Ver. I. δικαιωθέντες takes up em- phatically the δικαίωσιν of iv. 25: Christ’s death and resurrection have not been in vain: there are those who have actually been justified in consequence.
* This, however, does not prevent us from conceiving of the resurrection of Christ as His public vindication, and the sign of God's acceptance of the work which He -achieved in His death: in a certain sense, therefore, as His justification.
V. 1. ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘΕΝΤΕΣ οὖν ἐκ πίστεως, εἰρήνην ἔχομεν 1 πρὸς τὸν Ocov διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2. δι οὗ καὶ τὴν προσα- γωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν τῇ πίστει " εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν :
1 εχοµεν is found in correctors of ὃν and B, in FG (not in the Latin of these bilingual MSS.) and many cursives ; εχωμεν in ΝΙΑΒΙΟΡΚΕΙ, cursives, vulg., Syr., etc. The authority for the latter seems therefore overwhelming; but besides the exegetical reasons which have led interpreters to- prefer the former, and which are noticed in the commentary, we have to consider the frequency with which ο and ω are confused even in the best MSS. Thus Weiss (Textkritik, S. 44 f.) gives the following instances in which ω is certainly wrong, and is not adopted by any editor: αφωρισας, Gal. i. 15 in B; ην ws αγκυραν exwpev, Heb. vi. το in DE; δι’ ης εγγιζωµεν, Heb. vii. 1ο in A 31; διαταξωµαι, 1 Cor. xi. 34 in ADEFG 37, 44, 47; προεχωµεθα, Rom. iii. 9 in AL; θερισωµεν, 1 Cor. ix. 11 in CDEFGLP and many cursives; αιρησωµαι, Phil. i. 22 in B; εισερχωµεθα, Heb. iv. 3 in AC 17, 37; συνβασιλευσωµεν, 2 Tim. ii. 12 in ACLP 109; θερισωµεν, Gal. vi. 9 in $$CFGLP cursives. ‘these are only samples, and though the attestation is more divided in these and similar cases than in Rom, v. 1, they are quite enough to show that ina variation of this kind no degree of MS. authority could support a reading against a
solid exegetical reason for changing w into o.
That such solid reason can be given
here I agree with the expositors named below.
Στῃ more NICKLP, vulg., Syr. Om. BDF old lat.
Having, therefore, been justified (the Apostle says), εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The MSS. evidence is overwhelm- ingly in favour of ἔχωμεν, so much so that W. and H. notice no other reading, and Tischdf. says “'ἔχωμεν cannot be rejected unless it is altogether inappro- priate, and inappropriate it seemingly is not’. But this last statement is at least open to dispute. There is no indication that the Apostle has finished his dog- matic exposition, and is proceeding to exhortation. To read ἔχωμεν, and then to take καυχώµεθα as subjunctive both in ver. 2 and ver. 3 (as the R.V.), is not only awkward, but inconsistent with οὐ µόνον δὲ, νετ. 3. If the hortative purpose dominated the passage throughout, the Apostle must have written μὴ: see Gifford, p. 122. It is better (reading ἔχωμεν) to take καυχώµεθα in ver. 2 with δι’ οὗ, and co-ordinate it with τὴν “προσαγωγήν: ‘through whom we have had our access, and rejoice, etc”. Then the οὐ µόνον is in place. But the un- interrupted series of indicatives after- wards, the inappropriateness of the verb éxeiv to express “let us realise, let us make our own,” the strong tendency to give a paraenetic turn to a passage often read in church, the natural emphasis on εἰρήνη, and the logic of the situation, are all in favour of ἔχομεν, which is accord- ingly adopted by Meyer, Weiss, Lipsius, Godet and others, in spite of the MSS., see critical note. The justified have «peace with God: i.e., His wrath (i. 18)
W. and H. bracket.
no longer threatens them ; they are ac- cepted in Christ. It is not a change in their feelings which is indicated, but a change in God’s relation to them.