Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 2

Romans 2:5. After ἀποκαλ. D*** K L א**, min[574], and several versions and Fathers, including Or., read καί, which is adopted by Mill, Wetst. Matth. and Fritzsche.[575] Against it is the greatly preponderant authority of the uncials, and the suspicion of having been added by way of relief to the accumulation of genitives.

Romans 2:8. μέν after ἀπειθ. is wanting in B D* G א*, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), but was easily passed over from inattention as seeming superfluous.

The order ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (thus also Lachm. and Tisch.) is decisively attested.

Romans 2:13. The article before νόμου, which Elz. and Fritzsche read both times, but which Lachm. and Tisch. both times omit, is wanting in A B D E (which however has it in the first case) G א, 31, 46, Damasc.; and betrays itself in the general form of the saying as inserted in order to denote the Mosaic law.

Romans 2:14. ποιῇ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ποιῶσιν, following A B א, min[576], Clem. Or. Damasc. (D* G have ποιοῦσιν). The plural is an amendment suggested by the context.

Romans 2:16. Instead of ὅτε Lachm. following A and some Fathers, has ᾗ.; an interpretation; as is also ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ in B.

Romans 2:17. εἰ δέ] The too weakly attested Recept[577] ἴδε or ἰδέ is either a mere copyist’s error, or an alteration to get rid of the supposed anakoluthon. See Reiche, Comm. crit.

[574] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[575] Defended also by Philippi and Reiche, Comm. crit., who thinks that the κιά has been rejected on account of ἀποκαλ. appearing not to receive more precise definition. See on the other hand van Hengel.

[576] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[577] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

Romans 2:1.—ch. Romans 3:20. Having shown, ch. Romans 1:18-32, in the case of the Gentiles, that they were strangers to the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Paul now, ch. 2–3:20, exhibits the same fact with reference to the Jews, and thus adduces the second half of the proof as to the universal necessity of justification by faith. Naturally the Apostle was chiefly concerned with this second half of the proof, as the ἀδικία of heathenism was in itself clear; but we see from ch. 2 that the detailed character of that delineation of Gentile wickedness was intended at the same time as a mirror for degenerate Judaism, to repress all Jewish conceit. Comp Mangold, p. 102.

Romans 2:1. Διό] refers back to the main tenor of the whole previous exposition (Romans 2:18-29), and that indeed in its more special aspect as setting forth the moral condition of heathenism in respect to its inexcusableness. This reference is confirmed by the fact, that ἀναπολόγητος εἶ is said with a manifest glancing back to Romans 1:20; it is laid down by Paul as it were as a finger-post for his διό. The reference assumed by Reiche, Fritzsche, Krehl, de Wette, and older writers, to the proposition in Romans 1:32, that the rightful demand of God adjudges death to the evil-doers; or to the cognizance of that verdict, in spite of which the Gentiles were so immoral (Philippi, Baur, Th. Schott, Hofmann, Mangold), has against it the fact that this thought formed only a subsidiary sentence in what went before; whereas here a new section begins, at the head of which Paul very naturally has placed a reference, even expressly marked by ἀναπολόγητος, to the entire section ending with Romans 1:32, over which he now throws once more a retrospective glance. The connection of ideas therefore is: “wherefore,” i.e. on account of that abomination of vice pointed out in Romans 2:18-29, “thou art inexcusable,” etc.; “for”—to exhibit now more exactly this “wherefore”—wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, because thou doest the same thing. In other words: before the mirror of this Gentile life of sin all excuse vanishes from thee, O man who judgest, for this mirror reflects thine own conduct, which thou thyself therefore condemnest by thy judgment. A deeply tragic de te narratur! into which the proud Jewish consciousness sees itself all of a sudden transferred. A proleptic use of διό (Tholuck) is not to be thought of; not even γάρ is so used in the N. T. (see on John 4:44), and διό neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere.

ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων] Just as Paul, Romans 1:18, designated the Gentiles by the general term ἀνθρώπων, and only brought forward the special reference to them in the progress of the discourse; so also he now designates the Jews, not as yet by name (see this first at Romans 2:17), but generally by the address ἄνθρωπε, which however already implies a trace of reproach (Romans 9:20; Luke 12:14; Plat. Prot. p. 330 D, Gorg. p. 452 B, and the passages in Wetstein, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 164), while at the same time he makes it by his πᾶς ὁ κρίνων sufficiently apparent that he is no longer speaking of the class already delineated, but is turning now to the Jews contrasted with them; for the self-righteous judging respecting the Gentiles as rejected of God (Midr. Tillin f. 6, 3; Chetubb. f. 3, 2; and many other passages) was in fact a characteristic of the Jews. Hence all the more groundless is the hasty judgment, that this passage has nothing whatever to do with the contrast between Jews and Gentiles (Hofmann). Comp Romans 2:17 ff. And that it is the condemning κρίνειν which is meant, and not the moral capacity of judgment in general (Th. Schott) and its exercise (Hofmann) (comp on Matthew 7:9), follows from the subsequent κατακρίνεις more precisely defining its import. Consequently the quite general interpretation (Beza, Calovius, Benecke, Mehring, Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 416) seems untenable, as well as the reference to the Gentiles as the judging subjects (Th. Schott), or to all to whom Romans 1:32 applied (Hofmann), or even specially to Gentile authorities (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Grotius).

Regarding the nominative as further ethical epexegesis of the vocative, see Bernhardy, p. 67, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 123.

ἐν ᾧ] either instrumental: thereby, that, equivalent to ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (Hofmann); or, still more closely corresponding to the τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις: in which thing, in which point. Comp Romans 14:22. The temporal rendering: eodem tempore quo (Köllner, Reithmayr), arbitrarily obscures the moral identity, which Paul intended to bring out. The κατακρίνεις however is not facto condemnas. (Estius, van Hengel), but the judgment pronounced upon the other is a condemnatory judgment upon thyself, namely, because it applies to thine own conduct. On the contrast between ἕτερον and σεαυτόν comp Romans 2:21; 1 Corinthians 10:24; 1 Corinthians 10:29; Galatians 6:4; Php 2:4.

τὰ αὐτά] the same sins and vices, not indeed according to all their several concrete manifestations, as previously described, but according to their essential moral categories; see Romans 2:17-24. Comp on the idea John 8:7.

ὁ κρίνων] with reproachful emphasis.

Romans 2:2. Οἴδαμεν] Paul means to pronounce it as in his own view and that of his readers an undoubted truth (comp Romans 3:19), that the judicial decision which God will one day pronounce, etc. The δέ carries on the discourse, and the entire sentence forms the propositio major to what is now (Romans 2:3) to be proved, namely, that the person judging (the Jew), who yet makes himself guilty of wickedness similar to the things (τὰ τοιαῦτα) in question, deceives himself if he thinks to escape the true judgment of God (Romans 2:5). Thus τὸ κρῖμα[585] τ. Θεοῦ has the emphasis of contrast with that human judgment so inconsistent with their own conduct. The predicate of being κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τοὺς κ.τ.λ[586] belongs not to the latter, but to the divine κρῖμα. Th. Schott erroneously emphasises ΠΡΆΣΣΟΝΤΑς, dislocating the clear train of thought, as if Paul were treating of the truth that the Gentile’s knowledge of what was right would not shield him from sin and condemnation. Hofmann also introduces a similar confusion.

κατὰ ἀλήθειαν] contains the standard, in accordance with which the judgment of God is pronounced against the τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες: in accordance with truth, so that it is, without error or partiality, entirely adequate to the moral condition of these subjects. Raphel, Köllner, Krehl, Mehring, and Hofmann take it as equivalent to ἀληθῶς, really (4Ma 5:15; and in Greek writers), so that the meaning would be: it is in reality issued over them. But it could not be the object of the Apostle to remind them of the reality of the divine judicial sentence, which was under all circumstances undoubted and undisputed, so much as of its truth, for the sake of the Jews who fancied that that judgment would condemn the Gentiles, but would spare the descendants of Abraham as such, and on account of their circumcision and other theocratic privileges; by which idea they manifestly denied the ἀλήθεια of the ΚΡῖΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, as if it were an untrue false sentence, the contents of which did not correspond to the existing state of the facts.

[585] Not κρίμα. With Lachmann it is to be accentuated κρῖμα; see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 418. Lipsius is of a different opinion as regards the N. T. (grammat. Unters. p 40 f.)

[586] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 2:3. Antithesis of Romans 2:2, “That God judges evildoers according to truth, we know (Romans 2:2); but judgest thou (in the face of that proposition) that thou shalt.… escape?” This would indeed be at variance with the ἀλήθεια of the judgment. Comp Matthew 3:7; and the passages from profane writers in Grotius. The non-interrogative rendering of Romans 2:3-4 (Hofmann) is not called for by the connection with the assertive declaration in Romans 2:5; it weakens the lively force of the discourse, and utterly fails to suit the ἤ in Romans 2:4, so prevalent in double questions.

ΤΟῦΤΟ] preparing with emphasis (here: of surprise) for the following ὍΤΙ ΣῪ ἘΚΦ. Κ.Τ.Λ[588]; Bernhardy, p. 284.

σὺ] Thou on thy side, as if thou madest an exception; opposed to the Jewish self-conceit (Matthew 3:7 ff.; Luke 3:7 f.). The emphasis is not on Θεοῦ (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others).

ἐκφεύξῃ] not: through acquittal (Bengel), comp Dem. 602, 2, Aristoph. Vesp. 157 al[590], but inasmuch as thou shalt not be subjected to the κρῖμα of God, but shalt on the contrary escape it and be secure afar off from it. Comp 2Ma 6:26; 2Ma 7:35; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; Hebrews 2:3. According to the Jewish illusion only the Gentiles were to be judged (Bertholdt, Christol. p. 206 ff.), whereas all Israel were to share in the Messianic kingdom as its native children (Matthew 8:12).

[588] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[590] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Romans 2:4. Or—in case thou hast not this illusion—despisest thou, etc. The ἤ draws away the attention from the case first put as a question, and proposes another; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 9:6, and often elsewhere, Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 132.

The despising the divine goodness is the contemptuous unconcern as to its holy purpose, which produces as a natural consequence security in sinning (Sir 5:5 f.).

τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστ.] πλούτος, as designation of the “abundantia et magnitude” (Estius), is a very current expression with the Apostle (Romans 9:23, Romans 11:35; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:4; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:16, Colossians 1:27), but is not a Hebraism (Psalm 5:8; Psalm 69:17 al[592]), being used also by Greek authors; Plat. Euth. p. 12 A, and see Loesner, p. 245.

χρηστότητος] is the goodness of God, in accordance with which He is inclined to benefit (and not to punish). Comp Tittmann’s Synon. p. 195.

ἀνοχή and μακροθ., patience and long-suffering—the two terms exhausting the one idea—denote the disposition of God, in accordance with which he indulgently tolerates the sins and delays the punishments. See Wetstein, and the passages from the Fathers in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 294. Comp Tittmann, Synon. p. 194.

ἀγνοῶν] inasmuch as it is unknown to thee, that etc. By this accompanying definition of the καταφρονεῖς the (guilty) folly of the despiser is laid bare as its tragic source. Bengel says aptly: “miratur Paulus hanc ignorantiam.” The literal sense is arbitrarily altered by Pareus, Reiche, de Wette, Maier, and others, who make it denote the not being willing to know, which it does not denote even in Acts 17:23; Romans 10:3; by Kollner, who, following Grotius, Koppe, and many others, holds it to mean non considerans; and also by Hofmann: “to perceive, as one ought.” Comp 1 Corinthians 15:34.

ἄγει] of ethical incitement by influencing the will. Plat. Rep. p. 572 D, al[596] See Kypke and Reisig, a[597] Soph. O. C. 253. Comp Romans 8:14. But it is not to be taken of the conatus (desires to urge), but of the standing relation of the goodness of God to the moral condition of man.[599] This relation is an impelling to repentance, in which the failure of result on the part of man does not cancel the act of the ἄγει itself. Comp Wis 11:23; Appian. ii. 63.

[592] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[596] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[597] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[599] Therefore no predestination to damnation can be supposed.

Romans 2:5. A vividly introduced contrast to the preceding proposition ὄτι τὸ χρηστὸν.… ἄγει; not a continuation of the question (Lachmann, following Koppe and others; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), but affirmative (by which the discourse becomes far more impressive and striking) as a setting forth of the actual position of things, which is brought about by man through his impenitence, in opposition to the drawing of the divine kindness; for the words can only, in pursuance of the correct interrogative rendering of Romans 2:3, be connected with Romans 2:4, and not also (as Hofmann holds) with Romans 2:3.

κατά] in accordance with; in a causal sense. Comp on Php 4:11. On σκληρ. κ. ἀμεταν. καρδ. comp Acts 7:31. It is correlative with the previous εἰς μετάνοιαν.

θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν] Wolf aptly says: “innuitur.… irae divinae judicia paulatim coacervari, ut tandem universa promantur.” Comp Calovius; and see Deuteronomy 32:33-35; Proverbs 1:18; Proverbs 2:7; Sir 3:4. For passages of profane writers, where θησαυρός and θησαυρίζειν are used to express the accumulation of evils, punishments, and the like, see Alberti, Obss. p. 297; Münthe in loc[604], from Philo: Loesner, p. 246. The purposely chosen word glances back to the previous τοῦ πλούτου κ.τ.λ[605] and ΣΕΑΥΤῷ, to thyself, heightens the tragic nature of the foolish conduct that redounds to one’s own destruction; comp Romans 13:2.

ἘΝ ἩΜΈΡᾼ ὈΡΓ.] not to be taken with Luther, Beza, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Estius, and many others as in diem irae (Php 1:10; Judges 1:6; Tob 4:9), belongs to ὀργήν: which breaks out on the day of wrath. Comp 1 Thessalonians 3:13. Regarding the repetition of ὈΡΓῆς after ὈΡΓΉΝ Bengel correctly remarks: “ΔΕΙΝΌΤΗς sermonis magna vi.” Whose wrath, is self-evident, without its being necessary to connect ὀργής with ΘΕΟῦ (Hofmann), which is forbidden by the intervening ἈΠΟΚΑΛ. and by the previous absolutely put ὈΡΓΉΝ. The article was not required by ἡμέρᾳ on account of the genitive definitions; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Ephesians 4:30; Php 1:6, al[608]; Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 155 f.]; Kühner, II. 1, p. 524.

Paul characterises the day of judgment, and with what powerful emphasis! by an accumulation of genitives and weighty expressions, with reference to the fate of the bad as ἡμέρα ὁργῆς, but with reference to its general destination (afterwards Romans 2:6 ff. to be further carried out in detail) for good and bad as a day ἀποκαλ. δικαιοκρισ. τ. Θεοῦ, i.e. on which God’s righteous judgment (which until then remains hidden) is revealed, publicly exhibited. With the exception of passages of the Fathers, such as Justin, de resurr. p. 223, δικαιοκρισία occurs only in an unknown translation of Hosea 6:5 (where the LXX. read ΚΡῖΜΑ) and the the Test. XII. Patr. p. 547 and 581.

[604] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[605] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[608] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Romans 2:6. Compare Psalm 62:12; Proverbs 24:12; analogies from Greek writers in Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 214.

κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ] i.e. according as shall be commensurate with the moral quality of his actions. On this, and on the following amplification down to Romans 2:16, it is to be observed:—(1) Paul is undoubtedly speaking of the judgment of the world, which God will cause to be held by Christ, Romans 2:16; (2) The subjects who are judged are Jews and Gentiles, Romans 2:9 ff., consequently all men, Romans 2:16. The distinction, as to whether they are Christians or not, is left out of view in this exposition, as the latter is partly intended to introduce the reader to a knowledge of the necessity of justification by faith (down to Romans 3:20); and it is consequently also left out of view that judgment according to works cannot result in bliss for the unbelievers, because there is wanting to them the very thing whose vital action produces the works in accordance with which the Judge awards bliss, namely, faith and the accompanying regeneration. (3) The standard of the decision is moral action and its opposite, Romans 2:6-10; and this standard is really and in fact the only one, to which at the last judgment all, even the Christians themselves, shall be subjected, and by which their fate for eternity shall be determined, Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31 ff.; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7 ff.; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:24; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 22:12. But (4) the relation of moral action in the case of the Christian to the fides salvifica, as the necessary effect and fruit of which that action must be demanded at the judgment, cannot, for the reason given above under (2), be here introduced into the discussion. (5) On the contrary, the law only (in the case of the Jews the Mosaic, in the case of the Gentiles the natural), must be presented as the medium of the decision, Romans 2:12 ff.; a view which has likewise its full truth (compare what was remarked under (3) above), since the Christian also, because he is to be judged according to his action, must be judged according to law (compare the doctrine of the tertius legis usus), and indeed according to the πλήρωσις τοῦ νόμου introduced by Christ, Matthew 5:17. Comp Matthew 25:31 ff.; Matthew 13:8-10,—although he becomes partaker of salvation, not through the merit of works (a point the further development of which formed no part of the Apostle’s general discussion here), but through faith, of which the works are the practical evidence and measure.[610] Accordingly the “phrasis legis” (Melancthon) is indeed to be recognised in our passage, but it is to be apprehended in its full truth, which does not stamp as a mere theoretic abstraction (Baur) the contrast, deeply enough experienced by Paul himself, between the righteousness of works and righteousness of faith. It is neither to be looked upon as needing the corrective of the Christian plan of salvation; nor as an inconsistency (Fritzsche); nor yet in such a light, that the doctrine of justification involves a partial abrogation of the moral order of the world (Reiche), which is, on the contrary, confirmed and established by it, Romans 3:31. But our passage yields nothing in favour of the possibility, which God may grant to unbelievers, of turning to Christ after death (Tholuck), or of becoming partakers of the salvation in Christ in virtue of an exercise of divine power (Th. Schott): and the representation employed for that purpose,—that the life of faith is the product of a previous life-tendency, and that the ἐργα perfect themselves in faith (Luthardt, Tholuck),—is erroneous, because incompatible with the N. T. conception of regeneration as a new creation, as a putting off of the old man, as a having died and risen again, as a being begotten of God through the Spirit, etc. etc. The new life (Romans 6:4) is the direct opposite of the old (Romans 6:19 ff.). The possibility referred to is to be judged of in connection with the descensus Christi ad inferos, but is irrelevant here.

[610] It is rightly observed by Calovius: “secundum opera, i.e. secundum testimonium operum,” is something different from “propter opera, i.e. propter meritum operum.” Comp. Apol. Conf. A, art. 3, and Beza in loc.

Romans 2:7. To those, who by virtue of perseverance in morally-good work seek to obtain glory and honour and immortality, eternal life sc[611] ἀποδώσει. Consequently ΚΑΘʼ ὙΠΟΜ. ἜΡΓΟΥ ἈΓΑΘ. contains the standard, the regulative principle, by which the seeking after glory, honour, etc. is guided, and ἜΡΓΟΥ ἈΓΑΘΟῦ,[612] which is not with Beza to be connected with ΔΌΞΑΝ, is the genitive of the object to which the ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ refers (1 Thessalonians 1:3; Polyb. iv. 51, 1; Theophr. Char. 6, 1); while δόξαν κ. τιμὴν κ. ἀφθαρσ. is an exhaustive description of the future salvation according to its glorious appearing (2 Corinthians 4:17; Matthew 13:43), according to the honour united with it (for it is the prize of victory, 1 Corinthians 9:25; Php 3:14; 2 Timothy 4:8; Jam 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4, the joint heirship with Christ, Romans 8:17, the reigning along with Him, 2 Timothy 2:12), and according to its imperishableness (1 Corinthians 15:52 ff.; Revelation 21:4; 1 Peter 1:4). Paul presents the moral effort under a character thus specifically Christian, just because he can attribute it only to Christian Jews and Gentiles; and hence he is only able to give his description of this first half of the subjects of future judgment, notwithstanding the generality of his language, in the Christian form, in which alone it really takes place. In keeping with this is also the ζωὴν αἰώνιον, i.e. eternal life in the kingdom of the Messiah, Romans 5:21, Romans 6:22 f.; Galatians 6:8. The above construction of the words is already followed by Theophilus, a[613] Autol. i. 20, ed. Wolf, and by most expositors, including Tholuck, Rückert, Köllner, de Wette, Olshausen, Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Umbreit. The objection raised against it by Reiche and Hofmann, that according to the analogy of Romans 2:6 καθʼ ὑπομ. ἔργ. ἀγ. must contain the standard of the ἈΠΟΔΏΣΕΙ, and cannot therefore belong to ΖΗΤΟῦΣΙ, is untenable, because ΚΑΘʼ ὙΠΟΜ. ἜΡΓ. ἈΓ., though attached to ΖΗΤΟῦΣΙ, nevertheless does contain (indirectly) the standard of ἈΠΟΔΏΣΕΙ; so that there remains only an immaterial difference, which however is in fact very consonant to the lively versatility of the Apostle’s thought. Still less weight attaches to the objection, that to seek glory and honour is not in itself a praiseworthy thing; for the moral tenor of the ζητεῖν δόξαν Κ.Τ.Λ[614] (comp Matthew 6:33; John 5:44) is most definitely assured by καθʼ ὑπομ. ἔργ. ἀγ. Utterly unfounded, in fine, is the objection of clumsiness (Hofmann); the symmetrical fulness of Romans 2:7-8, has a certain solemnity about it. Reiche and Hofmann, following Oecumenius,[616] Estius, and others, arrange it so that to ΔΌΞΑΝ Κ. ΤΙΜ. Κ. ἈΦΘΑΡΣΊΑΝ they supply ἈΠΟΔΏΣΕΙ, whilst ΖΗΤΟῦΣΙ is to be combined with ΖΩῊΝ ΑἸΏΝ. and regarded as an apposition or (Hofmann) reason assigned to ΤΟῖς ΜΈΝ, and ΚΑΘʼ ὙΠΟΜ. ἜΡΓ. ἈΓ. is the standard of ἈΠΟΔΏΣΕΙ. Substantially so also Ewald. No syntactic objection can be urged against this rendering; but how tamely and heavily is the ΖΗΤΟῦΣΙ ΖΩῊΝ ΑἸΏΝ. subjoined! Paul would have written clearly, emphatically, and in harmony with the contrast in Romans 2:8 : ΤΟῖς.… ἈΓΑΘΟῦ ΖΩῊΝ ΑἸ. ΖΗΤΟῦΣΙ ΔΌΞΑΝ Κ. ΤΙΜ. Κ. ἈΦΘ.

[611] c. scilicet.

[612] The singular without the article indicates the thing in abstracto; the rule is for every given case: perseverance in good work. The idea that the work of redemption is referred to (Mehring, in accordance with Php 1:6), so that ὑπομ. ἔργ. ἀγ., would be equivalent to ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, ought to have been precluded by the parallel in ver. 10. Comp. ver. 2.

[613] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[614] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[616] Τὸ ὑπερβατὸν οὕτω τακτέον· τοῖς καθʼ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἀποδώσει δόξαν καὶ.… ἀφθαρσίαν. But there is no ground whatever for the assumption of a hyperbaton, in which Luther also has entangled himself. Very harshly Bengel, Fritzsche, and Krehl separate τοῖς καθʼ ὑπομον. ἔργου ἀγ. from what follows, and supply οὖσι; and then take δόξαν.… ζητοῦσι as apposition to τοῖς.… ἔργου, but make ζωὴν αἰ. likewise dependent on ἀποδώσει.