Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 14
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_14:4. δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν ] A B C D* F G à have δυνατεῖ γάρ (commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.); D*** Bas. Chrys.: δύνατος γάρ (so Fritzsche). The original is certainly δυνατεῖ γάρ ; for δυνατέω is found elsewhere in the N. T. only in 2Co_13:3, and was there also in codd. exchanged for more current and better known expressions.
ὁ Θεός ] A B C* P à , Copt. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Aeth. Aug. et al.: ὁ κύριος (so Lachm. and Tisch.), the origin of which, however, is betrayed by dominus ejus in Syr. Erp. It was here (at Rom_14:3 the connection furnished no occasion for it) written on the margin as a gloss, and supplanted the original ὁ Θεός .
Rom_14:5.] Instead of ὃς μέν , A C P à *, Vulg. codd. of It. Goth. and some Fathers have ὃς μὲν γάρ ; so Lachm. (bracketing γάρ , however) and Tisch. 8. But the testimony in favour of the mere ὃς μέν is older, stronger, and more diffused; as is frequently the case, γάρ was here awkwardly inserted to connect the thought.
Rom_14:6. καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν , κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ ] is wanting in A B C* D E F G à , 23. 57. 67.** Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambrosiast. Pel. Aug. Jer. al. Lat.; Chrys. and Theodoret have it in the text. Condemned by Mill, omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly, since the evidence for omission is so decisive, and since the interpolation was so very readily suggested by the sense of a want of completeness in the passage, in view of the following contrast, that the explanation of the omission from homoeoteleuton (Rückert, Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Philippi, Tischendorf, and several others)—however easily it might have been occasioned thereby (especially as καί before ὁ ἐσθίων , which Elz. has not, is undoubtedly genuine)—appears nevertheless insufficient. Among the oldest witnesses, Syr. is too solitary in its support of the words not to suggest the suspicion of an interpolation in the text of the Peschito.
Rom_14:8. ἀποθνήσκωμεν ] Lachm. both times has ἀποθνήσκομεν , according to A D E F G P min. But Paul has in no other place ἐάν with pres. indic. (in Gal_1:8 only K and min. have the indic.), and how easily might a slip of the pen take place here!
Rom_14:9. Before ἀπέθανε Elz. and cholz have καί , against decisive testimony.
After ἀπέθανε Elz. has καὶ ἀνέστη (which is wanting in A B C à *, Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers), and afterwards, instead of ἔζησεν , ἀνέζησεν (against largely preponderating evidence). Further, F G, Vulg. Boern. Or. Cyr. (twice) Pel. Ambr. Fulgent. have not ἔζησεν at all, although they have ἀνέστη (therefore ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη ); D E, Clar. Germ. Ir. Gaud. have even ἔζησε κ . ἀπέθανε κ . ἀνέστη , but D** L P à ** Syr. p. and several Fathers: ἀπέθανε κ . ἀνέστη κ . ἔζησε . The origin of all these variations is readily explained from ἀπέθανε καὶ ἔζησεν (Lachm. and Tisch.), the best attested, and for that very reason, among the many differences, to be set down as original. First, ἔζησεν was glossed by ἀνέστη , comp. 1Th_4:14. Thus there arose, through the adoption of the gloss instead of the original word, the reading ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη ; and by the adoption of the gloss along with the original word, in some cases ἀπέθανε κ . ἔζηαε κ . ἀνέστη , in some cases ἀπέθανε κ . ἀνέστη κ . ἔζησεν (so Matth.)—whence there then arose, by an accidental or designed repetition of the AN, the ἀπέθ . κ . ἀνέστη κ . ἀνέζησεν of the Recepta (very feebly attested, and diffused by Erasmus). Finally, the transposition ἔζησε κ . ἀπέθανε κ . ἀνέστη was formed, after ἀπέθανε κ . ἀνέστη was already read, by mistaken criticism, inasmuch as there was a desire to restore the original ἔζησε , but the non-genuineness of ἀνέστη was as little known as the proper place for ἔζησε , and hence the latter, explained of the earthly life of Jesus, was placed before ἀπέθ .
Rom_14:10. Χριστοῦ ] A B C* D E F G à * and several VSS. and Fathers: Θεοῦ . So Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche. Rightly; Χριστοῦ was introduced from the preceding, and perhaps also (comp. Rufinus) through comparison of 2Co_5:10.
Rom_14:12. δώσει ] Lachm.: ἀποδώσει , according to B D* F G 39. Chrys. But this compound is the usual expression with λόγον .
Rom_14:14. αὐτοῦ ] Elz.: ἑαυτοῦ , instead of αὐτοῦ (see exegetical notes). So again Tisch. 8, but only according to B C à , Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. A reflexive more precise definition.
Rom_14:15. δέ ] Lachm. and Tisch.: γάρ , which Griesb. also commended, according to decisive testimony.
Rom_14:18. Instead of the Rec. ἐν τούτοις , Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐν τούτῳ , according to A B C D* F G P à *, 5. Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Ruf. Aug. But the Rec., sufficiently attested by D*** E L à **, and almost all min., Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. Theodoret, Tert., is the more to be defended, since ἐν τούτῳ might very easily have intruded through the immediately preceding ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ . It was less likely that τούτῳ should be converted into τούτοις on account of the plurality of the particulars contained in Rom_14:17. The latter is rightly retained by Beng. Matth. Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and various others.
Rom_14:19. διώκωμεν ] The reading διώκομεν , adopted by Tisch. 8, although in A B F G L P à , is an old error of the pen, attested by no version, abandoned rightly also by Lachm. ed. maj. (in the ed. min. he had adopted it, written ἆρα , and taken the sentence interrogatively).
After ἀλλήλ . D E F G, Vulg. It. and a few Fathers have φυλάξωμεν . A supplement.
Rom_14:21. ἢ σκανδ . ἢ ἀσθ .] omitted by Tisch. 8, is wanting in AC 67.** Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. and some Fathers, including Origen. The former is suspicious as an addition from Rom_14:13, the latter as a gloss. However, in the case of synonyms, one or the other was often omitted, as e.g., in Rom_14:13, πρόσκομμα (and therewith ἤ ) is wanting in B, and the evidence in favour of omission is not here sufficiently strong to condemn the words. Instead of προσκ . ἢ σκανδ . ἢ ἀσθ ., à * has merely λυπεῖται , a gloss in itself correct according to Rom_14:15.
Rom_14:22. After πίστιν Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ἥν , according to A B C à , Copt. Ruf. Aug. Pel. A double writing of IN, or explanatory resolution, to which the weight of evidence of almost all VSS. and Greek Fathers especially is opposed.
On the doxology, Rom_16:25-27, not belonging to the end of chap. 14, see critical notes on chap. 16.
As elsewhere (Act_15:1; Act_15:5; Gal_3:1 ff.; Col_2:16 ff.), so there were even in the predominantly Gentile-Christian community at Rome, among the Jewish-Christian minority belonging to it, persons who sought still to retain the standpoint of pre-Christian legalism. But these Jewish-Christians in Rome had not, as elsewhere, come forward as the defenders of circumcision, or generally in an aggressive anti-Pauline attitude. Hence Paul speaks of them in so forbearing and mild a way, and keeps direct polemics entirely in the background. They were men not of hostile, but only of prejudiced minds, whose moral consciousness lacked the vigour to regard as unessential a peculiar asceticism, according to which they ate no flesh (Rom_14:2), and drank no wine (Rom_14:21), and still held to the observance of the Jewish feast-days (Rom_14:5), passing judgment withal, as is usually the case with men of a separatist bias, on those who were more free, but only earning the contempt of these in return. In presence of this asceticism, and in respect of its main feature, namely, abstinence from flesh and wine, the question arises: Was it based generally (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Calovius, and many others, including Reiche and Köllner) on the Mosaic-Jewish ordinances respecting meat and drink? or, in particular (Clement of Alexandria, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Michaelis, Anm., Flatt, Neander, Reithmayr, Tholuck, Philippi), on the dread of heathen sacrificial flesh and sacrificial wine (comp. the apostolic decrees, Acts 15)? or on both (Erasmus, Toletus, and others, including Rückert, Borger, de Wette)? Against the first of these three possibilities it may be urged that Rom_14:2; Rom_14:21 do not allow us to assume any limitation of the abstinence at all, but require it to be understood of flesh and wine generally; while, on the other hand, the law does not forbid all flesh and does not forbid wine at all, and the Rabbins forbid only the flesh slaughtered by the Goyim and the wine of the Goyim (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. pp. 616 ff., 620 ff.). To assume now, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, that those persons had abstained from all flesh for the reason that they might not be blamed by the others on account of their despising swine’s flesh, or from contempt towards the Gentiles ( τινές in Theodoret), would be completely arbitrary, indeed opposed to the text; for they themselves were on one side the censurers, on the other the despised, Rom_14:3. Against the second opinion, that the abstinence in question referred only to the flesh offered in sacrifice to idols (Acts 15) and the wine of libation (see Mischn. Surenh. IV. pp. 369, 384; Eisenmenger, l.c. p. 621), it may be urged that the whole section contains not a word on the sacrificial character of the flesh and wine, while yet we are bound to conclude from 1 Corinthians 8, 10 that Paul would not have passed by this essential aspect of the matter without touching on it and turning it to account. Hence also the third view, which combines these, cannot be approved. In fact, the Jewish-Christian abstinence in question appears rather to be a supra-legal anxiety, such as was nothing rare in Judaism at that time (Philo, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. viii. fin.; Josephus, Vit. 2, 3; Grotius on Rom_14:2; Ritschl, in the theol. Jahrb. 1855, p. 353), under the influence of Essenic principles (see Ritschl, altkath. K. pp. 184, 187). It appears certainly as an ἐθελοθρησκεία , brought over from Judaism into Christianity by persons of Essenic tendencies, and fostered by the ethics of Christianity, which combated the flesh. By its adherents, however, among the Jewish-Christians of Rome at that time, it was not maintained in opposition to justification by faith, but was so practised without pretentiousness and polemics (and in particular without separation from a common table with the Gentile Christians), that the wisdom of the apostolic teaching deemed it inappropriate to enter into special conflict with such a remnant of an Essenic Ἰουδαΐζειν , or to speak of it otherwise than with the most cautious forbearance. Baur, I. p. 381 ff., declares those persons to be Ebionite Christians (according to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 15, the Ebionites abstained from all use of flesh, because flesh originated from generation; see Ritschl, p. 205). But against this view it may at once be urged, that complete abstinence from wine on the part of the Ebionites is nowhere expressly attested; and further, that, if the weak brethren at Rome had been persons who regarded the use of flesh as on principle and absolutely sinful, as was the case with Ebionitism, Paul would not have expressed himself so mildly and tolerantly respecting an error which would have been fundamental, dualistic as it was and opposed to justification by faith. Moreover, the Ebionites date only from the destruction of Jerusalem (see Ullhorn, d. Homil. u. Recogn. d. Clem. p. 387 ff.); hence the Roman weak brethren could only be termed Ebionitic in so far as their abstinence had the same root with the asceticism of the Ebionites, viz. Essenism. That among the numerous Roman Jews, who had arrived as prisoners of war from Palestine, there were various Essenes who thereafter became Christians, cannot be subject to any well-founded doubt (comp. Ritschl, p. 233 f.). And the less reason is there to call in question not merely the Ebionitic, but also the Essenic, root of the phenomenon (Th. Schott). To refer it to the general interest of world—denying holiness does not suffice for the explanation of the several passages, and in particular does not explain the observance of days and the impure character which was attributed to the use of flesh (Rom_14:14). Hence, too, we are not, with Hofmann, to abide by the mere general conclusion, that doubt prevailed as to whether it was compatible with the holiness of the church of God to use such food as man had not assigned to him from the beginning, and as the Christian should for this very reason rather dispense with than enjoy for the sake of good cheer. Thus the matter would amount to an odd theoretic reflection, without any connection with historical concrete antecedent relations,—a view with which we can the less be content, since the observance of days cannot exegetically be got rid of as a point which had likewise occasioned dispute (see on Rom_14:5). Eichhorn takes the weak brethren to be earlier, mostly Gentile-Christian adherents of ascetico-philosophic, chiefly Neo-Pythagorean principles. There was certainly at that time diffused among the Gentiles, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, an abstinence quite analogous to that Jewish one, as we know from Senec. Ep. 108, Porphyr. De abstin., and others (see Grotius on Rom_14:2, and Reiche, II. p. 463 f.); but, on the other hand, that view is at variance partly with Rom_14:5 (comp. Col_2:16-17), partly with Rom_15:8-9, where Paul sedulously brings into view the theocratic dignity of the Jews, while he bids the Gentiles praise God on account of grace—which is most in harmony with the view that the despised weak ones are to be sought among the former. It may be also conjectured a priori that our ascetics, if they had arrived at their habit by the path of philosophy, would hardly have behaved themselves in so passive and unpretentious a manner and have been merely regarded by Paul just as weak ones. We may add that Rom_14:5-6 do not justify us in assuming two parties among the Roman weak brethren, so that the κρίνοντες ἡμέραν παρʼ ἡμέραν , Rom_14:5, are to be distinguished from the λάχανα ἐσθίοντες , Rom_14:2,—the former as the stricter and probably Palestinian, the latter as the freer and probably Hellenistic, Jewish
Christians (so Philippi). As the observance of the feast days, especially of the Sabbaths, was essentially bound up with the Essenic tendency, the assumption of such a separation cannot be justified exegetically (from the κρίνειν .) Just as little is there exegetical ground for the view that the community addressed and instructed in Rom_14:1 ff. is notified as being Jewish-Christian in its main composition; whereas Rom_15:1 ff. betrays a Gentile-Christian minority, which had been more exclusive and intolerant towards the weak than the great body of the church, the relation of whom to the weak the apostle has in view in chap. 14 (Mangold, p. 60 ff.)