Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 5
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_5:2. τῇ πίστει ] wanting in B D E F G, Aeth. It.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (7), as also by Ewald. Following Rom_5:1, it is altogether superfluous; but this very reason accounts for its omission, which secured the direct reference of ΕἸς Τ . ΧΆΡ . ΤΑΎΤ . to ΠΡΟΣΑΓ . The genuineness of Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ is also attested by the reading ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ (so Fritzsche) in A à ** 93, and several Fathers, which points to a repetition of the final letters of ἘΣΧΉΚΑΜ EN.
Rom_5:6. After ἀσθενῶν preponderating witnesses have ἔτι , which Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have adopted. A misplacement of the ἔτι before γάρ , because it was construed with ἀσθενῶν , along with which it came to be written. Thus ἔτι came in twice, and the first was either mechanically allowed to remain (A C D* à ), or there was substituted for it εἴγε (B), or εἰς τί (F G), or εἰ γάρ . The misplacement of the ἔτι came to predominate, because a Church-lesson began with Χριστός .
Rom_5:8. ὁ Θεός , which a considerable number of witnesses have before εἰς ἡμᾶς (so Tisch. 7), is wanting in B. But as the love of Christ, not that of God, appeared from Rom_5:7 to be the subject of the discourse, Ὁ ΘΕΌς was omitted.
Rom_5:11. ΚΑΥΧΏΜΕΝΟΙ ] F G read ΚΑΥΧῶΜΕΝ ; L, min[1123], and several Fathers καυχώμεθα . Also Vulg. It. Arm. Slav. express gloriamur. An erroneous interpretation. See the exegetical remarks.
Rom_5:12. The second ὁ θάνατος is wanting in D E F G 62, It. Syr. p[1124] Aeth. and most Fathers, also Aug. In Syr[1125] with an asterisk; Arm. Chrys. Theodoret place it after ΔΙῆΛΘΕΝ . Tisch. (7) had omitted it. But as the word has preponderant testimony in its favour, and as in order to the definiteness of the otherwise very definitely expressed sentence it cannot be dispensed with, if in both halves of Rom_5:12 the relation of sin and death is, as is manifestly the design, to be expressly put forward, ὁ θάνατος omitted by Tisch., must be defended. Its omission may have arisen from its apparent superfluousness, or from the similarity between the final syllables of ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥΣ and ΘΆΝΑΤΟΣ .
Rom_5:14. ΜΉ ] is wanting in 62, 63, 67**, Or. and others, codd[1126] in Ruf. and Aug., and is declared by Ambrosiaster to be an interpolation. But it is certified partly by decisive testimony in its favour; partly by the undoubted genuineness of the ΚΑΊ ; and partly because the ΜΉ apparently contradicts the erroneously understood ἘΦʼ ᾯ (in quo) πάντες ἥμαρτον in Rom_5:12. See Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 39 ff.
Rom_5:16. ἉΜΑΡΤΉΣΑΝΤΟς ] D E F G, 26, 80, and several vss[1127] and Fathers read ἉΜΑΡΤΉΜΑΤΟς , which Griesb. recommended. A gloss occasioned by the antithesis ἘΚ ΠΟΛΛ . ΠΑΡΑΠΤΩΜΆΤΩΝ .
Rom_5:17. Τῷ ΤΟῦ ἙΝῸς ΠΑΡΑΠΤΏΜΑΤΙ ] So also Lachm. and Tisch. (8) following B C K L P à , vss[1128], and Fathers. But A F G read ἘΝ ἙΝῚ ΠΑΡΑΠΤ ., D E ἘΝ Τῷ ἙΝῚ ΠΑΡΑΠΤ . 47, Or. ἘΝ ἙΝῸς ΠΑΡΑΠΤ . The original reading was most probably the simplest, ἘΝ ἘΝῚ ΠΑΡΑΠΤ ., which, though not most strongly, is nevertheless sufficiently attested (also recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. (7), because from it the rise of the other variations can be very naturally explained. By way of more specific indication in some cases, the article was added (D E), in others ἙΝΊ was changed into ἙΝΌς (47, Or.). But, seeing that in any case the sense was quite the same as in the Τῷ ΤΟῦ ἙΝῸς ΠΑΡΑΠΤ . read in Rom_5:15, this was at first written alongside as a parallel, and then taken into the text.
[1117] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1118] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.
[1119] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1120] This even, in opposition to the opinion of Tisch. (8), that on account of the weighty testimony in its favour ἔχωμεν cannot be rejected, “nisi prorsus ineptum sit; ineptum vero non videtur.” Hofmann also has not been able suitably to explain the ἔχωμεν which he defends. See the exegetical remarks.
[1121] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1122] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[1123] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1124] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[1125] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1126] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by à .
[1127] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.
[1128] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.
CONTENTS.
Paul has hitherto described the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως in respect of its necessity (Rom_1:18 to Rom_3:21); of its nature (Rom_3:21-30); and of its relation to the law (Rom_3:31 to Rom_4:25). He now discusses the blessed assurance of salvation secured for the present and the future to the δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως (Rom_5:1-11); and then—in order clearly to exhibit the greatness and certainty of salvation in Christ, more especially in its divine world-wide significance as the blissful epoch-forming counterpart of the Adamite ruin—he presents us with a detailed parallel between this salvation and the misery which once came through Adam (Rom_5:12-19), and was necessarily augmented through the law (Rom_5:20-21).