Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
From those without, the apostle now turns to those within, the pale of Revealed Religion-the self-righteous Jews, who looked down upon the uncovenanted pagan as beyond the pale of God's mercies-deeming themselves, as the chosen people, secure, however inconsistent their life might be. Alas! what multitudes wrap themselves up in like fatal confidence who occupy the corresponding position in the Christian Church.
Expostulation with the Jew for Condemning and Contemning the Gentiles-The Final Judgment will Turn on Character alone, there being no Respect of Persons with God (Romans 2:1-11)
Therefore, х dio (G1352)]. The connection is not with the immediately preceding verse (as Grotius, Tholuck, Hodge, etc.), but with the whole preceding argument, and particularly the sweeping statement of Romans 1:18 - q.d., 'If the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, the Jew has no more any righteous standing before God than the Gentile, on whom, therefore, it ill becomes him to look down with contempt.' (So Meyer, etc.)
Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. It is quite unnatural to suppose that the apostle is here still treating of the Gentiles-inveighing against the better class of them for condemning the more vicious (as Calvin), or against their magistrates (as Grotius) - and equally so to suppose that he has neither the Jew nor the Gentile particularly in view, but self-righteous condemners and despisers of others in general (as Beza). Nothing can well be more evident than that, having finished his description of the "ungodliness and unrighteousness" of the Gentiles-against which he had said that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Romans 1:18) - he is now proceeding to deal with the other great division of mankind-the Jews. (So Bengel, Fritzsche, and all the best expositor.) And it has been well observed, as justifying this view of a complete change in the party addressed, that whereas in describing the character of the Gentiles the apostle uses the third person plural ("they"), he uses throughout all this chapter (except in the digression of Romans 2:12-16), the second person singular ("thou") in dealing with those who looked down upon the Gentiles.
For wherein, х en (G1722) hoo (G3739)]. This may either mean simply, 'in that' х en (G1722) toutoo (G5129) hoti (G3754)], 'inasmuch as' (so Erasmus, Beza, Mehring, etc.), or, as in our version, 'in that wherein,' as in Romans 14:22. (So the Vulgate and Calvin [in quo], Luther, and other good interpreters.) Probably the former is the right shade of signification, since the Jews are not charged with precisely the same sins as the Gentiles, but with being condemners of others, while themselves stood chargeable with sins equally offensive to God.
Thou judgst another, х ton (G3588) heteron (G2087)] - 'the other;' meaning, the other party referred to, the Gentiles,
Thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Beyond doubt the apostle, in penning this verse, had our Lord's precept in view, "Judge not, that ye be not judged ... And why beholdest thou the mote," etc. (Matthew 7:1-3).