Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 8
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_8:2. με ] B F G à , Syr. Tert. Chrys. have σε , which Tisch. 8. has adopted. Repetition in copying of the preceding syllable.
Rom_8:11. διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ] So Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7., following Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel. The Recepta, again adopted by Tisch. 8., is διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος . The witnesses (for an accurate examination of which see Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 54 ff.) are so divided, that there is on neither side a decisive preponderance, although, besides A and C, à also supports the genitive. The thought of itself, also, equally admits either reading. A decision between them can only be arrived at through the circumstance that the passage came to be discussed in the Macedonian controversy, wherein the Macedonians accused the orthodox of having falsified the ancient codices, when the latter appealed to the Recepta and asserted that it stood in all the ancient codd. See Maxim. Dial c. Maced. 3. in Athanas. Opp. II. p. 452. This charge, though retorted by the orthodox on the Macedonians, is worthy of credit, because διὰ τὸ κ . τ . λ . already predominates in Origen and the oldest VSS. (also Syr. Vulg.); consequently that assertion of the orthodox appears erroneous. The Recepta, indeed, is found in Clem. Strom. III. p. 344, Commel. 545. Pott.; but this single trace of its high antiquity loses its weight in opposition to the here specially important VSS. and Origen (also Tert. and Iren.), and in the face of these bears the suspicion of orthodox alteration having been wrought on the text of Clement. It is possible, however, that even long previous to the Macedonian controversy the questions and disputes respecting the Holy Spirit may have occasioned now and again the changing of διὰ τὸ κ . τ . λ . into διὰ τοῦ κ . τ . λ . At all events, the dogmatic interest attached to both readings is too great and too well attested to admit of διὰ τοῦ κ . τ . λ . being referred, with Bengel and Fritzsche, to a mere error in copying. In the controversy the genitive only (as introducing a relation different from that obtaining with the previous abstracts διʼ ἁμαρτίαν and διὰ δικαιοσύνην ) must have been welcome to the orthodox in defending the personality of the πνεῦμα . Among modern commentators, Rückert, Reiche, Philippi, van Hengel, and Hofmann have declared for the accusative; whilst de Wette, Krehl, Tholuck, and also Ewald, adopt the genitive.
Rom_8:13. τοῦ σώμ .] D E F G, Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, gives both readings) al. read τῆς σαρκός , which Griesb. recommended. An interpretation in the sense of the preceding.
Rom_8:14. εἰσιν υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ] Since among the uncials A C D E à read υἱοὶ Θεοῦ εἰς ., while B F G have υἱοὶ εἰσιν Θεοῦ (so Lachm. and Tisch.), we must regard the Recepta as at all events too weakly attested. The preference belongs, however, to υἱοὶ εἰσιν Θεοῦ , because the omitted εἰσίν (it is absent also in the Sahid.) would be more easily inserted again at the beginning or end than in the middle.
Rom_8:23. καὶ αὐτοὶ τήν ἀπ . τ . πν . ἔχ . κ . ἡμεῖς αὐτοί ] So Elz. The variations are very numerous. The readings to be taken into account, besides the Recepta, are—(1) καὶ αὐτοὶ τ . ἀπαρχ . τοῦ πνεύμ . ἔχ . καὶ αὐτοί : so B, Meth. Tisch. 7.;—(2) κ . ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ τ . ἀπαρχ . τ πν . ἔχ . αὐτοί : so D F G, Ambros. Fritzsche;—(3) κ . αὐτοὶ τ . ἀπ . τ . πν . ἔχ . [ ἡμεῖς ] καὶ αὐτοί : so Lachm. and, without bracketing ἡμεῖς , Tisch. 8., following A C à , min. Copt. Dam. The first of the three seems to have been the original reading; ἡμεῖς is an addition by way of gloss, which was written, in some cases, immediately beside the first καὶ αὐτοί (thus arose the reading of Fritzsche), and in some cases only beside the second, thus producing the reading of A C à , as well as the Recepta. With the reading of Fritzsche the second καί disappeared, because, after the insertion of ἡμεῖς had taken place in the first part, the subsequent καὶ αὐτοί was no longer taken analeptically, and therefore καί was found to be merely confusing. The reading αὐτοὶ οἱ τ . ἀπ . τ . πν . ἔχ . κ . ἡμεῖς αὐτοί has so exceedingly weak attestation, that on that very ground it ought (against Bengel and Rinck) to be rejected.
υἱοθεσίαν ] wanting in D F G, codd. of It. Ambrosiaster. But how easily it came to be omitted, when the υἱοθεσία was viewed as something already possessed!
Rom_8:24. τί καί ] B** E F G, Syr. Vulg. codd. of It. and some Fathers have only τί . So Lachm. But the very absence of need for the καί occasioned its omission.
Rom_8:26. τῇ ἀσθ .] Approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Scholz have ταῖς ἀσθενείαις , against decisive testimony. The sing is also supported by τῆς δεήσεως in F G, which is an explanatory addition to τῇ ἀσθεν . Comp. Ambros.: “infirmitatem nostrae orationis.” The plural was substituted for the collective singular.
The reading προσευξώμεθα (Griesb. and others have προσευξόμεθα ) is decisively attested.
After ὑπερεντυγχ . Elz. and Scholz have ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν , which, following A B D F G à * al. Arm. and Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. have expunged. A defining addition.
Rom_8:28. After συνεργεῖ Lachm. reads ὁ Θεός , in accordance with A B, Or. It was readily believed that, on account of Rom_8:27; Rom_8:29, πάντα must be understood as accusative and God as subject.
Rom_8:34. μᾶλλον δὲ καί ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8. have only μᾶλλ . δὲ , in accordance with A B C à , min. VSS. and Fathers. But between δΕ and Εγ . the seemingly unmeaning καί was easily overlooked and omitted.
The omission of the second καί (behind the first ὅς ) is less strongly attested by A C à , and may be sufficiently explained by non-attention to the emphasis of the thrice-used word.
Rom_8:36. ἓνεκα ] According to A B D F G L à 17. al. ἕνεκεν is, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz, to be substituted. See LXX. Ps. 43:24.
Rom_8:37. τοῦ ἀγαπ .] D E F G, VSS. and Fathers read τὸν ἀγαπήσαντα , which has against it the Oriental witnesses, and seems to be an alteration in accordance with an erroneous exposition of τ . ἀγαπ . τ . Χριστοῦ in Rom_8:35 (see the exegetical remarks on that passage).
Rom_8:38. οὔτε ἐνεστ . οὔτε μέλλ ., οὔτε δυνάμεις ] So also Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz. But Elz. has οὔτε δυνάμ ., οὔτε ἐνεστ . οὔτε μελλ . Against greatly preponderating evidence. A transposition, because δυν . seemed to belong to the category of ἀρχαί . The evidence in favour of οὔτε δυνάμ ., moreover, is so decisive and so unanimous, that it cannot, with Fritzsche, be regarded as an addition from 1Pe_3:22, 1Co_15:24, or Eph_1:21. Tholuck, Philippi, and Ewald reject these words. But their various position in different witnesses is quite explained by supposing that their place behind μελλ ., as well as their general isolation, were regarded as surprising and confusing.
Chap. 8. Happy condition of man in Christ.
The certainty of salvation, which is represented in chap. Rom_5:1 f. as the effect of justification by faith, appears here as brought about through the moral freedom attained in Christ. We see from this, that Paul conceived of faith not otherwise than as producing this freedom; so that faith is not only that which appropriates the atonement, but also the continuous subjective source and motive power of the divine life up to the final attainment of bliss. See Luther’s Preface, also his utterances quoted by Ritschl, Rechtfert u. Versöhnung, I. p. 142 ff., 180 f.