Romans 2 21

Romans 2:21 kjv

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

Romans 2:21 nkjv

You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?

Romans 2:21 niv

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?

Romans 2:21 esv

you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?

Romans 2:21 nlt

Well then, if you teach others, why don't you teach yourself? You tell others not to steal, but do you steal?

Romans 2 verses

Romans 2 21 Meaning

Romans 2:21 confronts the individual who acts as a moral instructor, particularly addressing the Jewish teacher who prides himself on possessing and proclaiming God's Law. Paul's rhetorical question exposes a deep hypocrisy: the teacher demands a standard from others that he fails to meet himself. Specifically, the verse highlights the contradiction of someone preaching against stealing, yet engaging in the very act themselves. It underscores that intellectual knowledge or verbal instruction of the Law is insufficient without personal obedience and integrity.

Romans 2 21 Context

Romans 2:21 is a pivotal point in Paul's argument to dismantle human self-righteousness, specifically targeting the perceived moral superiority of the Jewish people. In Romans chapter 1, Paul details the universal sinfulness of the Gentile world. In chapter 2, he shifts his focus, asserting that possession of the Law does not exempt anyone from God's judgment. He argues that those who judge others are themselves without excuse (Rom 2:1-3), implying that judging points to a standard that the judge often fails to meet.

Verses 17-20 specifically set up the profile of the "Jew" who relies on the Law, boasts in God, knows His will, discerns right from wrong, and sees himself as a guide, light, instructor, and teacher of others (especially Gentiles). Verse 21, then, directly challenges this self-perception by posing rhetorical questions that expose the gap between what these teachers profess and what they practice. The sin of "stealing" is selected as a foundational moral breach from the Decalogue, highlighting a concrete example of this hypocrisy. This hypocrisy ultimately dishonors God's name among the Gentiles, as stated in verse 24, underscoring the severity of their failure. The chapter continues to argue that true circumcision is of the heart, not merely an outward physical mark, emphasizing inner transformation over external religious adherence.

Romans 2 21 Word analysis

• You, therefore, who teach another (σὺ οὖν ὁ διδάσκων ἕτερον – sy oun ho didaskōn heteron):
  • σὺ οὖν (sy oun - you, therefore): The "you" is singular, directly addressing the Jewish individual, specifically one who assumes the role of an instructor or guide. "Therefore" connects back to the previous context, implying that since you judge others, this indictment now turns to you.
  • διδάσκων (didaskōn - teaching/instructor): A present participle, emphasizing an ongoing role or profession. It implies authoritative instruction, imparting knowledge, particularly moral or religious truths from the Law.
  • ἕτερον (heteron - another): Refers to someone different from the speaker, typically understood as a Gentile or one outside the Jewish covenant. It implies that the Jewish teacher assumes a role of instructing those without the Law.
• Do you not teach yourself? (σεαυτὸν οὐ διδάσκεις – seauton ou didaskeis?):
  • σεαυτὸν (seauton - yourself): The reflexive pronoun throws the responsibility back onto the individual. It demands self-examination.
  • οὐ διδάσκεις (ou didaskeis - do you not teach?): A rhetorical question designed to elicit an obvious answer – no, or implying a profound failure in self-application of their own teaching. The negative question anticipates a positive answer, meaning "Surely you do not teach yourself, do you?" thereby highlighting the contradiction.
• You who preach that one should not steal (ὁ κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν – ho kērussōn mē kleptein):
  • κηρύσσων (kērussōn - preaching/proclaiming): A stronger verb than διδάσκων (didaskōn), suggesting a public, official proclamation, like a herald announcing a decree. It implies not just teaching, but publicly declaring a moral imperative.
  • μὴ κλέπτειν (mē kleptein - not to steal): A direct reference to the eighth commandment of the Decalogue (Ex 20:15; Dt 5:19). It highlights a clear, undeniable moral standard universally understood and explicitly commanded in the Law. The negative construction ("not to steal") reinforces the absolute prohibition.
• Do you steal? (κλέπτεις – klepteis?):
  • κλέπτεις (klepteis - do you steal?): Another rhetorical question, likely expecting a 'yes' or implying that such behavior is indeed occurring. It brings the public proclamation down to the personal, concrete, and morally culpable action. The present tense can suggest a habitual practice, not just an isolated incident.
• Words-group analysis:
  • "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?": This foundational rhetorical question challenges the core inconsistency of a moral instructor. It critiques the external focus on instructing others while neglecting one's own moral discipline and application of the taught principles. The perceived wisdom or knowledge of the Law, boastfully applied to others, is revealed to be absent in personal life.
  • "You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal?": This second, more specific rhetorical question applies the general principle of hypocrisy to a concrete, universally recognizable sin—theft. Paul selects stealing not only because it is a direct violation of a foundational commandment, but also perhaps because it might have been a common or specific vice among some Jewish leaders (e.g., misusing temple funds, dishonest business practices). This direct example serves to drive the point home, making the indictment undeniable and piercing. The shift from "teaching" to "preaching" implies public moral declarations that are privately violated.

Romans 2 21 Bonus section

Paul's use of rhetorical questions in this passage (and throughout Romans) is a potent literary device. It's not a mere query for information, but a persuasive technique designed to draw the reader into the argument and force self-reflection. By posing questions that demand a 'yes' or imply an affirmative answer, Paul compels the Jewish listener (and by extension, any moralistic self-righteous person) to acknowledge their own inconsistency without directly accusing them. This subtly shifts the reader from an external, judgmental stance to an internal, convicted realization. The severity of "stealing" as the chosen example is notable; it's not a nuanced theological point but a universally recognized breach of basic morality, ensuring that the target of the critique cannot evade the charge. This particular indictment paves the way for Paul's broader argument in Romans that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under the power of sin and in need of God's grace through faith.

Romans 2 21 Commentary

Romans 2:21 exposes the profound hypocrisy that arises when religious instruction is detached from personal obedience. Paul is not merely pointing out isolated moral failings but critiquing a deeper issue: the reliance on one's religious identity or knowledge of God's law as a substitute for true righteousness. For the Jewish teacher, the boast was in possessing the Law and being its expounder to the Gentiles. Paul's challenge forces introspection, asking whether the high standards proclaimed for others are met in one's own life. The specific example of stealing, a clear violation of the Decalogue, makes the hypocrisy undeniable.

This verse reveals that true spiritual authority comes not from external roles or theoretical knowledge, but from living consistently with the truth proclaimed. Hypocrisy not only damages the individual's soul but also brings reproach upon God's name (Rom 2:24), hindering the very message of truth they claim to represent. It is a timeless principle: what one preaches to others, one must first apply to oneself. Failure to do so undermines the integrity of the message and the messenger, highlighting that the Law, though holy, just, and good, serves to expose sin, not to grant righteousness apart from obedience.

Examples:

• A parent who tells their children not to lie, but frequently exaggerates or misleads others.
• A pastor who preaches on generous giving, but is known for mismanaging church funds for personal gain.
• A Christian who actively criticizes societal injustices while practicing discrimination in their own workplace.