Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 11
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_11:2. After Ἰσραήλ Elz. has λέγων , against decisive evidence.
Rom_11:3. τὰ θυσιαστ .] Elz.: καὶ τὰ θυς ., against so important witnesses, that καί would appear a connective addition. Comp. the LXX.
Rom_11:6. The addition in Elz., εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων , οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις · ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον , is wanting in A C D E F G P à *, 47, Copt. Sah. Arm. Vulg. It. Dam. Rufin., and all the Latin Fathers. An old interpolation (found already in B L à **, Syr. Arr. Chrys.), with a view to the completion of the proof; rejected by Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm.; adopted, indeed, by Tisch. 7, but again omitted in ed. 8; after Beza, Bengel, Matthiae, Rinck, defended most thoroughly by Fritzsche and Reiche (in opp. to his Commentary) in the Comment. Crit. I. p. 68 ff. But considering the preponderance of the opposing testimony, the completely superfluous character of the proposition in the argument, and the anomalous form in which the words appear in the principal Codex which contains them (B: εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων , οὐκέτι χάρις · ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ʼστιν χάρις ), and also the other variations in detail (see Tisch. 8), the defences of them are not convincing. See also van Hengel. The argument for retaining them, on the ground that an interpolator would have framed them more closely in conformity with the first half of the verse, is weakened by the fact that very ancient authorities have ἐστίν instead of γίνεται also in the first half of the verse.
Rom_11:7. τοῦτο ] Elz.: τούτου , against decisive evidence. An emendation in accordance with the usual construction.
Rom_11:13. γάρ ] Lachm., Tisch. 8 : δέ , according to A B P à , min. Syr. Copt. Damasc. Theodoret. MS.; C has οὖν ; Aeth. utr. no particle. With such divided testimony, δέ is the best supported, and to be preferred; it came to be glossed by more definite particles.
μέν ] is wanting in D E F G, min., which was occasioned by the apparent absence of reference for the μέν . Lachm., Tisch. 8 : μὲν οὖν , according to A B C P à , Copt., which has therefore the external attestation decidedly in its favour, but is to be explained from the fact that the unrelated μέν was glossed by οὖν (a new sentence was commenced with ἐφʼ ὅσον ); therefore these authorities indirectly pass over to the side of the otherwise weakly accredited Recepta.
Rom_11:17. τῆς ῥίζης καί ] This καί is wanting in B C à *, Copt. Omitted by Tisch. 8; but how easily it might be suppressed, owing to the homoeoteleuta! In D* F G, codd. It. Ir., τῆς ῥίζης is also wanting from the like cause.
Rom_11:19. κλάδοι ] So Rinck, Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 8, according to decisive testimony. But Elz. and Tisch. 7 have οἱ κλάδοι , the article being mechanically introduced in imitation of τῶν κλάδων , Rom_11:17-18. Were οἱ original, and had it been desired through its omission to designate the τινὲς τῶν κλάδων in Rom_11:17 (Matth., Fritzsche), it would have more readily occurred to the mechanical tendency of copyists to insert τινές instead of οἱ .
Rom_11:20. ὑψηλοφρόνει ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ὑψηλὰ φρόνει , according to A B à . Resolution of the word—which is only found besides in 1Ti_6:17—into its elements in conformity with Rom_12:16.
Rom_11:21. μήπως ] is wanting in A B C P à , min., Copt. Damasc. Ruf. Aug. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the offence which was taken partly at the apparent unrelatedness of μήπως (which is therefore exchanged in Or. for πόσῳ μᾶλλον and πόσῳ πλέον ), partly at the following future, readily induced the omission. For φείσηται , which Elz. has instead of φείσεται , is very feebly supported by evidence, and has manifestly come in accordance with the original μήπως ; wrongly defended anew by Rinck. See the exegetical notes; comp. also Beng. Apparat. Crit.
Rom_11:22. In the second clause Lachm. and Tisch. have, instead of ἀποτομίαν , ἀποτομία , and instead of χρηστότητα , χρηστότης Θεοῦ ; the former according to A B C à *, 67**, Or. Damasc.; the latter according to A B C D* ( à has χρηστότητος Θεοῦ ), 67**, Arm. Or. Eus. Damasc. Rightly; the common reading is a hasty grammatical emendation. Θεοῦ , too, bears, in its belonging to the reading χρηστότης , the stamp of genuineness.
Rom_11:25. παρʼ ἑαυτ .] Lachm. and Tisch. 7 : ἐν ἑαυτ ., according to A B, Damasc. The latter is to be preferred ( παρʼ ἑαυτ . was introduced through a comparison of Rom_12:16), and it explains, too, the origin of the bare ἑαυτοῖς in F G; for by the omission of the N the preposition would easily come to be dropped.
Rom_11:30. ὑμεῖς ] Elz., Scholz: καὶ ὑμεῖς , against decisive evidence.
Rom_11:31. Before ἐλεηθ . B D* à , Copt. Dam. have νῦν ; so Lachm. in brackets, and Tisch. 8. Inappropriate addition, arising from misconception, instead of which some min. have ὕστερον .
Rom_11:32. τοὺς πάντας ] Instead of the first τ . π ., D. Ir. et al. have τὰ πάντα , and F G πάντα . Also Vulg. It. express the neuter, which, however, is taken from Gal_3:22.
CONTENTS:
After the humiliation hitherto expressed, there now follows the consolation in respect to the exclusion of a large part of Israel. (1) God has not cast off His people, but has allowed a part of them, according to a gracious election, to attain to salvation, and has hardened the remainder, Rom_11:1-10. (2) Yet God wills not their final destruction; nay, their unbelief subserves the salvation of the Gentiles, and their conversion will have yet more happy consequences. This is matter for hope, and the Gentile Christians may not therefore give way to self-exaltation, Rom_11:11-24. (3) For the hardening of a portion of the people will last no longer than until the whole of the Gentiles have become Christians; and then Israel will obtain salvation, Rom_11:25-32. How unfathomable are the riches, wisdom, and knowledge of God! To Him be glory! Rom_11:33-36.