Комментарии к Библии

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.

Romans 15:1. Connection: To the preceding exposition of the perniciousness of the eating indicated in Romans 14:23, Paul now subjoins the general obligation,[9] which is to be fulfilled by the strong, over against (ΔΈ) that imperilling of the weak. The contrast of ΔΥΝΑΤΟΊ and ἈΔΎΝΑΤΟΙ is just as in chap. 14; the Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ of more precise definition in Romans 14:1 is so fully understood of itself after the preceding discussion, that we have here no right either to generalize the contrast (Hofmann: of the soundness and frailty of the Christian state of the subjects generally), or to single out the δυνατοί as a peculiar extreme party, which in their opposition to the weak had gone further and had demanded more than the remaining members of the church who did not belong to the weak (Mangold, employing this interpretation in favour of his view as to the Jewish-Christian majority of the church, as if the δυνατοί had been a Gentile-Christian minority). Against this, ἩΜΕῖς is already decisive, whereby Paul, in agreement with Romans 14:14; Romans 14:20, has associated himself with the strong, making his demand as respects its positive and negative portions the more urgent.

ΤᾺ ἈΣΘΕΝΉΜΑΤΑ] the actual manifestations, which appear as results of the ἈΣΘΕΝΕῖΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ (Romans 14:1). The word is not found elsewhere. These imbecillitates are conceived as a burden (comp. Galatians 6:2) which the strong take up and bear from the weak, inasmuch as they devote to them, in respect to these weaknesses, patience and the helpful sympathy (2 Corinthians 11:29) of ministering love.[10] Thus they, in themselves strong and free, become servants of the weak, as Paul was servant of all, 1 Corinthians 9:19; 1 Corinthians 9:22.

μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν] not to please ourselves (1 Corinthians 10:33); “quemadmodum solent, qui proprio judicio contenti alios secure negligunt,” Calvin. This is moral selfishness.

[9] In opposition to Hofmann, who, assigning to the concluding verses of the epistle (Romans 16:25-27) their place after Romans 14:23, places ὀφείλομεν in connection with τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ κ.τ.λ., Romans 16:25; see on Romans 16:25-27.

[10] βαστάζειν can the less indicate, as the subjects of the present exhortation, persons who were distinct from those addressed by προσλαμβάνεσθε, Romans 14:1 (Mangold), because in fact προσλαμβ. recurs in ver. 7. How frequently does Paul give different forms to the same injunctions! Mangold also lays an incorrect stress on the δέ, with which chap. 15 opens, as though, according to our view, οὖν should have been used.

Romans 15:1-13.[8] More general continuation of the subject previously treated: Exhortation to the strong to bear with the weak, according to Christ’s example (Romans 15:1-4); a Messing on concord (Romans 15:5-6); and a summons to receive one another as brethren, as Christ has received them, Jews and Gentiles (Romans 15:7-12). Blessing (Romans 15:13).

[8] According to Lucht, p. 160 ff., the entire passage vv. 1–3 is post-apostolic, not merely in the mode of its presentation, hut also in that of its view. In comparison with chap. 14, all is delineated too generally and abstractly; the example of Christ has in no other place been applied by Paul as it is here in vv. 3–7; the citations are after the manner of a later point of view; the argument in vv. 9–12 is not free from Jewish-Christian prejudices, etc. All of them grounds, which do not stand the test of an unprejudiced and unbiassed explanation of details—evil legacies from Baur’s method of suspicion.

Romans 15:2. After ἕκαστος Elz. has γάρ, against decisive witnesses.

Romans 15:4. Instead of the second προεγράφη, B C D E F G א*, 67** 80, most VSS., and several Fathers have ἐγράφη. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche. Rightly; the compound is an intentional or mechanical repetition.

Not so strongly attested (though by A B C* L א) is the διά repeated before τῆς παρακλ. in Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. 8, which, since the article again follows, became easily added.

Romans 15:7. ὑμᾶς] Elz.: ἡμᾶς, against A C D** E F G L א, min., most VSS., and several Fathers. A correct gloss, indicating the reference of ὑμᾶς to the Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Romans 15:8. γάρ] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Fritzsche have δέ; against which the evidence is decisive. Moreover, λέγω δέ is the customary form with Paul for more precise explanation, and hence also slipped in here.

γεγενῆσθαι) Lachm: γενέσθαι, according to B C* D* F G, Arm. Ath. But how readily one of the two syllables ΓΕ might be passed over, and then the familiar (comp. also Galatians 4:4) γενέσθαι would be produced!

Romans 15:11. After πάλιν Lachm. has λέγει, according to B D E F G, 1, and several VSS.; manifestly an addition in accordance with Romans 15:10.

ἐπαινέσατε] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐπαινεσάτωσαν, according to A B C D E א, 39, Chrys. ms. Dam. Both readings are also found in the LXX., and may be borrowed thence. The circumstance that after αἰνεῖτε the form ἐπαινέσατε, as more conformable, readily offered itself, speaks in favour of ἐπαινεσάτωσαν.

Romans 15:15. ἀδελφοί] is wanting indeed in A B C א*, Copt. Aeth. Cyr. Chrys. Ruf. Aug. (omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), and stands in 3, 108, after μέρους; but why should it have been added? On the other hand, its omission was readily suggested, since it had just appeared for the first time in Romans 15:14, and since it seemed simply to stand in the way of the connection of ἀπὸ μέρ.; hence also that transposition in 3, 108.

Romans 15:17. καύχησιν] Rightly Lachm. and Tisch.: τὴν καύχησιν. The reference of the preponderantly attested article was not understood.

Romans 15:19. ἁγίου] So A C D E F G, min., and most VSS. and Fathers. Adopted also by Griesb., Lachm., and Scholz. But Elz. (so also Matth., Fritzsche, Tisch. 8), in accordance with א and D** LP, most min., Syr. Chrys., and others, has Θεοῦ. In B, Pel. Vigil, there is merely πνεύματος. So Tisch. 7. Since there is absolutely no reason why ἁγ. or Θεοῦ should have been omitted or altered, probably the simple πνεύματος is the original, which was only variously glossed by ἁγ. and Θεοῦ.

Romans 15:20. φιλοτιμούμενον] Lachm.: φιλοτιμοῦμαι, according to B D* F G P. To facilitate the construction.

Romans 15:22. τὰ πολλά] B D E F G: πολλάκις, so Lachm. An interpretation in accordance with Romans 1:13.

Romans 15:23. πολλῶν] Tisch. 7 : ἱκανῶν, according to B C, 37, 59, 71, Dam. A modifying gloss, according to an expression peculiarly well known from the book of Acts.

Romans 15:24. After Σπανίαν Elz. and Tisch. 7 have ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, which is omitted by Griesb., Lachm., and Tisch 8. A contrast to Romans 15:22, written at the side, and then introduced, but rejected by all uncials except L א**, and by all VSS. except Syr. p.; attested, however, among the Fathers by Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, and preserved in nearly all the cursives. This old interpolation occasioned the insertion of an illustrative γάρ after ἐλπίζω (so Elz., Tisch., and also Lachm.), the presence of which also in principal witnesses (as A B C א), in which ἐλεύς. πρ. ὑμ. is wanting, does not point to the originality of these words, but only to a very early addition and diffusion of them, so that in fact those witnesses represent only a half-completed critical restoration of the original text, whilst those which omit both (as F G) still contain the original text or a complete purification of the text.

Instead of ὑφʼ ὑμῶν, Lachm. and Tisch. 7 have ὑφʼ ὑμῶν, according to D E F G, min., which presents itself as genuine, and is explained by ὑφʼ ὑμῶν on account of the passive. B has ἀπὸ ὑμῶν.

Romans 15:29. Χριστοῦ] Elz.: τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ X., against decisive evidence. A gloss.

Romans 15:31. διακονία] Lachm: δωροφορία, according to B D* F G, which, however, Paul, considering the delicacy of designation here throughout observed, can hardly have written; it appears to be an explanation.

The repetition of ἵνα before ἡ διακ. (in Elz.) is, according to A B C D* F G א*, 80, justly also omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.

Instead of ἡ εἰς Lachm. has ἡ ἐν, according to B D* F G, 213. Both prepositions are suitable to the sense; but the omission of the article in the majority of witnesses enables us to perceive how ἡ ἐν arose. This omission, namely, carried with it the alteration of εἰς into ἐν (66, Chrys. really have merely ἐν), and then ἡ ἐν arose through an only partial critical restoration.

Romans 15:32. ἔλθω] A C א*, Copt. Arm. Ruf.: ἔλθων with omission of the subsequent καί. Too weakly supported; an emendation of style, yet adopted by Tisch. 8.

Instead of Θεοῦ, B has κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (so Lachm); D E F G, It.: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; א*: Ἰησοῦ Χρ. But the apostle never says διὰ θελήμ. Χριστοῦ, but always τ. θ Θεοῦ (comp. Romans 1:10; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 8:5, et al .), as throughout he uses θελήμα constantly of God , when there is mention of His omnipotence or gracious will; where said of Christ, the θελήμα is for him only the moral will (Ephesians 5:17). Hence those readings are to be regarded as unsuitable glosses after Romans 15:29-30.

καὶ συναναπ. ὑμῖν] has been omitted by Lachm. on the authority of B only, in which he is followed by Buttmann. From Romans 1:12 συμπαρακληθῆναι would have been employed as an addition, and not συναναπ.; D E have ἀναψύξω μεθʼ ὑμῶν (2 Timothy 1:16).

Romans 15:33. The omission of the ἀμήν (bracketed by Lachm.) is too weakly attested.

Romans 15:2. εἰς τὸ ἀγαθ.] for his benefit. Comp. 1 Corinthians 10:33; 1 Thessalonians 2:4. A more special definition thereof is πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, in order to build up, to produce Christian perfection (in him). See on Romans 14:19. According to Fritzsche, εἰς τὸ ἀγαθ. is in respect of what is good, whereby immoral men-pleasing is excluded. But its exclusion is understood of itself, and is also implied in πρὸς οἰκοδομήν. On the interchange of εἰς and πρός, comp. Romans 3:25-26.

Romans 15:3. Establishment of this duty by the pattern: for Christ also, etc.

ἀλλὰ, καθὼς κ.τ.λ.] but, as it is written, the reproaches of those reproaching thee fell on me. After ἀλλά a comma only is to be placed, and nothing is to be supplied, neither sibi displicuit with Erasmus, nor fecit with Grotius and others, nor ἐγένετο (Borger) and the like. Had Paul desired to express himself in purely narrative form, he would have written instead of σέ: Θεόν, and instead of ἐμέ: αὐτόν. But he retains the scriptural saying, which he adduces, literally, enhancing thereby the direct force and vivacity of the discourse. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:31; Winer, 534, 556 [E. T. pp. 719, 749].

The passage is Psalm 69:10 (literally after the LXX.), where the suffering subject is a type of the Messiah (comp. Romans 11:9; John 2:17; John 15:25; John 19:28).

That the reproaches of the enemies of God fell on Christ, i.e. that the enemies of God vented their fury on Christ, proves that Christ was bent on pleasing not Himself (for otherwise He would have abstained from taking these His sufferings upon Himself; comp. Hebrews 12:2-3, Php 2:6-8), but men, inasmuch as He in order to their redemption surrendered Himself, with full self-renunciation of His αὐτάρκεια, to the enmity against God of His adversaries. Calvin and others: “Ita se Domino devovisse, ut descinderetur animo, quoties sacrum ejus nomen patere impiorum maledicentiae videret,” so that the idea of self-denying devotion to the cause of God (so also de Wette and Philippi) is expressed. But according to the connection, it is the devotion of Christ, not for the cause of God, but for the salvation of humanity (see Romans 15:2), into fellowship of suffering with which He entered, that is to be proposed as an example. Comp. Matthew 20:28.

ὀνειδισμός belongs to later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512.

Romans 15:4. In O. T. words Paul had just presented the example of Christ as an encouragement, and not without reason: for all that was previously written, etc. This reason[11] might, in truth, cause the example of Christ set before them to appear all the more inviting and involving the more sacred obligation to follow it.

ΠΡΟΕΓΡΆΦΗ] ΠΡΟ clearly obtains its definition through the ἩΜΕΤΈΡΑΝ in the second clause, prefixed with emphasis; hence: all that was written before us, before our time,[12] by which is meant the collective contents of the O. T. Wrongly, therefore, Reiche and Hofmann think that it refers to the Messianic oracles written before their fulfilment. On διδασκ. comp. 2 Timothy 3:16ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ὙΠΟΜ. Κ. Τ. ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. Τ. ΓΡ.] through the perseverance and the comfort which the Scriptures afford to us. That τ. ὑπομ. is to be connected with ΤῶΝ ΓΡΑΦ. (in opposition to Melanchthon, Grotius, Amnion, Flatt, van Hengel, and others), is clear from the fact, that otherwise Τ. ὙΠΟΜ. would stand severed from the connection, as well as from Romans 15:5 : Ὁ ΘΕῸς Τῆς ὙΠΟΜ. Κ. Τ. ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. The ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ is here also, according to Romans 15:3, and conformably to the connection with ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙς, self-denying endurance in all sufferings (see on Romans 5:3), opposed to ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσκειν; and the ΓΡΑΦΑΊ are conceived as “ministerium spiritus” (Melanchthon). Incorrectly Hofmann understands the ὑπομονὴ τ. γραφ. as the waiting upon Scripture (namely, upon that which stands written in it), upon its fulfilment. Thus there is substituted for the notion of ὑπομονή that of ἈΠΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΚΊΑ (Romans 8:19), or ἈΝΑΜΟΝΉ (Symmachus, Psalm 38:8; Psalm 70:5), which even in 2 Thessalonians 3:5 it by no means has (see Lünemann); and how strangely would the only once used ΤῶΝ ΓΡΑΦ. be forced into two entirely different references of the genitive!

ΤῊΝ ἘΛΠΊΔΑ ἜΧΩΜΕΝ denotes having the hope (i.e. the definite and conscious Christian hope of the Messianic glory); for to promote the possession of this blessed hope by means of patience and comfort in Christians, is the object for which the contents of the O. T. were written for the instruction of Christians. Accordingly neither is ἔχωμ. to be taken as teneamus, with Beza and others; nor is ἐλπ., with Reiche and others, of the object of hope. Against the latter (see on Colossians 1:5) militates the fact that ἐλπίδα ἔχειν never denotes anything else than the subjective spem habere. Acts 24:15; 2 Corinthians 10:15; Ephesians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 1 John 3:3, et al.; Wis 3:18; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 28; Polyb. i. 59. 2. Comp. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 70. But that the ἐλπίς refers to the conversion of the world of nations is a misunderstanding of Hofmann’s, which is connected with his erroneous reference of γάρ, Romans 15:4 (see on Romans 15:4). It is the hope of eternal salvation which, warranted and fostered by the influence of Scripture imparting patience and consolation, can and should merge and reconcile all separate efforts of αὐταρέσκεια, which divide men, into the mutual unanimity of Christian sentiment. Comp. Ephesians 4:3-4.

[11] Even if the closing verses of chap. 16 had their critically correct position at the end of chap. 14, we still could not, with Hofmann, put the γάρ in our passage into relation to the designation of God contained in those concluding verses. This—even apart from the fact that Romans 16:25-27 is an independent doxology—would be impossible on account of the already interposed vv. 2 and 3, and after the καθὼς γέγραπται just preceding (to which every reader must have referred the προεγράφη, ver. 4). Comp. 1 Corinthians 10:11.

[12] The compound is then followed (see critical notes) by the simple expression,—a frequent interchange also in the classics; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B.

Romans 15:5. Δέ] leading over to the wish that God may grant them the concord which it was the design of the previous exhortation, Romans 15:1-4, to establish.

The characteristic designation of God as the author of the perseverance and of the consolation,[13] is intended not merely to supply an external connection with Romans 15:4, but stands in an internal relation to the following to ΤῸ ΑὐΤῸ ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ, since this cannot exist if men’s minds are not patient and consoled, so that they do not allow themselves to be disturbed by anything adverse in the like effort which must take place in their mutual fellowship (ἘΝ ἈΛΛΗΛ.). Through this identity (ΤῸ ΑὐΤῸ, comp. on Romans 12:16) of purpose and endeavour there exists in a church Ἡ ΚΑΡΔΊΑ ΚΑῚ Ἡ ΨΥΧῊ ΜΊΑ, Acts 4:32.

On the form ΔῷΗ, instead of the older Attic ΔΟΊΗ, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 346; Kühner, I. p. 644.

κατὰ Χ. Ἰ.] conformably to Christ. Either Christ is conceived as the regulative ideal of the frame of mind, according to which each is to adjust himself for his part in the common τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν; or: according to the will of Christ (comp. John 17:21), like κατὰ Θεόν, Romans 8:27. The first is to be preferred, since the model of Christ, Romans 15:3 (comp. Romans 15:7), is still the conception present to the apostle’s mind. Comp. Colossians 2:8; Php 2:5; κατὰ κύριον, 2 Corinthians 11:17, is somewhat different.

[13] Calvin aptly remarks: “Solus sane Deus patientiae et consolationis auctor est, quia utrumque cordibus nostris instillat per Spiritum suum; verbo tamen suo velut instrumento ad id utitur.”

Romans 15:6. Ἐν ἑνὶ στόματι] By this the preceding ὁμοθυμαδόν is not explained (Reiche)—which is an impossible notion—but ὁμοθ. specifies the source of the ἐν ἑνὶ στ., and is to be closely joined with it: unanimously with one mouth, not: unanimously, with one mouth. It is otherwise, e.g., with Dem. 147. 1 : ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης, where the explanatory addition has a place. If God is so praised, that each is led by the like disposition to the like utterance of praise, then all dissension is removed, and the unanimity of the fellowship has found in this σύμφωνος ὑμνῳδία (Theodore of Mopsuestia) its holiest expression. On ἐν ἑνὶ στόματι (instrumental), comp. the classical ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος, Plato, 640 C, p. 364 A; Legg. i. p. 634 E; Rep. Anthol. xi. 159.

τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ.λ.] belongs simply to πατέρα, not also to Θεόν (in opposition to Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rückert, Reiche, Tholuck (?), Fritzsche), and καί adds epexegetically the specific more precise definition. So throughout with this description of God habitually used by the apostles, as 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. This is clear from the passages, in which with πατ. the genitive (Ἰησοῦ Χ.) is not subjoined, as 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 3:17; Jam 1:27; Jam 3:9. See on 1 Corinthians 15:24; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3. It ought not to have been objected, that the form of expression must either have been τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν κ. πατέρα Ἰ. Χ. or τὸν Θεὸν τὸν πατ. Ἰ. Χ. Either of these would be the expression of another idea. But as Paul has expressed himself, τόν binds the conceptions of God and “Father of Christ” into unity. Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19, ad Anab. ii. 2. 8. Rightly Theodoret: ἡμῶν Θεὸν ἐκάλεσα τὸν Θεὸν, τοῦ δὲ κυρίου πατέρα.

Romans 15:7. Διό] in order, namely, that this object, Romans 15:6, may be attained, that its attainment may not be hindered on your part.[14]

προσλαμβ.] See on Romans 14:1. That not the strong alone (Hofmann), but both parties, and thus the readers collectively, are addressed, and that subsequently ὑμᾶς refers to both (not merely or principally to the Gentile-Christians, as Rückert and Reiche think), follows from ἈΛΛΉΛΟΥς; and see Romans 15:8-9.

ΠΡΟΣΕΛΆΒΕΤΟ] “sibi sociavit,” Grotius. Comp. Romans 14:3.

εἰς ΔΌΞΑΝ ΘΕΟῦ] belongs to ΠΡΟΣΕΛΆΒ. ὙΜᾶς, beside which it stands, and to which, in accordance with Romans 15:8-9 ff., it is alone suitable. Hence it is not to be connected with ΠΡΟΣΛΑΜΒ. ἈΛΛΉΛ. (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and others); and just as little with the latter immediately, but with προσελάβ. ὑμᾶς only mediately (as Hofmann splits the reference). But it means: that God might be thereby glorified, not: “ut aliquando divinae gloriae cum ipso simus (sitis) participes,” Grotius (so also Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Klee, Benecke, Glöckler), which is condemned by Romans 15:8-9 ff. as opposed to the context. Comp. Php 2:11; Ephesians 1:12.

[14] Hofmann incorrectly (in accordance with his incorrect reference of ver. 1 ff. to Romans 16:25-27) renders: “for the sake of the hope,” which you may learn from Scripture.