Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 9
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_9:4. αἱ διαθῆκαι ] B D E F G, min., Vulg., with several Fathers, read ἡ διαθήκη , which Lachm. has adopted. An alteration, because the plural was understood of the Old and New Test. (Gal_4:24), and yet the latter could not be considered as a privilege of the Jews.
Rom_9:11. κακόν ] Lachm. and Tisch. read φαῦλον , according to A B à , min., Or. Cyr. Damasc. Rightly; the more usual opposite of ἀγαθόν easily intruded.
Rom_9:15. The order τῷ Μωϋσεῖ γάρ is decidedly to be received, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D E F G à . The Recepta τ . γ . Μ . is a mechanical alteration.
Rom_9:16. ἐλεοῦντος ] A B* D E F G P à , 39, read ἐλεῶντος ; so Lachm. and Tisch. But since in no other passage of the N. T. is ἐλεάω , the form belonging to the κοινή (see Etym. M. 327. 30), to be found; and in Rom_9:18 only D* F G have ἐλεᾶ instead of ἐλεεῖ (and yet in both places Paul doubtless used one form); it is most probable that Ω instead of ΟΥ was merely an early copyist’s error, which, as the form - αω was actually in existence, became diffused, and also induced in some Codd. the alteration ἐλεᾶ in Rom_9:18 (so Tisch. 7).
Rom_9:27. κατάλειμμα ] A B à * Eus. read ὑπόλειμμα ; so Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; see LXX. Isa_10:22.
Rom_9:28. ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ , ὁτι λόγον συντετμημένον ] is wanting in A B à *, 23*, 47*, 67**, Syr. Aeth. Erp. Copt. Eus. Damasc. Aug. It certainly bears the suspicion of being an addition from the LXX.; but its deletion, which Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have carried out, is precluded by the ease with which it was possible for transcribers to turn from συντέμνων at once to συντετμημένον .
Rom_9:31. The second δικαιοσύνης is wanting in A B D E G à , 47, 67**, 140, Copt. It. Or. and several Fathers, and is marked with an obelus in F. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the omission admits of no sense accordant with the context. See the exeg. notes. The weight of the omitting codd. is much diminished by the counter-testimony of ancient VSS. (including Syr. and Vulg.) and of most Greek Fathers. The omission itself might easily, from the frequent recurrence of the word in Rom_9:30-31, occur through a homoeoteleuton, which led, in the first instance, to the disappearance of the words εἰς νόμ . δικαιοσύνης (they are still absent from 2 min.), followed by their incomplete restoration.
Rom_9:32. νόμου ] Wanting in A B F G à *, min., Copt. Vulg., and several Fathers. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A defining addition.
The γάρ after προσέκοψαν , which is wanting in A B D* F G à * 47*, Copt. It. Vulg. ms, Goth. Ambr. Ruf., Dam. (and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), is simply a connective insertion.
Rom_9:33. πᾶς ] has preponderant evidence against it, and must, with Lachm. and Tisch., be struck out. An addition from Rom_10:11, where it stands in all the witnesses.
Chap. 9–11. On the non-participation hitherto of the greater part of the Jews in the Christian plan of salvation; and specially (a) the lamentation over this (Rom_9:1-5); (b) the Theodicée on its account (Rom_9:6-29); (c) the fault thereof, which rests upon the Jews themselves (Rom_9:30-33 and Rom_10:1-21); (d) the consolation in reference to this (Rom_11:1-32), with final giving glory to God (Rom_11:33-36). Paul could not do otherwise, he must still settle this great problem; this is inevitably demanded by all that had gone before. For if the whole previous treatise had as its result, that only believers were the recipients of the promised salvation, and if nevertheless the Messianic promise and destination to salvation had their reference in the first place (comp. Rom_1:16) to the Israelites, concerning whom, however, experience showed that they were for the most part unbelieving (comp. Joh_1:11), this contradictory relation thus furnished an enigma, which Paul, with his warm love for his people, could least of all evade, but in the solution of which he had on the contrary to employ all the boldness and depth of his clear insight into the divine plan of redemption (Eph_3:4 ff.). The defence of the efficacy of his Gentile apostleship (Th. Schott, and in another way Mangold and Sabatier) is not the object of the section—that object Paul would have known how to meet directly—but such a defence results indirectly from it, since we see from the section how fully the apostle had recognised and comprehended his place in connection with the divine plan of salvation. The problem itself, the solution of which is now taken in hand by the apostle, was sufficiently serious and momentous to be treated with so much detail in this great and instructive letter to the important mixed community of the world’s capital, which, however, does not thereby appear to have been a Jewish-Christian one.