Ver. 20. καλῶς: ‘a form of partial and often ironical assent’? (Gifford). Paul does not think it worth while to dispute the assertion of ver. 19, though as it stands it is by no means indisput- able; he prefers to point out what it overlooks—the moral conditions of being broken off and of standing secure—and to urge them on the conscience. τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ: an account of unbelief, cf. Gal. vi. 12, Winer, p. 270. τῇ πίστει
‘
17—24. ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 6δι
ὑψηλοφρόνει, ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ ΄ 21. εἰ γὰρ 6 Θεος τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων > 3 ϱ ο , 1 $k a , οὐκ ἐφείσατο ᾿ µή πως] οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσηται.
‘
και
22. Ίδε οὖν χρηστότητα
® ἀποτομίαν Θεοί ΄ ἐπὶ μὲν τοὺς πεσόντας ἀποτομίαν ' ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ n Here only χρηστότητα,” ἐὰν ἐπιμείνης τῇ χρηστότητι ΄ ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ ° wer 23. καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δὲ, ἐὰν μὴ Emipetvwor® τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, éykevtpiaOycovrat*
δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν 6 Θεὸς πάλιν ἐγκεντρίσαι αὐτούς. 24. εἰ γὰρ σὺ
ἐκ τῆς κατὰ dow ἐξεκόπης ἀγριελαίου, καὶ παρὰ “φύσιν ἐνεκεν- ο Ch. i 26. τρίσθης εἰς " καλλιέλαιον, πόσω μᾶλλον οὗτοι οἱ κατὰ φύσιν ἐγκεν- Ρ Here only.
1 ΟΠ, pyres SABCP 47. For Φφεισηται NBCDFL read Φεισεται. All crit. edd. read Φεισεται͵, but while most edd. omit µηπως it is retained by Weiss (with DEFGL, most majusc. and fathers) and bracketed by Alford. Weiss finds it im- ;ossible to regard it as an insertion, since it makes an easy text irregular and
difficult; but its omission, he thinks, need not have been intentional; it may bea
mere overlook of the transcriber’s.
2 xpyorotnra the second time D°FL ;
but χρηστοτης θεου ABCD!, and so all
edd. For emupewns SBD! read επιµενης, and so most edd. but not Alf.
3 For επιµεινωσιν $1 BD! read επιµενωσιν; see also last verse.
ἕστηκας: the security of the Gentiles depended on faith, and it is the most elementary principle of a religion of faith (iii. 27) that it excludes boasting. μὴ ὑψηλὰ dpdver: cf. xii. 16. x1 Tim. vi. 17 has μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν. Neither is classical. φοβοῦ: consistent with πίστις. Timor opponitur non fiduci@ sed super- cilio et securitati (Bengel).
Ver. 21. As far as comparisons can be made at all in such things, the Jews had been more securely invested in the kingdom than the Gentiles. They were, in the language of the figure, not arti- ficially grafted, but native branches, on the tree of God’s people; yet even that did not prevent Him from cutting off those who did not believe. And if He did not spare them, He will not spare Gentiles either, if in pride they fall from faith, On εἰ . . . οὐκ ἐφείσατο see Winer, 599 f. The true reading of the last word is φείσεται (not φείσηται), but Weiss would retain μήπως (see crit. note) even with this future, and supply the missing link of thought from Φοβοῦ: one may fear that he will not, etc. The ironi- cal reserve of this (though the future makes the thing to be feared as certain as possible) is quite Pauline, and the (μήπως (DFGL) may be genuine.
Ver. 22. Behold then God’s goodness and severity, sc., in the case of the Gen- tiles and Jews as now before us. ἄπο- τοµία: here only in N.T. The moral idea is that of peremptoriness, inexor- ableness; in Greek writers it is contrasted ‘with ἡμερότης, τὸ ἐπιεικέ, mpgdrns.
Cf. 2 Cor. xiii, 10. ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς τῇ χρηστότητι: if you remain on in the goodness, 2.ε., continue to be indebted to it, and to it alone, for your religious position. This excludes presumption, and in general all such temper as is be- trayed in taking an attitude of superiority to the Jews. The Jews lost their stand- ing because they had come to believe that it was indefectible, and independent of moral conditions; and if the Gentiles commit the same mistake they will incur the same doom. It is not to Israel only God may say, The kingdom is taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. ἐπεὶ, otherwise: see ver. 6.