Romans 2:22 · Bible study
Romans 2:22 Commentary: Adultery, Idols, and Temple Robbery
Greek · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Paul confronts religious hypocrisy: condemning adultery and idolatry while committing sacrilege. What does 'rob temples' mean?
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul charges Jewish teachers with hypocrisy: they condemn adultery and idolatry but commit sacrilege.
- Key words: βδελυσσόμενος (abhorring, with sense of disgust) and ἱεροσυλεῖς (robbing a temple, literal or figurative).
- Main debate: Whether “robbing temples” refers to plundering pagan shrines or profaning the Jerusalem temple and its offerings.
- Theological theme: Knowledge of God’s law without obedience leads to judgment; true religion requires integrity.
- Best use: To challenge religious hypocrisy and to show that outward observance cannot substitute for heartfelt obedience.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
WEB World English Bible 2000
You who say a man shouldn’t commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
KJV King James Version 1769
Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
ASV American Standard Version 1901
thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
thou who art preaching not to steal, dost thou steal? thou who art saying not to commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou who art abhorring the idols, dost thou rob temples?
Darby Darby Bible 1890
thou that sayest [man should] not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Thou, that sayest men should not commit adultery, committest adultery: thou, that abhorrest idols, committest sacrilege:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
¿ Tú, que dices que no se ha de adulterar, adulteras? ¿ Tú, que abominas los ídolos, cometes sacrilegio?
Tu que dizes que não se deve adulterar, adulteras? Tu que odeias os ídolos, profanas templos?
Toi qui dis de ne pas commettre d’ adultère, tu commets l’ adultère! Toi qui as en abomination les idoles, tu commets des sacrilèges!
du sprichst man solle nicht ehebrechen, und du brichst die Ehe; dir greuelt vor den Götzen, und du raubest Gott, was sein ist;
Die zegt, dat men geen overspel doen zal, doet gij overspel? Die van de afgoden een gruwel hebt, berooft gij het heilige?
Tu che dici che non si deve commettere adulterio, commetti adulterio? Tu che hai in abominio gl’idoli, saccheggi i templi?
Który mówisz, żeby nie cudzołożono, cudzołożysz? który się brzydzisz bałwany, święte rzeczy kradniesz?
Проповедуя не красть, крадешь? говоря: "не прелюбодействуй", прелюбодействуешь? гнушаясь идолов, святотатствуешь?
你說 人不可 姦淫，自己還姦淫嗎？你厭惡 偶像，自己還偷竊廟中之物嗎？
You who say that a man may not be untrue to his wife, are you true to yours? you who are a hater of images, do you do wrong to the house of God?
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Romans 2:22
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Romans 2:22 forms part of Paul’s indictment of Jewish presumption. The apostle shifts from the general sins of the Gentile world (Rom 1) to the specific failings of those who possess the law and boast in it. Barnes, Calvin, Gill, and the Cambridge Bible each note that Paul targets a fatal inconsistency: teaching against adultery while practicing it, and abhorring idols while committing sacrilege. The Greek verb ἱεροσυλεῖς (hierosuleis) means 'you rob temples' (Thayer). While some interpreters, as Calvin records, take this literally as plundering pagan shrines, others see it as a broader profanation of what belongs to God, withholding tithes, corrupting worship, or defiling the temple itself (Barnes, Gill). Both readings converge on the point that the Jew’s professed loyalty to God is hollow. As Matthew Henry puts it, the passage lays bare 'the depravity of the Jews' despite their 'pretensions.'
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Literal temple robbery: some see it as plundering pagan temples, a practice known among some Jews (Calvin, Cambridge alternative)
- Profaning the Jewish temple: others see it as withholding tithes, corrupting worship, or defiling the temple (Barnes, Gill, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)
What is clear: Paul accuses Jewish teachers of hypocrisy: they condemn idolatry but are guilty of sacrilege, which compromises their claim to honor God.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of ἱεροσυλεῖς (temple robbery) | All commentators see it as a charge of sacrilege that undermines the Jew’s claim to abhor idolatry. | Some (e.g., Calvin, Cambridge) interpret it as literal robbery of pagan temples; others (Barnes, Gill, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) see it as profaning the Jewish temple or withholding offerings. |
| Historical prevalence of adultery among Jewish teachers | Commentators cite the Talmud and Josephus to confirm that adultery was practiced even by prominent rabbis. | The extent to which this was a systemic problem rather than individual cases is not agreed; some see it as widespread, others as representative examples. |
| The logic linking idolatry and sacrilege | Paul views both as a violation of God’s honor. | Some see sacrilege as a direct form of idolatry (Calvin: 'all idolatry is sacrilegious'); others see it as a separate sin that shows inconsistency. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The Jewish abhorrence of idolatry was forged in the crucible of exile. After returning from Babylon, Israel defined itself against the nations by its repudiation of images and its allegiance to the one God who had given the law. The verb Paul uses for “abhor,” βδελυσσόμενος, carries a visceral sense, to turn away because of a stench (Vincent). The present participle suggests this was their settled, ongoing attitude. Yet Paul charges that such revulsion is contradicted by sacrilege.
Within Second Temple Judaism, the temple stood at the center of covenantal life. Offerings, tithes, and vows were prescribed by the law. The prophet Malachi, however, had already raised a similar charge:
Jesus himself cleansed the temple courts of profiteering (Matthew 21:12, 13), and Jewish literature records instances of priests and elders exploiting the sanctuary for personal gain. On the other interpretation, some Jews may have pilfered pagan temples, an act their own laws forbade (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.10, cited by Cambridge). Both possibilities highlight a deep irony: the very people who despised idols were guilty of dishonoring God by violating sacred things."Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In tithes and offerings."
— Malachi 3:8 (WEB)
Paul’s argument flows from the context of Romans 2:17, 20, where the Jew is described as “a guide of the blind, a light to those who are in darkness.” These privileges magnify the weight of the sin. The verse leads directly to the stinging conclusion of verse 24: “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” Religious education without obedience does not honor God; it becomes a reason for outsiders to mock.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Romans 2:22. The Greek text is stable across the traditions represented in the apparatus.
Reception History
This verse has been used throughout church history to expose the danger of religious hypocrisy. John Calvin (16th century) treated it as a proof that external religion without heart obedience is a form of idolatry. Matthew Henry (18th) emphasized that the Jew’s privileges only made their sins more heinous. In the 19th century, commentators like Barnes and Gill applied the passage to Christian teachers, warning that a gap between profession and practice brings disgrace on the gospel. The verse also served in anti-legalistic polemics, reminding readers that religion is not merely intellectual assent but lived devotion.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Professor Condemned. Paul first addresses the teacher who does not teach himself. The one who says “a man shouldn’t commit adultery” is asked, “Do you commit adultery?”, identifying the gap between instruction and conduct. The Talmud (cited by Barnes) names prominent rabbis guilty of this very sin.
- The Purist Exposed. The one who abhors idols is charged with sacrilege. The Greek word ἱεροσυλεῖς means robbing a temple, whether pagan shrines or the sanctuary in Jerusalem. The point is that their abhorrence has not purified their hearts; they still treat holy things with contempt.
- The Witness Destroyed. Verse 24 shows the consequence: God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles. The hypocrisy of the religious undermines the reputation of God himself.
Five-point outline
- You teach others but not yourself (v.21a).
- You preach against stealing, but you steal (v.21b).
- You forbid adultery, yet you commit it (v.22a).
- You abhor idols, but you commit sacrilege (v.22b).
- You boast in the law, but by breaking it you dishonor God (v.23).
Illustration hooks
- A parent who punishes a child for lying while regularly lying on tax returns.
- A church leader who preaches against materialism but personally embezzles funds.
- A Christian who condemns the sexual immorality of the culture while harboring lust in private.
Questions your congregation is asking
- What exactly does “rob temples” mean in everyday life today? Is it only about money, or does it include using sacred things for selfish purposes?
- Why does Paul link adultery and sacrilege? What do these two sins have in common?
- How can we guard against the kind of hypocrisy Paul describes here without becoming paralyzed by self-criticism?
Leading a Discussion
Paul’s questions in Romans 2:22 cut through religious pretension. They ask us to examine whether our actions match our words. The passage does not leave room for comparisons with others; it aims the spotlight straight on the person who knows the law but fails to keep it.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What specific sins does Paul mention in this verse? Which would have been most shocking to a Jewish audience?
- Observation: Look at the surrounding verses (Romans 2:17, 24). How does Paul build his case against the Jewish teacher?
- Interpretation: The Greek word for “abhor” (βδελυσσόμενος) originally meant to turn away because of a stench. Why is that strong language important for understanding Paul’s point?
- Interpretation: In what ways could “robbing temples” apply to a person or community that professes to hate idolatry?
- Application: Where in your own life is there a gap between what you say you believe and how you actually live?
- Application: What would genuine integrity look like for someone who teaches the Bible or leads in the church?
- Connection: How does verse 24 (the name of God blasphemed) shape the way you think about the public effect of private sin?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Jeremiah 5:7 | “How can I pardon you? Your children have forsaken me, and sworn by what are no gods. When I had fed them to the full, they committed adultery, and assembled themselves in troops at the prostitutes’ houses. |
| Jeremiah 7:9 | Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods that you have not known, |
| Jeremiah 7:10 | then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered,’ that you may do all these abominations? |
| Jeremiah 9:2 | Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men, that I might leave my people and go from them! For they are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men. |
| Ezekiel 22:11 | One has committed abomination with his neighbor’s wife, and another has lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law. Another in you has humbled his sister, his father’s daughter. |
| Malachi 1:8 | When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil? Present it now to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” says Yahweh of Armies. |
| Malachi 1:14 | “But the deceiver is cursed who has in his flock a male, and vows and sacrifices to the Lord a defective thing; for I am a great King,” says Yahweh of Armies, “and my name is awesome among the nations.” |
| Malachi 3:8 | Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In tithes and offerings. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes points out that while the Jews abhorred outward idolatry, they could still fall into its spirit through sacrilege. By misusing or withholding offerings meant for God's service, they took what belonged to Him and gave their affections elsewhere, committing idolatry in a subtler form.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that true sacrilege is far broader than stealing from temples. The worst form is robbing God of the sincere worship and obedience He requires, a sin closely linked to idolatry because both profane God's majesty.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator highlights two possible meanings for the sin of sacrilege: profaning sacred things generally, like the temple traders, or specifically robbing pagan temples. He leans toward the second, noting that strict Jews who avoided pagan temples for fear of pollution might still steal from them out of greed.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Bible note highlights the sharp irony: those who loudly condemn adultery may themselves commit it, and those who abhor idolatry may be guilty of sacrilege. The point is that self-righteous judgment of one sin does not excuse another; the same standard applies to all.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill insists the adultery here refers to the literal act, not a spiritual metaphor. He notes the sin was so rampant among Jews, even their leading teachers, that the practice of testing suspected women was abandoned. For sacrilege, he means corrupting worship with human inventions and misusing temple property for personal gain.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB draws a careful distinction: the "sacrilege" Paul charges the Jews with is not robbing pagan temples but profaning holy things in general, as seen in Jesus cleansing the temple. This keeps the condemnation within Israel's own covenant context, not actions against Gentiles.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry emphasizes that Paul here applies the general truth about doers of the law being justified specifically to the Jews. Their boasting in God and possession of the law made their disobedience all the more shameful, turning their religious privileges into evidence against them.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent notes the Greek words Paul chooses: "sayest" is a milder accusation than the Talmud's charge; "abhorrest" literally means turning away from a stench; and "commit sacrilege" means temple-robbing, whether from pagan idols or by embezzling from the Jewish temple as Josephus describes.