?????? - ccbiblestudy

?Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary - Romans (Vol. 2)?(Heinrich
Meyer)

08 Chapter 8

Introduction
CHAPTER 8
Romans 8:1. After ????? Elz. has ?? ???? ????? ????????????, ???? ????
??????, which, following Mill, Griesb. and subsequent critics have
expunged. The words are wanting either entirely, or at least as to the
second half, in a preponderance of codd., VSS., and Fathers, and are an old
inapposite gloss from Romans 8:4.
Romans 8:2. ??] B F G ?, Syr. Tert. Chrys. have ??, which Tisch. 8. has
adopted. Repetition in copying of the preceding syllable.
Romans 8:11. ??? ?? ???????? ????? ??????] So Griesb., Matth., Scholz,
Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7., following Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel. The
Recepta, again adopted by Tisch. 8., is ??? ??? ??????????? ?????
?????????. 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, ? 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 ??? ?? ?. ?. ?. 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 ??? ?? ?. ?. ?. into ??? ??? ?. ?. ?. At all
events, the dogmatic interest attached to both readings is too great and
too well attested to admit of ??? ??? ?. ?. ?. 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 ??? ???????? and ??? ???????????) must have been welcome
to the orthodox in defending the personality of the ??????. 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.
Romans 8:13. ??? ???.] D E F G, Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, gives both
readings) al. read ??? ??????, which Griesb. recommended. An interpretation
in the sense of the preceding.
Romans 8:14. ????? v??? ????] Since among the uncials A C D E ? read v???
???? ???., while B F G have v??? ????? ???? (so Lachm. and Tisch.), we must
regard the Recepta as at all events too weakly attested. The preference
belongs, however, to v??? ????? ????, because the omitted ????? (it is
absent also in the Sahid.) would be more easily inserted again at the
beginning or end than in the middle.
Romans 8:23. ??? ????? ??? ??. ?. ??. ??. ?. ????? ?????] So Elz. The
variations are very numerous. The readings to be taken into account,
besides the Recepta, are-(1) ??? ????? ?. ?????. ??? ?????. ??. ??? ?????:
so B, Meth. Tisch. 7.;-(2) ?. ????? ????? ?. ?????. ? ??. ??. ?????: so D F
G, Ambros. Fritzsche;-(3) ?. ????? ?. ??. ?. ??. ??. [ ?????] ??? ?????: so
Lachm. and, without bracketing ?????, Tisch. 8., following A C ?, min.
Copt. Dam. The first of the three seems to have been the original reading;
????? is an addition by way of gloss, which was written, in some cases,
immediately beside the first ??? ????? (thus arose the reading of
Fritzsche), and in some cases only beside the second, thus producing the
reading of A C ?, as well as the Recepta. With the reading of Fritzsche the
second ??? disappeared, because, after the insertion of ????? had taken
place in the first part, the subsequent ??? ????? was no longer taken
analeptically, and therefore ??? was found to be merely confusing. The
reading ????? ?? ?. ??. ?. ??. ??. ?. ????? ????? has so exceedingly weak
attestation, that on that very ground it ought (against Bengel and Rinck)
to be rejected.
v????????] wanting in D F G, codd. of It. Ambrosiaster. But how easily it
came to be omitted, when the v??????? was viewed as something already
possessed!
Romans 8:24. ?? ???] B** E F G, Syr. Vulg. codd. of It. and some Fathers
have only ??. So Lachm. But the very absence of need for the ??? occasioned
its omission.
Romans 8:26. ?? ???.] Approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and
Tisch. But Elz. and Scholz have ???? ??????????, against decisive
testimony. The sing is also supported by ??? ??????? in F G, which is an
explanatory addition to ?? ?????. Comp. Ambros.: "infirmitatem nostrae
orationis." The plural was substituted for the collective singular.
The reading ?????v?????? (Griesb. and others have ?????v??????) is
decisively attested.
After ???????v??. Elz. and Scholz have ???? ????, which, following A B D F
G ? * al. Arm. and Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. have expunged. A defining
addition.
Romans 8:28. After ?v?????? Lachm. reads ? ????, in accordance with A B,
Or. It was readily believed that, on account of Romans 8:27; Romans 8:29,
????? must be understood as accusative and God as subject.
Romans 8:34. ?????? ?? ???] Lachm. and Tisch. 8. have only ????. ??, in
accordance with A B C ?, min. VSS. and Fathers. But between ?? and ??. the
seemingly unmeaning ??? was easily overlooked and omitted.
The omission of the second ??? (behind the first ??) is less strongly
attested by A C ?, and may be sufficiently explained by non-attention to
the emphasis of the thrice-used word.
Romans 8:36. ?????] According to A B D F G L ? 17. al. ?????? is, with
Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz, to be substituted. See LXX. Ps. 43:24.
Romans 8:37. ??? ????.] D E F G, VSS. and Fathers read ??? ??????????,
which has against it the Oriental witnesses, and seems to be an alteration
in accordance with an erroneous exposition of ?. ????. ?. ??????? in Romans
8:35 (see the exegetical remarks on that passage).
Romans 8:38. ???? ?????. ???? ????., ???? ?v??????] So also Griesb.,
Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz. But Elz. has ???? ?v???., ???? ?????. ????
????. Against greatly preponderating evidence. A transposition, because
?v?. seemed to belong to the category of ?????. The evidence in favour of
???? ?v???., moreover, is so decisive and so unanimous, that it cannot,
with Fritzsche, be regarded as an addition from 1 Peter 3:22, 1 Corinthians
15:24, or Ephesians 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 ????., 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. Romans 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.
Verse 1
Romans 8:1. ???] draws an inference from the immediately preceding ?????
???.... ????????. If I, for my own person, left to myself, am subject
indeed with the reason to the law of God, but with the flesh to the law of
sin, then it follows that now, after Christ (as deliverer from the law of
sin, ver 2) has interposed, there is no condemnation, etc. This inference,
and not that one must be in Christ, in order to get rid of every
condemnation (Hofmann), is indicated by ??? in Romans 8:2 as a matter of
fact that has become historical. It is arbitrary to seek a connection with
anything more remotely preceding (Hofmann, Koppe, Fritzsche, Philippi, and
Bisping, with ?????????.... ???? in Romans 7:25; according to Bengel,
Knapp, and Winzer, with Romans 7:6); but to suppose in ??? "a forestalling
of the following ???" (Tholuck), is linguistically just as mistaken as in
the case of ??? in Romans 2:1. Moreover, the emphasis is not upon ???, but
on the prefixed ?????: no condemnation therefore, none is now applicable,
after that ????? ??? ?. ?. ?. has been changed through Christ, etc. This
applies against Philippi's objection, that, according to our conception of
the connection, ??? should have been placed at the beginning. But the
objection, that Paul must have continued with ?? instead of ???, is removed
by the observation that in the ????? ???, properly understood, really lies
the very premiss of the altered relation.
???] temporally, in contrast to the former state of the case. Comp. Romans
7:6. Philippi erroneously holds ??? ??? as equivalent to ??? ???-which it
never is-being forced