent of male and female prostitutes. And it was not above some of the Jews to slip off down there to the temple to practice adultery with one of the female prostitutes. That was open adultery.

However, for a larger number of the Jews, it was not overt. It was that category of adultery that is mentioned in Matthew 5:27-28, where the Lord Jesus Christ says that a mental adultery is just as bad as an overt adultery. Let's read it: "You have heard that it was said by them of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say unto you that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." Here is this religious Jew who is saying that a person goes to heaven on the basis of the fact that he does not do certain things. One of them is illicit sex. Yet, when Paul asks him whether he is guilty of this, his conscience again strikes him, for he knows that to what degree he may not be outwardly guilty of this, that very frequently he was practicing it mentally. Very frequently, he was going through his mental gymnastics and daydreams of illicit sex, about which God says, "That's adultery, even if it's an imaginative, unknown individual that is involved in your daydreams." This was a constant violation – present tense. It was active – done by the very religious person who is speaking out against adultery. It was indicative – a statement of fact about the religious unbeliever.

So, again, the religious Jew says, "You can't be saved if you're guilty of adultery." Paul has shown him very subtly that he's guilty of adultery. Therefore, Paul, again, has brought a serious blow against his claim to salvation, which is exactly what he's trying to do. Paul is saying: "You're saying that you are not guilty of this, when in fact you are. Therefore, what you are claiming is a bit of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is always at the heart of every human man-made religious system, sooner or later.

Idolatry

What did he turn from? From "eidolon." "Eidolon" means idols; that is, the image of a God. Anytime a Jew saw an image of a false God, he turned from it like he had just smelled a garbage pile ripe in the sun. It was a stench that he could not stand. There was nothing he was more fanatical about in his opposition than to idolatry.

It was easy enough to make this claim: that if you want to go to heaven, fella, there's one thing you'd better not be guilty of. It's idolatry. But even this is another thing that is human capacity to please God. This is human beings reaching certain levels; keeping certain rules; and, following certain codes in order that God will give you eternal life. It is true that the Jews had had their fill of idolatry following the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. Up to that time, you must remember that the Jews were fantastically guilty of idolatry. Finally, when God said, "I've had enough," the ten tribes of the northern kingdom were off to Assyria, and God said, "And I never want to see you again, until I'm ready to bring you back in the tribulation." Off they went. Finally, he said to the two southern tribes, "You still haven't learned your lesson – 70 years of captivity." Well, when they got back from that captivity, there was only one reaction to idolatry. It was a stench in their noses. They genuinely hated it. I don't care whether he was a believing Jew or an unbelieving Jew, there wasn't anything he hated more than idolatry.

Now, the ancient heathen temples were not only places of good-time-Charlies to gather around. ... They were not only the places to have a night out with the boys, but they were also what, in effect, we would call the banks. People under the protective custody of the heathen deity to which this temple was dedicated would bring their valuables there, and they would store their valuables there. The religious Jews hated idolatry, but not as much that you wouldn't contaminate himself. A heathen temple was an unclean place. He didn't hate it so much that he was above not walking onto the unclean territory of a heathen temple and stealing what was stored there. And he would rob the temples blind if he could. He hated idolatry, but not so much as not to steal from the temple, and not so much that he couldn't take a little ceremonial uncleanness in the process.

He had the same idea that a lot of Christians have today: "I'm going to do a little bit of real healthy wheeling-dealing sinning and earning money, and then I'm going to quit and be clean for the Lord from then on, and help the Lord's work. This Jew did the same thing. He said, "I'm going to steal a little bit from the temple. I'll get a little ceremonially unclean, but I'm going to give 10% to God's work." And out of everything he stole, he gave a tithe to the Lord.

So, Paul says, "Do you rob the temple? This again was another way of undermining the Jews confidence of his cleanness and his purity on the point of idolatry. Again, he was sowing the hypocrisy of the Jew. The Jew, of course, was guilty, as you know, of irreverence toward God. That could also be included in this robbing God. As you know, Jesus one time took a whip, and drove the moneychangers out of the temple, and He said, "You have made My father's house into a den of thieves.

So, here you have this combination of desecrating God's house (irreverence toward God), as well as the uncleanness of participating in stealing from heathen temples.

So, all human systems of salvation, Paul is showing, break down because of the inconsistency of the old sin nature> All of human good is at best evil with God. The covering up of this inconsistency that you cannot live up to your own system makes you a hypocrite.

Legalism

So, Paul says, "You who glory in such a thing as a code of laws to show you what is right and wrong through breaking the law." Through" is the instrument here. "Breaking" is the Greek word "parabasis." Parabasis" is one of the words for sin in the Bible. This is the word for crossing over the line.

When the defenders of the Alamo were invited to cross over that line to decide whether they would stay or seek to escape, they were being invited to perform an act of "parabasis" – to cross the line. This is one of the descriptions of sin – crossing over from what is right into that which is wrong by God's standards. It is overstepping the line.

So, Paul says, "Through overstepping the line." Of what? "Of the law (the Mosaic Law), you dishonor." "Atimazo" is the way it looks in the Greek. "Atimazo" means "to treat shamefully," or "to insult by stepping across the line drawn by the Mosaic Law on all of these things: stealing; adultery; and, idolatry. Do you treat God shamefully?" It is present tense – continually. It is active voice. You, the Jew, are doing it yourself. It is indicative – a statement of fact. Again, the question implies an affirmative answer. The religious Jew, by what he was doing, was discrediting God. He was pretending to be one thing, and he was a hypocrite to the core because he was practicing the very things he proclaimed that others should not do, and that he declared he abhorred himself.

Then Paul ties it up in verse 24. Paul says, "For." This is the Greek word "gar," which is introducing the reason: "The name" ("onoma"). This is referring to the person of God: "Is 'blasphemeo." You know what that means: "blaspheme," or "to speak contemptuously of deity," or "to slander God." It is present tense. This is the constant result of the religious Jew's hypocrisy. It is passive voice. God receives this slander. It is indicative – a statement of fact. This slander is "among," and the word in the Greek is "en," so it should be "in the midst of:" "The gentiles" (the "ethnos"). What the Jew did caused the gentiles to slander and to speak blasphemously of the living God.

These people, who were unbelievers, were not as inane as the religious Jew: "Through:" "You dishonor God." "Through" ("dia" is the word). "Dishonor" God through you;" that is, through the Jew himself because of what he is doing.

Then Paul adds the fact that this is not new to God. He says, "Just as ('kathos' in the Greek) it is written" ("grapho"). "Grapho" refers to the written Scriptures: "As it is written in the Scriptures concerning you Jews." He is referring to Isaiah 52:5. Here's where it is written: "'Now therefore, what have I here?' says the Lord. 'That My people are taken away for nothing. They that rule over them, make them to wail,' says the Lord. 'And My name continually every day is blasphemed.'" The very rulers of the people were causing the name of God to be blasphemed. The religious Jew gained nothing but utter contempt for God.

The unbelieving Jew, that we've described here to you, is in a certain category of human beings who, throughout history, have made up certain codes; certain rituals; and, certain ceremonies in order to gain divine approval (salvation). The Jew got his system from the Mosaic Law, but that legalism was no better than the heathen who didn't get theirs from the Mosaic Law. But these systems always have one thing in common, you will notice – the systems today (as any ancient system) of making it on your own with God. All these systems are encased in a sense of penance, and in the concept, therefore, of do-goodism.

One of the American clergymen who recently attended the last Congress of the World Council of Churches got up, even to the disgust of many other liberals, and he made a speech before the World Council of Churches assembly. He's an American. He made a speech that, in effect, apologized for the fact that he was born white; that he was born Protestant; that he was born well-off with money; and, that he spoke the English language. He was just so ridden with guilt complex that he was just about as big an idiot, and as inane a thing that you could imagine. Why was he talking like that? Well, the poor simpleton is so shot-through with guilt complexes because he does not know the Lord, obviously, in genuine salvation, that he feels that he must be intimidated over the fortunate circumstances of life in which he was born. He was so moved over the fact that he spoke English, which is the commercial language of the world, and which everybody wants to know. Wherever you go, somebody knows English. He was so humiliated by that that he said, "I'm going to finish the rest of my discourse in Spanish." That, of course, made the Spanish feel good: "I'm going to use a contemptuous language to wash out my guilt. The reporter who wrote the article said that he finished his lecture (his discourse) in third-rate Spanish in order to fully cleanse his soul.

That sort of thing is at the heart of the religious system that says, "I'm going to make it on the basis of something that I create as the standards that I keep. I'm shot-through with guilt complexes, so I'm going to express it in do-goodism, which is, of course, at the bleeding heart of the liberal mentality today. This is finding expression all over the great and wonderful American political and economic system. It is the same expression in those areas that Paul alerted us to here in religious realms.

All of this effort was made to honor God, and yet Paul says, "You've ended up dishonoring God, and you've caused the heathen to spit on God. All of your efforts to be religious have created nothing but dishonor on your part, and blasphemy (contempt) on the part of others." You may read on your own Matthew 23:13-36, which will give you a very accurate firsthand illustration from the lips of the Lord Jesus Himself as to what these religious unbelieving Jews were just really like. It is a terrible thing to be a religious unbeliever. The religious unbeliever has a hard time realizing how totally unacceptable he is to God. Stop being a hypocrite. Let God enable you to live up to what you profess. That's the only way you're going to do it.

Dr. John E. Danish, 1975

Back to the Romans index