Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

The apostle, in this chapter, continues the discourse of the former, concerning mutual forbearance in indifferent things; and so draws towards a conclusion of the epistle. Where such differences of apprehension, and consequently distances of affection, are among Christians, there is need of precept upon precept, line upon line, to allay the heat, and to beget a better temper. The apostle, being desirous to drive the nail home, as a nail in a sure place, follows his blow, unwilling to leave the subject till he has some hopes of prevailing, to which end he orders the cause before them and fills his mouth with the most pressing arguments. We may observe, in this chapter, I. His precepts to them. II. His prayers for them. III. His apology for writing to them. IV. His account of himself and his own affairs. V. His declaration of his purpose to come and see them. VI. His desire of a share in their prayers.

It may be of importance to state that between the last verse of the preceding chapter and the first verse of Romans 15, the Arabic version, some manuscripts and many of the Greek fathers, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, etc. have introduced Romans 16:25-27. Why this was done, has been a matter of controversy. The discussion, however, is of no practical importance, and most critics concur in the opinion that the present arrangement of the Greek text is genuine.

The strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, and each strive to please, not himself, but his neighbor, after the example of Christ, Romans 15:1-3. Whatsoever was written in old times was written for our learning, Romans 15:4. We should be of one mind, that we might with one mouth glorify God, Romans 15:5, Romans 15:6. We should accept each other as Christ has accepted us, Romans 15:7. Scriptural proofs that Jesus Christ was not only the minister of the circumcision, but came also for the salvation of the Gentiles, Romans 15:8-12. The God of hope can fill us with all peace and joy in believing, Romans 15:13. Character of the Church of Rome, Romans 15:14. The reason why the apostle wrote so boldly to the Church in that city - what God had wrought by him, and what he purposed to do, Romans 15:15-24. He tells them of his intended journey to Jerusalem, with a contribution to the poor saints - a sketch of this journey, Romans 15:25-29. He commends himself to their prayers, Romans 15:30-33.

INTRODUCTION TO Romans 15

The apostle in this chapter pursues his exhortation to mutual affection and forbearance, notwithstanding their different sentiments about the use of meats, and observation of days; excuses his writing so freely to them, which they might bear with, in consideration of his being an apostle, especially an apostle of the Gentiles, and which office he magnified and fulfilled everywhere; gives them the reasons why he had not as yet been with them though he greatly desired it, encourages them to expect, a visit from him; and concludes with earnestly entreating them that he might have a share in their prayers: and first, as an inference from what he had said in the preceding chapter, he lays it down as a duty incumbent on himself, and all that were strong in the doctrine of Christian liberty, to bear with the infirmities of weak Christians, and not please themselves, but others, Romans 15:1, which he enforces, from the usefulness of it, it being for the good and edification of others, Romans 15:2, and from the example of Christ, who pleased not himself, Romans 15:3, and which is proved from a passage of Scripture in Psalm 69:9, the pertinency of which passage, and the citation and application of it to Christ and the present case, are vindicated from this consideration, that whatever was written in former times, was for the use of the saints under the Gospel dispensation, Romans 15:4, and that the exhortation might have its effect upon them, be puts up a prayer to God for them, that such a temper of mind might be in them, which would be for the glory of God, Romans 15:5, and then he repeats his exhortation, Romans 15:7, that they would affectionately receive one another; which he urges by the example of Christ, who had received them to the glory of God; and that they might glorify him, and this was one way of doing it: and that this argument might have the greater weight with both parties, he observes, that Jesus Christ had a special regard to the Jews, and was their minister, sent unto them to fulfil the promises made unto their fathers, and had received them; and therefore though they were weak, they were not to be despised, grieved, and offended, Romans 15:8, and as for the Gentiles, it was a clear case that God had had long ago a design of mercy to them, and that they were to be, and were now received by Christ, and so under obligation to glorify God for his mercy; and therefore not to be judged and condemned, though they did not conform to the ceremonial law; and this he proves in Romans 15:9, from several passages of Scripture in Psalm 18:49, and closes this argument he had so long insisted on with a prayer to God for them, that they might be in the exercise of faith and hope; and, in the exercise of those graces, be filled with joy and peace, Romans 15:13, and in order to prevent an objection that might be made to these prayers and exhortations of his, that they suggested that they were wicked and ignorant men, devoid of affection, and knew not how to behave to each other, nor to exhort one another, the apostle softens such a resentment, by calling them brethren, and by expressing his persuasion of their abundant goodness, knowledge, and abilities, Romans 15:14, and excuses the freedom he took with them by observing, that he only acted the part of a monitor, Romans 15:15, and the rather this freedom might be allowed him, on account of the great gifts bestowed upon him, qualifying him to be an apostle of Christ; and especially as he was an apostle of the Gentiles and so their apostle, Romans 15:16, and on account of his office, gifts, and usefulness, he had reason to glory; though through Christ only, and in things relating to God, and not himself, Romans 15:17, when he takes an occasion to enlarge on his ministry, and magnify his office; partly from the end and success of it, bringing the Gentiles to the obedience of Christ, Romans 15:18, and partly from the means and causes of such success the preaching of the word, working miracles, and the power of the Holy Ghost; and from the extent of it, reaching from Jerusalem to Illyricum, Romans 15:19, and from the difficulty which attended it, he preaching in places where the Gospel was never preached before, and which he chose to do, Romans 15:20, and which was necessary to be done, according to a prophecy in Isaiah 52:15, which he cites, Romans 15:21, and observes, that it was his preaching in these many and distant parts that was the reason of his not having been with the saints at Rome, Romans 15:22, but now gives them reason to expect his coming; partly because he had finished his travels in those countries, and partly because of the vehement desire he had to see them, Romans 15:23, and besides, an opportunity seemed to be offering, he intending to take a journey to Spain, when it would lie in his way to come to Rome, and be for his advantage, Romans 15:24, in the mean while he informs them what he was engaged in, to carry the contribution of the Macedonian and Asian churches to Jerusalem, for the poor saints there, Romans 15:25, on which contributions he enlarges, showing not only who made them, and for whom, but the source and spring of them, they arose from their good will and pleasure, Romans 15:26, and yet they were debtors, and under obligation to do what they did; it was but a piece of justice and equity, since those churches had received of the spiritual things of the Jews, Romans 15:27, and as for his coming to them, he acquaints them of the time that it would be, when he had finished the above service and labour of love, and when he should come into Spain, as he had before signified, Romans 15:28, and of the manner in which he should come, of which he was fully persuaded, as that it would be with the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ, Romans 15:29, and then with great importunity desires them to pray for him, and that very earnestly, Romans 15:30, particularly that he might be delivered from his enemies in Judea, and that the saints there would accept of what he brought them from the Gentiles, Romans 15:31, and that, if it was the will of God, he might come to them and be refreshed with them, Romans 15:32, and then closes the chapter with a salutation of them, or a wish that the God of peace might be with them, Romans 15:33.

XV.

These concluding chapters present some remarkable phenomena which seem to need a special theory to account for them.

It will be seen that Romans 16 ends, according to the Received text, with a two-fold benediction and a doxology, one at the end of Romans 15:20, another in Romans 15:24, and the third covering Romans 15:25-27.

Of these, the two benedictions in Romans 15:20; Romans 15:24 are alternatives. They are not found in the same group of MSS. at both places, but the MSS. which insert them in the first place omit them at the second, and vice versâ. Weighing the authorities on both sides together, there can be little doubt that the earlier position is the right one—that the doxology ought to stand at Romans 16:20 and to be erased in Romans 16:24. How it came to be inserted there we shall see presently.

The longer, concluding doxology is also placed where it is by a quite decisive preponderance of authority. At the same time it is also found at the end of Romans 14 in one important MS., the Codex Laudianus, and in a number of others of lesser value, while the Alexandrine Codex and Porphyrian Palimpsest, with some few others, have it in both places.

It is to be observed also that Marcion, the Gnostic writer, who lived about 140 A.D., had a copy of the Epistle in which these last two chapters were omitted altogether.

How is this series of facts to be accounted for? It is obviously only a rude and reckless logic which infers from them that the whole two chapters are not genuine. The same conclusion has been supported by other arguments, which need not be mentioned in this Commentary. The proof of the genuineness of the chapters is overwhelming.

Other theories have been propounded, which, while assigning the chapters to St. Paul himself, have treated them as either entirely or in part fragments inserted here from some other lost Epistle. For instance, Ewald held that Romans 16:3-20 was written by St. Paul from Rome to Ephesus, and M. Renan has recently put forward the view that the main body of the Epistle was sent to different churches with different endings—Romans 1-11 with the ending Romans 15 to the Romans; Romans 1-14. with the ending Romans 16:1-20 to the Ephesians; Romans 1-14 with the ending Romans 16:21-24 to the Thessalonians; and Romans 1-14 with the ending Romans 16:25-27 to a fourth unknown church.

This last is an ingenious theory, but, like the rest, does not appear to be tenable when applied in detail.

We will only mention one more theory which has the advantage of being simpler than most, and which seems to account almost if not quite satisfactorily for the complex and peculiar phenomena of the text, while it accords well with the general character of the Epistle. It is this:—

The Epistle was originally written and sent to the Romans in the form in which we have it now, except that it ended at Romans 16:23. The portion which was dictated by St. Paul himself really concluded with the benediction given in Romans 16:20, but a brief and informal postscript was added by Tertius and his companions.

At some later period of his life, probably during one or other of his two imprisonments, finding the Epistle current in Rome, it occurred to the Apostle that it might with advantage be circulated more widely. Accordingly he struck out the whole of the more personal matter, i.e., Romans 15, 16, And, in order to give somewhat more finish to the composition, he added the elaborate doxology, which now concludes the whole, at the end of Romans 14. At the same time, at the beginning of the Epistle, he erased the express mention of Rome (Romans 1:7), and left merely the general phrase “To them that are beloved of God”—a change of which some traces are still to be found remaining in the MSS.

There was thus a shorter and a longer recension of the Epistle—the shorter with a formal ending, the longer without. It was the shorter form which happened to fall into the hands of Marcion, who, for reasons of his own, cut off the doxology. Later copyists, observing the ragged edge which was caused by the postscript of Tertius, sought to remedy this by transferring the benediction of Romans 15:20 to Romans 15:24 : and others, with more success, by adding to the original Epistle the doxology composed for the shorter recension. The general tendency in the scribes being to add and accumulate rather than to subtract, all three forms have come down to us.

The main arguments in favour of this theory are—(1) the extent to which it accounts for the phenomena of the text; (2) the striking resemblance between the style and diction of the concluding doxology and those of the Epistle to the Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles, which would make it appear as if it had been composed at that later date, rather than when St. Paul originally wrote to the Romans; and (3) the analogy of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which seems to have gone through a somewhat similar process, being circulated in two forms—as a circular or general Epistle, and also as one addressed to a particular Church. The opinion is also growing that the Gospel according to St. Luke received additions, and was issued in an enlarged form during the lifetime of the Evangelist himself.

It would not be well to speak too positively where all is so much a matter of conjecture; but so far as conjecture can carry us, this theory seems, on the whole, the most probable and most likely to represent the real state of the facts. The author of it is Dr. Lightfoot.

CHAPTER 15[1]

[1] Comp. Lucht, üb. d. beiden letzt. Kap. d. Römerbriefs, eine krit. Unters., Berlin 1871.

Various writers formerly, from the days of Semler,[2] disputed, not that Paul was the author of chap. 15 and 16 (as to the doxology, Romans 16:25-27, see, however, the critical notes on chap. 16), but that chap. 15 and 16 along with chap. 1–14 compose one epistle. Semler himself thought that Paul had given to the bearers of the letter—of which Phoebe was not the bearer—a list, which they might exhibit, of the teachers whom they were to visit on their journey by way of Cenchreae (where Phoebe dwelt) and Ephesus (where Aquila dwelt), and to whom they were to hand a copy of the letter. This list was in his view chap. 16, of which, however, Romans 15:25-27 had their original place after Romans 14:23 (which also Paulus, Griesbach, Flatt, Eichhorn assumed); and chap. 15 was an open letter to those same teachers, with whom the travellers were to confer respecting the contents.

Paulus (de originib. ep. ad Rom., Jen. 1801, and in his Kommentar z. Gal. u. Rom. 1831, Introd.) held chap. 15 to be an appended letter for those who were enlightened, and chap. 16 to have been a separate leaf for the bearer of the letters, with commendations to the overseers of the church and commissions to those whom they were particularly to greet from Paul. Griesbach (curae in hist. text. Gr. epp. P. p. 45, and in his Opusc. ed. Gabl. vol. ii. p. 63; comp. in opposition to him, Gabler himself in the Preface, p. xxiv.), whom in the main Flatt followed, saw in chap. 15 an appendix for the further discussion of the last subject, subjoined after the conclusion of the letter, while chap. 16 Consisted originally of various appended leaflets. A similar hypothesis was constructed by Eichhorn (Einleit. III. p. 232 ff.), who, however, regarded Romans 16:1-20 as not belonging to Rome at all, but as a letter of commendation for Phoebe, probably destined for Corinth, but taken along with her to Rome. Among all the grounds by which these varied assumptions have been supported, there are none which are valid, not even those which appear the least to rest on arbitrary assumption. For the statement that Marcion did not read chap. 15 and 16 amounts to this, that he, according to his fashion (see Hahn, d. Ev. Marcion’s, p. 50 ff.), excised them.[3] See, besides, Nitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1860, I, p. 285 ff. Further, that Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 14, designates the passage Romans 14:10 as to be found in clausula of the epistle, is sufficiently explained from the fact that he is arguing against Marcion and hence refers to his copy. Comp. also Rönsch, d. N. T. Tertullian’s, p. 350. Again, the repeated formulae of conclusion before the final close of the letter (Romans 16:20; Romans 16:24; Romans 15:33 is merely the concluding wish of a section) are most readily and naturally understood from the repeated intention of the apostle actually to conclude; which was to be done first of all at Romans 16:16, but was frustrated through the intrusion of the further observation Romans 15:17 ff., and was deferred till Romans 15:20, after which, however, some further commissions of greeting were introduced (Romans 15:21-23), so that not until Romans 15:24 did the last wish of blessing—and now, for the complete conclusion of the whole, the ample doxology, Romans 15:25-27—finish the epistle. Most plausible are the two difficulties felt in reference to chap. 16; namely, (1) that Paul would probably not have had so many acquaintances in Rome, where he had not yet been at all, as he greets in chap, 16, especially seeing that, in the epistles subsequently written from Rome, he mentions none of them; and (2) that Aquila and Priscilla could hardly at that time have been in Rome (Romans 16:3), because they not long before were still dwelling in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:19), and were at a later period likewise in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:19). This has been regarded as the most serious difficulty by Ammon (Praefat. p. 24)—who held chap. 16 to be a letter of commendation written by the apostle for Phoebe to Corinth after the imprisonment at Rome—and recently by Dav. Schulz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 609 ff.), Schott (Isag. p. 249 ff.), Reuss (Gesch. d. h. Schrift. § 111), Ewald, Laurent, Lucht. Schulz regards chap. 16 as written from Rome to Ephesus; while Schott’s judgment is as follows: “Totum cap. 16 composition est fragmentis diversis[4] alius cujusdam epistolae brevioris (maximam partem amissae), quam Paulus Corinthi ad coetum quendam Christianum in Asia Minori versantem dederat, ita ut, qui schedulas singulas haec fragmenta exhibentes sensim sensimque deprehendisset, continua serie unum adjiceret alteri.” Reuss (so also Hausrath and Sabatier) sees in Romans 16:1-20 a letter with which Phoebe, who was travelling to Ephesus, was entrusted to the church there; while Ewald (comp. Mangold, also Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1866, p. 352) cuts out only Romans 15:3-20, but likewise regards this portion as having originally pertained to an epistle of the apostle to the Ephesians, which, according to Romans 15:7, was written from the Roman captivity; as, indeed, also Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 31 ff.) extracts from Romans 15:1-24 a special commendatory letter for Phoebe, written by the apostle’s own hand to the Ephesians, assuming at the same time marginal remarks;[5] and Lucht assigns the commendation of Phoebe, and the greetings by name in Romans 15:3-6, to a letter to the Ephesians, but the greetings following in Romans 15:7 ff. to the editor of the Epistle to the Romans. But (1) just in the case of Rome it is readily conceivable that Paul had many acquaintances there, some of whom had come from Asia and Greece, and had settled in Rome, whether permanently or temporarily (several perhaps as missionaries); while others, like Aquila, had been banished as Jews under Claudius, and then had returned as Pauline Christians. (2) It is by no means necessary that Paul should have known the whole of those saluted by sight; how many might, though personally unknown, be saluted by him! (3) The fact that Paul at a later period, when he himself was a prisoner in Rome and wrote thence (in my judgment, the Epistle to the Philippians here alone comes into consideration; see Introd. to Eph. and Col.; the Pastoral Epistles, as non-apostolic, must be disregarded), does not again mention any one of those here saluted, may have arisen from the altered circumstances of the time; for between the composition of the epistle to Rome and the apostle’s sojourn in Rome there lies an interval of three years, during which the majority of those referred to might have obtained other places of destination. Besides, the salutation which Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians offers to others (Romans 4:22) is merely a quite summary one. (4) There exists no ground at all for denying that Aquila and Priscilla might, after the writing of our First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:19), have returned from Ephesus to Rome and have informed the apostle of their sojourn and activity there. (5) The greeting from all churches in Romans 15:16 is suitable enough for an epistle addressed to the church of the capital city of the empire; and the first-fruits of Asia, Romans 15:5, was everywhere a distinguishing predicate, so that it does not presuppose one living precisely in Ephesus.[6] (6) Were Romans 15:3-20 a portion cast adrift of an epistle to the Ephesians, or even a separate small letter to the Ephesians, it would not be easy to see how it should have come precisely to this place; it must have from the outset lost every trace of the tradition of its original destination to such an extent, that no occasion was found even afterwards, when an epistle to the Ephesians was already in ecclesiastical use, to subjoin it to that epistle. From all this there just as little remains any sufficient ground for severing, in opposition to all testimony, chap, 16., as there is for severing chap. 15, having otherwise so close an external and internal connection with chap. 14, from the Epistle to the Romans, and giving up the unity of the as handed down.

[2] Keggemann, praes. Semler de duplici ep. ad Rom. appendice, Hal. 1767, and afterwards in Semler’s Paraphrase, 1769. See in opposition to him, Koppe, Exc. II. p. 400 ff., ed. Ammon, Flatt, and Reiche.

[3] Origen on Romans 16:25 : “Caput hoc (viz. Romans 16:25-27) Marcion, a quo scripturae evangelicae et apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum est (Romans 14:23): omne autem, quod non ex fide est, peccatum est, usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit,”—which dissecuit cannot denote a mere mutilation (Reiche and others), but must be equivalent in sense to the preceding abstulit. The validity of this testimony cannot be overthrown by the silence of Epiphanius on this omission of Marcion, as a merely negative reason against it. Marcion’s stumbling-blocks, as regards chap. 15, were probably vv. 4 and 8 in particular. Altogether Marcion allowed himself to use great violences to this epistle, as he, for example, extruded Romans 10:5 to Romans 11:32; Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 14. Comp. generally, Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1855, iii. p. 426 ff.

[4] These being vv. 1–16, vv. 17–20, vv. 21–24, vv. 25–27.

[5] And that to such an extent, that of the 16th chapter nothing further is supposed to have been written by Paul for the Romans than vv. 21, 23, 24. See, in opposition, Ritschl, l.c., and Lucht, p. 22 f.—Weisse would have chap. 16 together with chap, 9–11 directed to Ephesus.

[6] Comp. besides, on the arguments numbered 1–5, van Hengel, II. p. 783 ff.

It was reserved at last for the criticism of Baur to contest the apostolic origin of chap. 15, 16 (in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, and Paulus, I. p. 394 ff., ed. 2; comp. also in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 4, p. 493 ff.; Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. p. 123 ff.; Volkmar, in the theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 321 ff., and Röm. Kirche, 1857, p. 3). Baur finds in the last two chapters a making of advances towards the Jewish Christians,[7] such as does not suit the tenor of the rest of the epistle. In this view he objects particularly to Romans 15:3; Romans 15:8; Romans 15:14 in chap. 15; Romans 15:9-12 is a mere accumulation of Bible passages to pacify the Jewish Christians; Romans 15:15 is irrelevant, Romans 15:20 no less so; the statement of Romans 15:19 : from Jerusalem to Illyricum, is unhistorical, derived from a later interest; Romans 15:22-23 do not agree with Romans 1:10-13; Romans 15:24; Romans 15:28, intimating that Paul intended to visit the Romans only on his route to Spain, are surprising; Romans 15:25-26 have been taken by the writer from the epistles to the Corinthians for his own purpose, in order to win over the Jewish Christians; the long series of persons saluted in chap. 16—a list of notabilities in the early Roman church—was intended to afford proof that Paul already stood in confidential relations to the best known members of the church, in connection with which several names, among them the συγγενεῖς of the apostle as well as Aquila and Priscilla, and their characterization are suspicious; Romans 15:17-20 are unsuitably placed, and without characteristic colouring; the position of the final doxology is uncertain; the entire complaisance towards the Jewish Christians conflicts with Galatians 1, 2 But this same (so-called) complaisance (according to Volkmar, “with all manner of excuses and half compliments”) is assumed utterly without ground, especially seeing that Paul had already in an earlier passage expressed so much of deep and true sympathy for his people (comp. Romans 9:1 ff., Romans 10:1-2, Romans 11:1-2; Romans 11:11 ff., et al.); and whatever else is discovered to be irrelevant, unsuitable, and unhistoric in the two chapters is simply and solely placed in this wrong light through the interest of suspicion; while, on the other hand, the whole language and mode of representation are so distinctively Pauline, that an interpolation so comprehensive would in fact stand unique, and how singular, at the same time, in being furnished with such different conclusions and fresh starts! See, further, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 308 ff.; Delitzsch in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1849, p. 609 ff.; Th. Schott, p. 119 ff.; Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 598 f.; Mangold, p. 67 ff.; Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 41 ff.

Nevertheless Lucht, l.c., has once more come into very close contact with Baur, in proposing the hypothesis that the genuine epistle of Paul, extending to Romans 14:23, existed in an incomplete state; that thereupon, one hand, summing up the main points of the epistle in the (un-Pauline) doxology, added the latter after Romans 14:23; while another further continued the theme broken off at Romans 14:23, and subjoined an epilogue, along with greetings, to the Romans. In this way two editions arose, of which one (A) contained chap. 1–14 and Romans 16:25-27; while the other (B) contained chap, 1–14 and Romans 15:1-16; Romans 15:24; A and B were then supplemented from one another. That which Paul himself had appended after Romans 14:23, was removed from it by the Roman clergy, and laid up in their archives (out of consideration for the ascetics, namely); but subsequently it, along with fragments of an epistle to the Ephesians, which had also been placed in the archives, had been worked in by the composer of chap. 15 and 16. This entire hypothesis turns upon presuppositions and combinations which are partly arbitrary in themselves, and partly without any solid ground or support in the detailed exegesis.

[7] The two chapters are supposed, forsooth, to belong to a Pauline writer, “who, in the spirit of the author of the book of Acts, wished to oppose to the sharp anti-Judaism of the apostle a softening and soothing counterpoise in favour of the Judaists, and in the interests of unity.” The 15th chapter is supposed to have its original in 2 Corinthians 10:13-18.—Hilgenfeld has not adhered to Baur’s view.

Ro 15:1-13.

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED.

1. We then that are strong--on such points as have been discussed, the abolition of the Jewish distinction of meats and days under the Gospel. See on

Ro 14:14;

Ro 14:20.

ought . . . not to please ourselves--ought to think less of what we may lawfully do than of how our conduct will affect others.