Matius 7:3-5

7:3 Why ¹  do you see the speck ²  in your brother’s eye, but fail to see ³  the beam of wood ⁴  in your own? 7:4 Or how can you say ⁵  to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Roma 2:1

The Condemnation of the Moralist

2:1 ⁶ Therefore ⁷  you are without excuse, ⁸  whoever you are, ⁹  when you judge someone else. ¹⁰  For on whatever grounds ¹¹  you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.

Roma 2:21-24

2:21 therefore ¹²  you who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 2:22 You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor ¹³  idols, do you rob temples? 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! 2:24 For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” ¹⁴ 

[7:3]  ¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[7:3]  ² sn The term translated speck refers to a small piece of wood, chaff, or straw; see L&N 3.66.

[7:3]  ³ tn Or “do not notice.”

[7:3]  ⁴ sn The term beam of wood refers to a very big piece of wood, the main beam of a building, in contrast to the speck in the other’s eye (L&N 7.78).

[7:4]  ⁵ tn Grk “how will you say?”

[2:1]  ⁶ sn Rom 2:1-29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to: (1) Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law. (2) Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can. (3) The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism. (4) Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10. (5) Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101-9. (6) The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17-24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, “Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

[2:1]  ⁷ tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

[2:1]  ⁸ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).

[2:1]  ⁹ tn Grk “O man.”

[2:1]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”

[2:1]  ¹¹ tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”

[2:21]  ¹² tn The structure of vv. 21-24 is difficult. Some take these verses as the apodosis of the conditional clauses (protases) in vv. 17-20; others see vv. 17-20 as an instance of anacoluthon (a broken off or incomplete construction).

[2:22]  ¹³ tn Or “detest.”

[2:24]  ¹⁴ sn A quotation from Isa 52:5.